rkrkrk's argument was - "What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again? It just seems a ridiculous strategy." He seems to be worried that they might vote leave. "Double or quits"
You are worried that the EU would be motivated to offer a bad deal. You are worried they'd vote remain. You both claim it would be ridiculous because you are afraid to leave it to the people to make an informed choice.
I suspect the "terrible" deal we would be offered would be a very soft BINO - CU, single market, same payments etc but no say on the rules. People would say WTF and vote to remain which would be rational, the best outcome for the UK and not ridiculous.
Yes my worry is we would vote to leave on a hard Brexit.
The EU would happily offer us what you say - but the Tories cannot sign up to that. Ergo what will be on the ballot paper is TM's hard brexit or renegotiation/staying in.
And I think there's an excellent chance people again vote to give 350m quid a week to the NHS.
In fact, given the parliamentary arithmetic, I think there's a real danger that the promise of a second vote helps the Tories get hard Brexit over the line.
Whereas if Labour comes out for, say, EEA membership - then I think there's a majority in parliament there to support them.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in place you are effectively betraying their vote in their eyes, just replacing the 'U' in EU with an 'EA' is not Brexit at all for them.
Those voters want action to end FoM not vague promises which end up meaning nothing, of course added to by Blair in the first place by his failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
First, they have lived with those broken promises for nearly 10 years; secondly, immigration is not the main motivating factor for almost anyone's vote (or they can go BNP/UKIP), and finally they might pick up some ABC1s who aren't on board with the ERG.
Yes and they want action on it now.
Immigration is the main motivator for a number of working class voters, a number of whom voted for UKIP in 2015 and went Tory or Labour in 2017 but could go back again if free movement is left in place.
ABC1s who are diehard EUphiles but voted Tory in 2017 clearly fear Corbyn and might go LD but not Labour
I am not convinced that the "number of working class voters" for whom immigration is the number one motivating factor in their vote, is that high. Nationally. (In Essex, where you have experience, maybe it is and they are all anti-immigrant, dare one say racists.)
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Yes I agree, and I hope Corbyn gets to this position eventually. I think there'd be a majority in parliament for it, and what could better demonstrate the weakness of May's govt than her having to accept Labour's solution for Brexit?
The likes of Blair and his supporters would be much more persuasive if they were writing pieces like: "why EEA membership is compatible with Labour's plans on nationalisation" "Why EEA membership respects the vote, but prioritises a jobs brexit" etc. etc.
I don't know why people think that Corbyn will keep Britain in the SM. (Rachel Sylvester was at it in this morning's Times.). Corbyn and McDonnell have both made it clear that they do not like the SM and that it will inhibit their plans for the British economy and that they don't want to be in it. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Remainers wanting to believe that Corbyn will save them.
The CU doesn't impact on his and McDonnell's plans in the same way as SM rules do.
I have seen nothing in what Corbyn has said or done since the referendum to suggest that he would keep Britain inside the SM. He has slapped down or sacked any of his MPs who have suggested this. Why then do people keep thinking that he is on their side on this issue?
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in check you are effectively betraying their vote in their eyes, just replacing the 'U' in EU with an 'EA' is not Brexit at all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
Why did Vote Leave run posters showing arrows and footsteps coming from Turkey?
Got to say the Turkey posters didn't have any say on my vote to leave but real life did.
The CU doesn't impact on his and McDonnell's plans in the same way as SM rules do.
I have seen nothing in what Corbyn has said or done since the referendum to suggest that he would keep Britain inside the SM. He has slapped down or sacked any of his MPs who have suggested this. Why then do people keep thinking that he is on their side on this issue?
I don't think it's true that his plans contradict the SM rules. Labour haven't made a decision on the SM, that's where the next battle will be fought.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in check you are effectively betraying their vote in their eyes, just replacing the 'U' in EU with an 'EA' is not Brexit at all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
HYUFD, when you put forward hypotheses, and your own views, you are an interesting enough guy to exchange ideas with. When you state your views categorically as though they were cold hard fact ("it was the Poles"), even if it is only a rhetorical device, you begin to be a dick and not interesting to discuss with.
I know it is embedded in your DNA but it is very off-putting. As someone who runs for public office, moreover, it might be something you would like to take note of.
For the record I voted Remain but the simple fact remains without immigration from Eastern Europe bring an issue, exacerbated by the lack of transition controls from Blair in 2004, Leave would not have got over 50% in 2016
rkrkrk's argument was - "What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again? It just seems a ridiculous strategy." He seems to be worried that they might vote leave. "Double or quits"
You are worried that the EU would be motivated to offer a bad deal. You are worried they'd vote remain. You both claim it would be ridiculous because you are afraid to leave it to the people to make an informed choice.
I suspect the "terrible" deal we would be offered would be a very soft BINO - CU, single market, same payments etc but no say on the rules. People would say WTF and vote to remain which would be rational, the best outcome for the UK and not ridiculous.
Yes my worry is we would vote to leave on a hard Brexit.
The EU would happily offer us what you say - but the Tories cannot sign up to that. Ergo what will be on the ballot paper is TM's hard brexit or renegotiation/staying in.
And I think there's an excellent chance people again vote to give 350m quid a week to the NHS.
In fact, given the parliamentary arithmetic, I think there's a real danger that the promise of a second vote helps the Tories get hard Brexit over the line.
Whereas if Labour comes out for, say, EEA membership - then I think there's a majority in parliament there to support them.
I understand and am sympathetic to your argument. I would very much like Labour to come out in favour of EEA membership. But I also think it important that people have a fully informed final say on the deal. If as you fear, it was a hard Brexit versus Remain, then a fully informed electorate is very unlikely to vote for a hard Brexit. But you can't be totally sure .. which I guess is your point.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in check you are effectively betraying their vote in their eyes, just replacing the 'U' in EU with an 'EA' is not Brexit at all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
HYUFD, when you put forward hypotheses, and your own views, you are an interesting enough guy to exchange ideas with. When you state your views categorically as though they were cold hard fact ("it was the Poles"), even if it is only a rhetorical device, you begin to be a dick and not interesting to discuss with.
I know it is embedded in your DNA but it is very off-putting. As someone who runs for public office, moreover, it might be something you would like to take note of.
For the record I voted Remain but the simple fact remains without immigration from Eastern Europe bring an issue, exacerbated by the lack of transition controls from Blair in 2004, Leave would not have got over 50% in 2016
You have absolutely no basis of fact to state that. It is sheer conjecture.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in place you are effectively s in 2004
First, they have lived with those broken promises for nearly 10 years; secondly, immigration is not the main motivating factor for almost anyone's vote (or they can go BNP/UKIP), and finally they might pick up some ABC1s who aren't on board with the ERG.
Yes and they want action on it now.
Immigration is the main motivator for a number of working class voters, a number of whom voted for UKIP in 2015 and went Tory or Labour in 2017 but could go back again if free movement is left in place.
ABC1s who are diehard EUphiles but voted Tory in 2017 clearly fear Corbyn and might go LD but not Labour
I am not convinced that the "number of working class voters" for whom immigration is the number one motivating factor in their vote, is that high. Nationally. (In Essex, where you have experience, maybe it is and they are all anti-immigrant, dare one say racists.)
I give you Vale of Clwyd in Wales as one non Essex example (and in Essex it is mainly the likes of Harlow and Basildon and Clacton where there is most concern about immigration rather than Epping) it went Tory in 2015 when UKIP got a big vote, when the UKIP vote collapsed in 2017 it went back to Labour
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Yes I agree, and I hope Corbyn gets to this position eventually. I think there'd be a majority in parliament for it, and what could better demonstrate the weakness of May's govt than her having to accept Labour's solution for Brexit?
The likes of Blair and his supporters would be much more persuasive if they were writing pieces like: "why EEA membership is compatible with Labour's plans on nationalisation" "Why EEA membership respects the vote, but prioritises a jobs brexit" etc. etc.
I don't know why people think that Corbyn will keep Britain in the SM. (Rachel Sylvester was at it in this morning's Times.). Corbyn and McDonnell have both made it clear that they do not like the SM and that it will inhibit their plans for the British economy and that they don't want to be in it. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Remainers wanting to believe that Corbyn will save them.
The CU doesn't impact on his and McDonnell's plans in the same way as SM rules do.
I have seen nothing in what Corbyn has said or done since the referendum to suggest that he would keep Britain inside the SM. He has slapped down or sacked any of his MPs who have suggested this. Why then do people keep thinking that he is on their side on this issue?
He isn't. But he has pragmatists like Starmer, Thornberry and even McDonnell who could persuade him it is in his interests to support an EEA arrangement with negotiated safeguards if he wants to get into power. It worked on him with CU. It could work with EEA. It's a possibility that is worth working on.
I am not convinced that the "number of working class voters" for whom immigration is the number one motivating factor in their vote, is that high. Nationally. (In Essex, where you have experience, maybe it is and they are all anti-immigrant, dare one say racists.)
My anecdotal soundings match the word cloud for the 6 out of 6 colleagues I know voted to leave.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
HYUFD, when you put forward hypotheses, and your own views, you are an interesting enough guy to exchange ideas with. When you state your views categorically as though they were cold hard fact ("it was the Poles"), even if it is only a rhetorical device, you begin to be a dick and not interesting to discuss with.
I know it is embedded in your DNA but it is very off-putting. As someone who runs for public office, moreover, it might be something you would like to take note of.
For the record I voted Remain but the simple fact remains without immigration from Eastern Europe bring an issue, exacerbated by the lack of transition controls from Blair in 2004, Leave would not have got over 50% in 2016
You have absolutely no basis of fact to state that. It is sheer conjecture.
No it is fact, there were not enough pro EEA Hannan and Carswell type middle class sovereigntists and free marketeers to get over 50% of the vote for Leave in 2016
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in check you are effectively betraying their vote in their eyes, just replacing the 'U' in EU with an 'EA' is not Brexit at all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
Why did Vote Leave run posters showing arrows and footsteps coming from Turkey?
Got to say the Turkey posters didn't have any say on my vote to leave but real life did.
the numpties who lost to a bus just cant accept they ran a shit campaign
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in check you are effectively betraying their vote in their eyes, just replacing the 'U' in EU with an 'EA' is not Brexit at all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
HYUFD, when you put forward hypotheses, and your own views, you are an interesting enough guy to exchange ideas with. When you state your views categorically as though they were cold hard fact ("it was the Poles"), even if it is only a rhetorical device, you begin to be a dick and not interesting to discuss with.
I know it is embedded in your DNA but it is very off-putting. As someone who runs for public office, moreover, it might be something you would like to take note of.
For the record I voted Remain but the simple fact remains without immigration from Eastern Europe bring an issue, exacerbated by the lack of transition controls from Blair in 2004, Leave would not have got over 50% in 2016
You have absolutely no basis of fact to state that. It is sheer conjecture.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in place you are effectively s in 2004
First, they have lived with those be ERG.
Yes and they want action on it now.
Immigration is the main motivator for a number of working class voters, a number of whom voted for UKIP in 2015 and went Tory or Labour in 2017 but could go back again if free movement is left in place.
ABC1s who are diehard EUphiles but voted Tory in 2017 clearly fear Corbyn and might go LD but not Labour
I am not convinced that the "number of working class voters" for whom immigration is the number one motivating factor in their vote, is that high. Nationally. (In Essex, where you have experience, maybe it is and they are all anti-immigrant, dare one say racists.)
I give you Vale of Clwyd in Wales as one non Essex example (and in Essex it is mainly the likes of Harlow and Basildon and Clacton where there is most concern about immigration rather than Epping) it went Tory in 2015 when UKIP got a big vote, when the UKIP vote collapsed in 2017 it went back to Labour
ceteris ain't paribus, however, so you simply can't make that connection.
If as you fear, it was a hard Brexit versus Remain, then a fully informed electorate is very unlikely to vote for a hard Brexit. But you can't be totally sure .. which I guess is your point.
Where do you get that confidence from? The electorate voted for Brexit last time - and they were warned about all the consequences of hard Brexit then.
We know the key issues for them were sovereignty, immigration and money to the NHS. Hard Brexit gives you all of that (or appears to).
This time the govt will be in favour of the deal. And there will be some who feel voting to Remain would be disrespectful of the previous vote.
At best it's 50/50, I'd probably make hard Brexit a favourite.
And it seems madness to gamble when you could get a majority for soft brexit in parliament and probably in the country too.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
HYUFD, wg to discuss with.
I know it is embedded in your DNA but it is very off-putting. As someone who runs for public office, moreover, it might be something you would like to take note of.
For the record I voted Remain but the simple fact remains without immigration from Eastern Europe bring an issue, exacerbated by the lack of transition controls from Blair in 2004, Leave would not have got over 50% in 2016
You have absolutely no basis of fact to state that. It is sheer conjecture.
No it is fact, there were not enough pro EEA Hannan and Carswell type middle class sovereigntists and free marketeers to get over 50% of the vote for Leave in 2016
As I said, not an attractive debating or rhetorical style.
Solid borrowing figures this morning and a pretty big revision to last year's figures as well.
£1.1 bn less YoY for April and revisions last bringing borrowing down by a further £2.1bn bringing it to £40.5bn, much more in line with the City consensus than was reported last month by the ONS.
Even though it is fairly early I think we should see borrowing fall this year to between £30bn and £34bn.
The apparent slowdown in GDP in Q1 hasn't really come through in tax receipts. There's definitely some kind of misalignment there, so we may see an upwards revision to GDP in Q1.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Agree. Much better for Lab to campaign for a Norway-type EEA solution - keep everything, just be out of the EU. Respecting the vote, eating small slice of cake and having it.
Except risking losing working class Labour Leave voters in Midlands and Northern marginals to the Tories and UKIP by promising to keep free movement in place and stay in the single market
Nah we would be leaving the EU which they would hammer home and make some sounds about looking to do something on FoM.
You are ignoring the fact most working class Leave voters only did so mainly to reduce immigration, if you leave free movement in check you are effectively betraying their vote in their eyes, just replacing the 'U' in EU with an 'EA' is not Brexit at all for them
And you’re ignoring the fact that with some exceptions, it’s not EU migration they’re most bothered about.
Of course it was, it was uncontrolled immigration from Poland etc that was the main driver for the Leave victory.
There have always been BNP type racists but they were not the reason for the Leave win
Why did Vote Leave run posters showing arrows and footsteps coming from Turkey?
Got to say the Turkey posters didn't have any say on my vote to leave but real life did.
the numpties who lost to a bus just cant accept they ran a shit campaign
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
Except the 52% are more advantageously distributed than the 48%. Not that that is the only consideration when it comes to a GE.
I am not convinced that the "number of working class voters" for whom immigration is the number one motivating factor in their vote, is that high. Nationally. (In Essex, where you have experience, maybe it is and they are all anti-immigrant, dare one say racists.)
My anecdotal soundings match the word cloud for the 6 out of 6 colleagues I know voted to leave.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
I don't think Tony Blair wants a Labour government under Corbyn tbh. And he certainly doesn't want Brexit. So seems implausible that he would knowingly advocate a strategy that gave him both.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Yes I agree, and I hope Corbyn gets to this position eventually. I think there'd be a majority in parliament for it, and what could better demonstrate the weakness of May's govt than her having to accept Labour's solution for Brexit?
The likes of Blair and his supporters would be much more persuasive if they were writing pieces like: "why EEA membership is compatible with Labour's plans on nationalisation" "Why EEA membership respects the vote, but prioritises a jobs brexit" etc. etc.
I don't know why people think that Corbyn will keep Britain in the SM. (Rachel Sylvester was at it in this morning's Times.). Corbyn and McDonnell have both made it clear that they do not like the SM and that it will inhibit their plans for the British economy and that they don't want to be in it. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on amongst Remainers wanting to believe that Corbyn will save them.
The CU doesn't impact on his and McDonnell's plans in the same way as SM rules do.
I have seen nothing in what Corbyn has said or done since the referendum to suggest that he would keep Britain inside the SM. He has slapped down or sacked any of his MPs who have suggested this. Why then do people keep thinking that he is on their side on this issue?
He isn't. But he has pragmatists like Starmer, Thornberry and even McDonnell who could persuade him it is in his interests to support an EEA arrangement with negotiated safeguards if he wants to get into power. It worked on him with CU. It could work with EEA. It's a possibility that is worth working on.
You may be right. I am sceptical. I think Corbyn smiles, makes people think he agrees with them, will agree on some things for tactical reasons but, ultimately, sticks to what he has always believed in and will, if he gets power, do what he has always wanted to do. And the useful idiots who aided him on his way to power will be left on the sidelines. After all, what are they going to do - vote against a Labour government? Let the Tories in? No - they'll swallow their principles and vote with the tribe. It's what they've been doing until now.
I don't rule out Corbyn doing something tactically to discomfit the Tories and get into power. But I don't believe for a moment that once in power he will stick with a system which he has criticised all his political life.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
That wasn't such a successful strategy for the Lib Dems though was it?
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
I don't think Tony Blair wants a Labour government under Corbyn tbh. And he certainly doesn't want Brexit. So seems implausible that he would knowingly advocate a strategy that gave him both.
Yes, I find it hard to believe Tony Blair wants Corbyn as PM. I doubt that he even wanted Ed Miliband as PM. George Osborne seems like the kind of guy he’d want as PM.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
Your firing up the 48% strategy is bollocks and would lead to a Tory landslide in 2022 and ultimately the end for Labour
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
I don't think Tony Blair wants a Labour government under Corbyn tbh. And he certainly doesn't want Brexit. So seems implausible that he would knowingly advocate a strategy that gave him both.
I think you are right he doesn't want a Labour Govt under Corbyn, and Corbyn could not plausibly fire up passion for the EU in the way I suggest.
As a strategy for Labour under Starmer or Alexander or Khan, it would work fine.
I am a Leaver, but I can see that there is scope for firing up Remainer-dom in the way Blair suggests.
Loss of another referendum would not be crucial, provided there was a landslide in 2022 to argue that the electorate had then repudiated Leaving.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
That wasn't such a successful strategy for the Lib Dems though was it?
Yes, I thought we’d cleared up a long time ago that there is no 48% of FBPErs. Many have become ‘re-Leavers’. What binds most Remainers together is not the Stop Brexitism of FBPE twitter, but a kind of metropolitan liberalism.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
Except you lose 52%, plus not enough of the 48% will vote for Corbyn. It would require the likes of TOPPING and TSE to vote Labour, which I find unlikely in the extreme.
If Labour went for that strategy they would be fishing in a 40% pond with the Lib Dems, Nationalists and Greens while 60% of the public would have just one party to vote for.
Luckily for Labour Corbyn is clearly aware of this fact and has chosen to try and ride two horses.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
That wasn't such a successful strategy for the Lib Dems though was it?
Yes, I thought we’d cleared up a long time ago that there is no 48% of FBPErs. Many have become ‘re-Leavers’. What binds most Remainers together is not the Stop Brexitism of FBPE twitter, but a kind of metropolitan liberalism.
Brexit is a fever that has to be sweated out. Wishing that Britain hadn't caught it is futile. It's going to be awful, and leave the country much weaker and uglier than it was before, but you can't turn back time.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
That wasn't such a successful strategy for the Lib Dems though was it?
Yes, I thought we’d cleared up a long time ago that there is no 48% of FBPErs. Many have become ‘re-Leavers’. What binds most Remainers together is not the Stop Brexitism of FBPE twitter, but a kind of metropolitan liberalism.
Indeed, which is why I say bring on a second referendum. Lets have the metropolitan types tell the yokels they voted incorrectly. I relish the idea of a second referendum and expect Leave to get an even bigger victory.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
That wasn't such a successful strategy for the Lib Dems though was it?
Possibly, it needed a clever, articulate, intelligent & passionate leader. Not Dim Tim.
I am merely pointing out that the Scottish Nationalists and Remainer-dom have reacted in very different ways to losing a referendum.
I am a Leaver, but if I was a Remainer, I'd be arguing that Remainer politicians should be behaving more like the SNP, arguing passionately for another referendum, and even if that is lost, planning for a Goddamn landslide in 2022.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
That really was an excellent poster. I have to hand it to whoever designed it, they did a very good job.
Incidentally, if I have understood correctly according to an Israeli immigration law expert heard on a recent radio documentary, under the Law of Return, my great-grandmother would have been entitled to settle in Israel since she had a Jewish parent and grandparent.
No idea what, if anything, that entitles me to. Would her descendants also have been entitled to "return"? But if so it does suggest a very expansive definition of Jewish. As expansive as the current definition of "refugee" which seems to cover a person who has never lived in the land in question but whose grandparents did.
It’s a football level of entitlement! Grandfather born in wherever, even if only transient, entitled to play for a country. Although of course in Jewish terms, it’s grandmother.
That was the odd thing. According to this lady the Law of Return does not refer to a Jewish mother or a grandmother but only a parent or grandparent. It seems to be more expansive than the religious definition. It probably made sense given when it was written. Or I may have misunderstood.
TBH my understanding is as yours. And, quite frankly it doesn’t make sense to me now either, but it does if you factor in the experience of Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe where certainly one Jewish parent was enough, I understand to condemn someone to the gas chambers, on the grounds that the 'Aryan blood’ of one’s descendants could be ‘contaminated'. Again TBH I’m not sure about grandparents, but I suspect that was also the case. Easier to keep quiet about though! I’ve heard tales, too, that the rules of the Law of Return, have been claimed on dubious grounds and for questionable reasons.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
That really was an excellent poster. I have to hand it to whoever designed it, they did a very good job.
Triumph Of The Will was a superbly made film. It was also a moral atrocity.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
That wasn't such a successful strategy for the Lib Dems though was it?
Yes, I thought we’d cleared up a long time ago that there is no 48% of FBPErs. Many have become ‘re-Leavers’. What binds most Remainers together is not the Stop Brexitism of FBPE twitter, but a kind of metropolitan liberalism.
Indeed, which is why I say bring on a second referendum. Lets have the metropolitan types tell the yokels they voted incorrectly. I relish the idea of a second referendum and expect Leave to get an even bigger victory.
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
Your firing up the 48% strategy is bollocks and would lead to a Tory landslide in 2022 and ultimately the end for Labour
Quite apart from the internal contradictions within Labour, Leave "won" c. 421 seats to Remain's c. 229. The distribution of results wasn't a normal distribution, with urban seats piling up some massive Remain majorities (just like Labour in 2017: Hackney South and Shoreditch - 37,931; Bristol West - 37,336; Camberwell and Peckham - 37,316; Liverpool Riverside - 35,947, all 69% Remain or higher).
The biggest Con majority was only 27,772; Labour had 30 bigger than this, most (though not all) heavily Remain.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
That wasn't such a successful strategy for the Lib Dems though was it?
Yes, I thought we’d cleared up a long time ago that there is no 48% of FBPErs. Many have become ‘re-Leavers’. What binds most Remainers together is not the Stop Brexitism of FBPE twitter, but a kind of metropolitan liberalism.
Brexit is a fever that has to be sweated out. Wishing that Britain hadn't caught it is futile. It's going to be awful, and leave the country much weaker and uglier than it was before, but you can't turn back time.
Sad to agree. I fear our country is going to have an unpleasant time for a few years as the reality of the situation develops, before the glad return. I only hope I live long enough to see it.
I am not convinced that the "number of working class voters" for whom immigration is the number one motivating factor in their vote, is that high. Nationally. (In Essex, where you have experience, maybe it is and they are all anti-immigrant, dare one say racists.)
My anecdotal soundings match the word cloud for the 6 out of 6 colleagues I know voted to leave.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
That really was an excellent poster. I have to hand it to whoever designed it, they did a very good job.
Triumph Of The Will was a superbly made film. It was also a moral atrocity.
After the government spent £9m on a propaganda leaflet they delivered to every single household in the nation the gloves came off. You can whine as much as you like about "xenophobic lies" and repeat that until you reach a frenzied impotence, it doesn't change the result and neither will it change anyone's mind. Both sides made regrettable claims and used regrettable tactics. Leave were just more effective.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Not a second referendum - it's now rebranded a people's vote. This from the same people who held the first people's vote in 2016 in such contempt!
I don't understand how someone who was such a clever politician and led Labour for a decade can now be suggesting, essentially, "let's go double or quits".
Because he is a clever politician. Blair has realised that you can lose the referendum and win the next election (vide the SNP).
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
I don't think Tony Blair wants a Labour government under Corbyn tbh. And he certainly doesn't want Brexit. So seems implausible that he would knowingly advocate a strategy that gave him both.
Yes, I find it hard to believe Tony Blair wants Corbyn as PM. I doubt that he even wanted Ed Miliband as PM. George Osborne seems like the kind of guy he’d want as PM.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
That really was an excellent poster. I have to hand it to whoever designed it, they did a very good job.
Triumph Of The Will was a superbly made film. It was also a moral atrocity.
After the government spent £9m on a propaganda leaflet they delivered to every single household in the nation the gloves came off. You can whine as much as you like about "xenophobic lies" and repeat that until you reach a frenzied impotence, it doesn't change the result and neither will it change anyone's mind. Both sides made regrettable claims and used regrettable tactics. Leave were just more effective.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
I am not convinced that the "number of working class voters" for whom immigration is the number one motivating factor in their vote, is that high. Nationally. (In Essex, where you have experience, maybe it is and they are all anti-immigrant, dare one say racists.)
My anecdotal soundings match the word cloud for the 6 out of 6 colleagues I know voted to leave.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
That really was an excellent poster. I have to hand it to whoever designed it, they did a very good job.
Triumph Of The Will was a superbly made film. It was also a moral atrocity.
After the government spent £9m on a propaganda leaflet they delivered to every single household in the nation the gloves came off. You can whine as much as you like about "xenophobic lies" and repeat that until you reach a frenzied impotence, it doesn't change the result and neither will it change anyone's mind. Both sides made regrettable claims and used regrettable tactics. Leave were just more effective.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
Ken Livingstone told his first disciplinary hearing that nobody within the Labour party machine told him to stop claiming that Hitler supported Zionism.
Imagine being on an island where more than one in five people have never heard of Cambridge Analytica, gammon is an old-fashion pork cut, 78 per cent of people don’t talk about politics most days, and 99 per cent of people don’t watch Prime Minister’s Questions.
In fact that island exists, and you may well be on it now. It’s called Great Britain. It may be clichéd to talk about a Westminster Bubble, obsessed with parochial news stories that the public simply doesn’t care about. But some clichés are true.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Leavers belittling their own campaign of xenophobic lies this morning. It seems slowly to be dawning on them the implications of securing victory in that manner.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
It wasn't accurate the first time you wrote it - it certainly isn't on the thousandth
Which bit do you consider inaccurate? The xenophobic lies? Turkey is not joining the EU, so frightening the public into believing that 76 million are waiting to descend on Britain (complete with little footprints to ram the point home) ticks that box.
That really was an excellent poster. I have to hand it to whoever designed it, they did a very good job.
Triumph Of The Will was a superbly made film. It was also a moral atrocity.
After the government spent £9m on a propaganda leaflet they delivered to every single household in the nation the gloves came off. You can whine as much as you like about "xenophobic lies" and repeat that until you reach a frenzied impotence, it doesn't change the result and neither will it change anyone's mind. Both sides made regrettable claims and used regrettable tactics. Leave were just more effective.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
and yet , and yet
a horrible xenophobic stream of lies from odious people and you still cant convince an electorate
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Ken Livingstone told his first disciplinary hearing that nobody within the Labour party machine told him to stop claiming that Hitler supported Zionism.
And the useful idiots who aided him on his way to power will be left on the sidelines. After all, what are they going to do - vote against a Labour government? Let the Tories in? No - they'll swallow their principles and vote with the tribe. It's what they've been doing until now.
Where is the evidence that Labour MPs are loyal to Corbyn or are unwilling to challenge him?
Almost all of them voted they had no confidence in him. A bunch of them brief the press against him. Recently a group of MPs called for a second referendum. MPs voted against him over Syria, over the customs union (before he changed course) and over the EEA.
I have no doubt a significant number would vote for an EEA option even if he told them not to. They would also be backed in this by the TUC.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Mr M is overstating things a bit, but the principle’s right. For example, the Home Office’s default position is ‘throw the b!@£$r out', as we’ve seen, and while many people are ashamed of the attitude it does appear that many are not.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
Had Portman compared Netanyahu to a mid-20th century German dictator in her criticism of him then you might be right, but since she steered clear of such offensiveness to make a more specific political point then you would be entirely wrong.
While some accusations of anti-semitism are wide of the mark it would be a mistake to conclude that all are.
It also shows that you cant always take as proven any accusation particularly when the person making it might have an agenda and particularly when we are looking at words taken out of context and judging someone's motives based on them.
Indeed so. One reason why prompt disciplinary hearings are so important.
Incidentally, you may have missed what I wrote on the previous thread about Ken, the play "Perdition" and the source for Ken's claims about Hitler.
In one of his many interviews there was a book which Livingstone referenced as his source for his claims about Hitler and Zionism and which he said he would use to defend himself at the disciplinary hearing. That book was "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" by American Marxist Lenni Brenner. Unfortunately for him reputable historians demolished the claims made in the book and also pointed out that the author was a holocaust denier and had taken statements from other dubious sources to come up with his theory which Ken then used as the basis for his claim that what he said was “historical fact”. In short Ken’s historical source came from someone who both got his facts wrong and had a sinister agenda.
Interesting. Too long to read it all now but I will later. I know of Brenner. Now considered a nutter but there was a time mid 80's when people were looking for answers when he was taken seriously. The left have always had a problem with Israel because it was seen to drift from socialist utopia to apartheid state almost overnight. The kibbutzim became the settlers and the Baruch Goldsteins and after a succession of right wing governments it soon replaced South Africa as their cause celebre.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
You may be right. I am sceptical. I think Corbyn smiles, makes people think he agrees with them, will agree on some things for tactical reasons but, ultimately, sticks to what he has always believed in and will, if he gets power, do what he has always wanted to do. And the useful idiots who aided him on his way to power will be left on the sidelines. After all, what are they going to do - vote against a Labour government? Let the Tories in? No - they'll swallow their principles and vote with the tribe. It's what they've been doing until now.
I don't rule out Corbyn doing something tactically to discomfit the Tories and get into power. But I don't believe for a moment that once in power he will stick with a system which he has criticised all his political life.
Tony Blair -- remember how Tories attacked him when he became leader, with the devil eyes poster and Bambi: which was it?
Jeremy Corbyn -- evil genius, or a bit thick so really unlikely to understand the nuances of different post-Brexit trade arrangements so open to persuasion?
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
I'm really struggling here, Alaistair. That link, while showing something pretty unpleasant from history, shows nothing from the leave campaign that baits Jews nor threatens to deport British citizens.
If it is unfrozen, the money should be used as intended. Just grabbing it and spending it on other things because other people, who did not donate the money and wish to ignore its stipulated function, is an ugly cocktail of greed and holier-than-thou arrogance. You don't get to just seize money for a purpose it was never intended.
The Government should leave it alone, but at least their intention is to 'spend' it in the way that was desired by the donors.
Those bleating about giving it to charity are a step away from suggesting we should confiscate JK Rowling's assets because of all the good they'd do if the money were given to charities.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
I'm really struggling here, Alaistair. That link, while showing something pretty unpleasant from history, shows nothing from the leave campaign that baits Jews nor threatens to deport British citizens.
Just wondering why you posted it actually.
Kind of suggests you've given up.
Maybe you need a rest?
It is creating an "Other" and it is legitimising discrimination against that Other which, once the box is open, is unlikely to remain within the hypothetical "is Turkey joining the EU" debate.
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
I think you can argue that it should be unfrozen and used for the intended purpose. The person who bequeathed it clearly intended to pay down the debt and at least making a contribution to that is surely closer to what he/she intended rather than just having it sitting there doing nothing for all time.
If it is unfrozen, the money should be used as intended. Just grabbing it and spending it on other things because other people, who did not donate the money and wish to ignore its stipulated function, is an ugly cocktail of greed and holier-than-thou arrogance. You don't get to just seize money for a purpose it was never intended.
The Government should leave it alone, but at least their intention is to 'spend' it in the way that was desired by the donors.
Those bleating about giving it to charity are a step away from suggesting we should confiscate JK Rowling's assets because of all the good they'd do if the money were given to charities.
To be fair, it’s not unkown for charities to change their objects, as the world changes.
I'm really struggling here, Alaistair. That link, while showing something pretty unpleasant from history, shows nothing from the leave campaign that baits Jews nor threatens to deport British citizens.
Just wondering why you posted it actually.
Kind of suggests you've given up.
Maybe you need a rest?
Xenophobia breeds xenophobia. Vote Leave whip up fear of Turks, Leave.EU whip up fear of swarthy migrants (echoing Nazi propaganda) and the response of Leavers is "weren't they MARVELLOUS posters?" And then they wonder why other groups get victimised because that was absolutely nothing, nothing to do with the climate that they helped create.
Leavers are desperate to evade their responsibility and the consequences of fighting a campaign with xenophobic lies. They have no answer to the point that they were xenophobic lies
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
There are precisely two things that the public remembers about the Leave campaign: the lie on the bus and the anti-immigration hysteria
Alternatively, 'Immigration' and 'The NHS' are on or near top of the list of things people are concerned about so of course they remembered arguments about them.
That only one side exploited that is not their fault.
Politics 101. Talk to voters not just your chums and people who already think like you.
So of course there's nothing else. That was Brexit. Time to deliver that ugly mandate.
So nothing, then, I take it.
As I said before, frenzied impotence.
As I said before, desperate to evade responsibility for your involvement in whipping up xenophobia.
You delude yourself that the public care about your crazy obsessions about the EU. They voted to keep Muslims out of Britain and spend imagined savings on the NHS. That's all the campaign they saw. That's all the campaign you now have to deliver.
I'm really struggling here, Alaistair. That link, while showing something pretty unpleasant from history, shows nothing from the leave campaign that baits Jews nor threatens to deport British citizens.
Just wondering why you posted it actually.
Kind of suggests you've given up.
Maybe you need a rest?
Xenophobia breeds xenophobia. Vote Leave whip up fear of Turks, Leave.EU whip up fear of swarthy migrants (echoing Nazi propaganda) and the response of Leavers is "weren't they MARVELLOUS posters?" And then they wonder why other groups get victimised because that was absolutely nothing, nothing to do with the climate that they helped create.
Leavers are desperate to evade their responsibility and the consequences of fighting a campaign with xenophobic lies. They have no answer to the point that they were xenophobic lies
Which groups are getting victimised?
You still haven't posted an example of Jew baiting or threats to deport British citizens by the leave campaign.
I'm really struggling here, Alaistair. That link, while showing something pretty unpleasant from history, shows nothing from the leave campaign that baits Jews nor threatens to deport British citizens.
Just wondering why you posted it actually.
Kind of suggests you've given up.
Maybe you need a rest?
Leavers are desperate to evade their responsibility
Remainers are desperate to evade their responsibility for losing - its the other side's fault
I'm really struggling here, Alaistair. That link, while showing something pretty unpleasant from history, shows nothing from the leave campaign that baits Jews nor threatens to deport British citizens.
Just wondering why you posted it actually.
Kind of suggests you've given up.
Maybe you need a rest?
Xenophobia breeds xenophobia. Vote Leave whip up fear of Turks, Leave.EU whip up fear of swarthy migrants (echoing Nazi propaganda) and the response of Leavers is "weren't they MARVELLOUS posters?" And then they wonder why other groups get victimised because that was absolutely nothing, nothing to do with the climate that they helped create.
Leavers are desperate to evade their responsibility and the consequences of fighting a campaign with xenophobic lies. They have no answer to the point that they were xenophobic lies
Which groups are getting victimised?
You still haven't posted an example of Jew baiting or threats to deport British citizens by the leave campaign.
As pointed out earlier, that campaign legitimised discrimination against The Other and it is not a huge leap to populate that Other with any flavour you want.
I think you can argue that it should be unfrozen and used for the intended purpose. The person who bequeathed it clearly intended to pay down the debt and at least making a contribution to that is surely closer to what he/she intended rather than just having it sitting there doing nothing for all time.
It's not doing nothing, it's been invested. The legator's intention was to clear the national debt in full, and the conditions attached to his gift were clearly intended to induce the Government in that direction. I don't think the Government (or any charity) have any call on that money until his wishes can be met.
I'm really struggling here, Alaistair. That link, while showing something pretty unpleasant from history, shows nothing from the leave campaign that baits Jews nor threatens to deport British citizens.
Just wondering why you posted it actually.
Kind of suggests you've given up.
Maybe you need a rest?
Leavers are desperate to evade their responsibility
Remainers are desperate to evade their responsibility for losing - its the other side's fault
Remain lost. It's Leave's ugly prospectus that needs to be delivered.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
Labour is now 'in the worst of both worlds' over Brexit says Blair.
Leavers are annoyed Corbyn has committed to stay in a Customs Union while Remainers are annoyed by his closet Euroscepticism and are losing faith in Labour as a means to avoid Brexit.
Let's say Labour did what Tony Blair suggests. Labour comes out for a second referendum and campaigns to cancel the whole thing.
Then let's suspend belief and imagine that somehow such a second referendum was secured on the leaving deal.
What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again?
It just seems a ridiculous strategy.
Then we would leave on the leaving deal whatever it is. That would be the end of the matter. How is it ridiculous?
Its ridiculous as the EU (and our own Remainer MPs) would be massively incentivised to ensure we get a terrible deal in order to ensure the second referendum went there way. If "we meant it first time around" wins we would then be stuck with the terrible deal.
rkrkrk's argument was - "What the **** happens if the British people vote to leave again? It just seems a ridiculous strategy." He seems to be worried that they might vote leave. "Double or quits"
You are worried that the EU would be motivated to offer a bad deal. You are worried they'd vote remain. You both claim it would be ridiculous because you are afraid to leave it to the people to make an informed choice.
I suspect the "terrible" deal we would be offered would be a very soft BINO - CU, single market, same payments etc but no say on the rules. People would say WTF and vote to remain which would be rational, the best outcome for the UK and not ridiculous.
No people have made an informed choice. Now we need to get the best deal we can, implement it as best as we can and if people want to vote to Rejoin down the road they are more than welcome to do so. There is too much water under the bridge now to do simply do what the people have already voted for first.
So of course there's nothing else. That was Brexit. Time to deliver that ugly mandate.
So nothing, then, I take it.
As I said before, frenzied impotence.
As I said before, desperate to evade responsibility for your involvement in whipping up xenophobia.
You delude yourself that the public care about your crazy obsessions about the EU. They voted to keep Muslims out of Britain and spend imagined savings on the NHS. That's all the campaign they saw. That's all the campaign you now have to deliver.
I'll say it again, reducing immigration to tens of thousands was and still is government policy and if any party delivered the money to the NHS they would probably win a landslide.
The issue you are having is that Leave made difficult argue against points. Turkey and the NHS money were two of the toughest. We've been through why enough times so there's no need to retread that ground.
You want to call it all xenophobic because it's a safety blanket for you. It saves you from having to look at why even with government support, support of the whole British establishment, both major parties and almost all business bodies you still couldn't muster a victory against a rag-tag bunch of no-marks.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
If I thought we would get just as good a deal with a second referendum as without one then I would have no problem with one. But that's not the case.
It's like a political version of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The very act of measuring what we are trying to do will in itself affect it, people will be encouraged to sabotage the negotiations in an attempt to undermine them so we vote to Remain. The negotiations are too important to be sabotaged so need to be completed first. Then if we want to hold a Rejoin referendum that can be put in a party's manifesto at the next election.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
I don't think we should have one because it sends out a very, very bad message, but I do think we would win so I don't fear having a second referendum at all. Simply, the campaign would be elites vs proles. There are far more of the latter than there are of the former.
If it is unfrozen, the money should be used as intended. Just grabbing it and spending it on other things because other people, who did not donate the money and wish to ignore its stipulated function, is an ugly cocktail of greed and holier-than-thou arrogance. You don't get to just seize money for a purpose it was never intended.
The Government should leave it alone, but at least their intention is to 'spend' it in the way that was desired by the donors.
Those bleating about giving it to charity are a step away from suggesting we should confiscate JK Rowling's assets because of all the good they'd do if the money were given to charities.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
'cept it will also be divisive, say 45:55 Remain or Leave.
We are where we are - the best thing to do is to get on with whatever the hell Brexit Theresa May can negotiate and take stock in five years time.
The elephant in the room of course is that (now not so distant) 2022 GE. If there is any kind of transition/implementation/extension in play then goodness it will be all to play for for Labour then offering anything from EEA to staying in to any other bright idea. Because at that point the Cons will have become so identified with Brexit, and Brexit will still be the main motivating factor for the electorate (IMO) that in order to differentiate themselves they will need something pretty powerful to distinguish themselves.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
If I thought we would get just as good a deal with a second referendum as without one then I would have no problem with one. But that's not the case.
It's like a political version of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The very act of measuring what we are trying to do will in itself affect it, people will be encouraged to sabotage the negotiations in an attempt to undermine them so we vote to Remain. The negotiations are too important to be sabotaged so need to be completed first. Then if we want to hold a Rejoin referendum that can be put in a party's manifesto at the next election.
This is just a matter of sequencing. If the deal is done by September, we could vote early November.
Bank of England governor Mark Carney tells the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit means real household incomes are about £900 lower than forecast in May 2016, "which is a lot of money"
You are missing my point. The victory Leave won was won on the campaign Leave fought. That means that the disgusting xenophobic lies have to be honoured.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
Which specific "xenophobic lies" need to be honoured? Not letting Turkey into the EU? As you have pointed out on many occasions that is unlikely in the extreme. Spend £350m on the NHS, that really would result in an even bigger victory for parties which support leaving. Cutting immigration down, the government has had a manifesto commitment to reduce immigration to tens of thousands for three election campaigns.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
What needs to be honoured? Brexit to be consistent with the referendum needs to be pull-up-the-drawbridge anti-immigration Brexit. It's the Brexit of Jew-baiting and the Windrush scandal. It's the Brexit that leaves a hard border with Britain's closest neighbours and international marginalisation. It's the Brexit of those who found globalisation too hard and who therefore decided to close their eyes to it.
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
Please show me the specific policies of the leave campaign which baited Jews or threatened to deport British citizens?
Here's a nice copy of Nazi propaganda against Jews for you, duly recycled by Leavers:
So of course there's nothing else. That was Brexit. Time to deliver that ugly mandate.
What's ugly about "controlling immigration" and "more money for the NHS"?
Those are not just Leave's commitments but were both Cameron's commitments in both 2010 and 2015 too. I don't recall you calling Cameron's manifesto ugly but apologies if you did.
Leavers seen pretty confident of winning a vote on the deal, and personally I think they’re right.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
If I thought we would get just as good a deal with a second referendum as without one then I would have no problem with one. But that's not the case.
It's like a political version of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The very act of measuring what we are trying to do will in itself affect it, people will be encouraged to sabotage the negotiations in an attempt to undermine them so we vote to Remain. The negotiations are too important to be sabotaged so need to be completed first. Then if we want to hold a Rejoin referendum that can be put in a party's manifesto at the next election.
This is just a matter of sequencing. If the deal is done by September, we could vote early November.
Except that September's negotiations would be sabotaged.
Mr. B, there may be circumstances where such changes are relevant, or essential. This isn't one of them.
Edited extra bit: also, I (having forgotten Grosjean's 3 place grid penalty) made a post earlier with some early betting thoughts on Monaco which might interest you.
Comments
The EU would happily offer us what you say - but the Tories cannot sign up to that.
Ergo what will be on the ballot paper is TM's hard brexit or renegotiation/staying in.
And I think there's an excellent chance people again vote to give 350m quid a week to the NHS.
In fact, given the parliamentary arithmetic, I think there's a real danger that the promise of a second vote helps the Tories get hard Brexit over the line.
Whereas if Labour comes out for, say, EEA membership - then I think there's a majority in parliament there to support them.
I have seen nothing in what Corbyn has said or done since the referendum to suggest that he would keep Britain inside the SM. He has slapped down or sacked any of his MPs who have suggested this. Why then do people keep thinking that he is on their side on this issue?
Labour haven't made a decision on the SM, that's where the next battle will be fought.
https://twitter.com/JossWaddyProEU/status/965942100712984577
it's the electorate's fault, they're all evil
The electorate voted for Brexit last time - and they were warned about all the consequences of hard Brexit then.
We know the key issues for them were sovereignty, immigration and money to the NHS.
Hard Brexit gives you all of that (or appears to).
This time the govt will be in favour of the deal. And there will be some who feel voting to Remain would be disrespectful of the previous vote.
At best it's 50/50, I'd probably make hard Brexit a favourite.
And it seems madness to gamble when you could get a majority for soft brexit in parliament and probably in the country too.
£1.1 bn less YoY for April and revisions last bringing borrowing down by a further £2.1bn bringing it to £40.5bn, much more in line with the City consensus than was reported last month by the ONS.
Even though it is fairly early I think we should see borrowing fall this year to between £30bn and £34bn.
The apparent slowdown in GDP in Q1 hasn't really come through in tax receipts. There's definitely some kind of misalignment there, so we may see an upwards revision to GDP in Q1.
48 per cent is not enough to win a referendum, but it is enough for a landslide in FPTP, which can then be used to argue that the result of any referendum has been superseded.
But, for this to work, Labour have to be as passionate about the EU as the SNP are about independence. They need to fire up the 48 per cent & get them all voting Labour.
It is a better strategy for 2022 than Corbyn's.
And both are better strategies than the hysterical clamouring about xenophobia, which is the PB Remainer approved strategy.
"A big kid made me do it and ran away" isn't going to cut the mustard.
I don't rule out Corbyn doing something tactically to discomfit the Tories and get into power. But I don't believe for a moment that once in power he will stick with a system which he has criticised all his political life.
"Vote for us so we can ignore your previous electoral decision."
As a strategy for Labour under Starmer or Alexander or Khan, it would work fine.
I am a Leaver, but I can see that there is scope for firing up Remainer-dom in the way Blair suggests.
Loss of another referendum would not be crucial, provided there was a landslide in 2022 to argue that the electorate had then repudiated Leaving.
If Labour went for that strategy they would be fishing in a 40% pond with the Lib Dems, Nationalists and Greens while 60% of the public would have just one party to vote for.
Luckily for Labour Corbyn is clearly aware of this fact and has chosen to try and ride two horses.
I am merely pointing out that the Scottish Nationalists and Remainer-dom have reacted in very different ways to losing a referendum.
I am a Leaver, but if I was a Remainer, I'd be arguing that Remainer politicians should be behaving more like the SNP, arguing passionately for another referendum, and even if that is lost, planning for a Goddamn landslide in 2022.
Again TBH I’m not sure about grandparents, but I suspect that was also the case. Easier to keep quiet about though!
I’ve heard tales, too, that the rules of the Law of Return, have been claimed on dubious grounds and for questionable reasons.
Uber Remainers just dont get it
The biggest Con majority was only 27,772; Labour had 30 bigger than this, most (though not all) heavily Remain.
I only hope I live long enough to see it.
Some of pb's most prominent Leavers bleat about the failure to implement anything like the EEA. Well, tough. They campaigned for a rancid xenophobic future for the country and that's what it's going to get.
You just don't like the tone of how leave won. I didn't like the tone of how remain campaigned either. Both sides were playing to win and leave was just better at it than remain.
Ken Livingstone told his first disciplinary hearing that nobody within the Labour party machine told him to stop claiming that Hitler supported Zionism.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/ken-livingstones-disciplinary-hearing/
Imagine being on an island where more than one in five people have never heard of Cambridge Analytica, gammon is an old-fashion pork cut, 78 per cent of people don’t talk about politics most days, and 99 per cent of people don’t watch Prime Minister’s Questions.
In fact that island exists, and you may well be on it now. It’s called Great Britain. It may be clichéd to talk about a Westminster Bubble, obsessed with parochial news stories that the public simply doesn’t care about. But some clichés are true.
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/998853558714949632
Until Leave advocates acknowledge the disgusting nature of their campaign, the country will remain on this course, remain divided and be destined to decline.
a horrible xenophobic stream of lies from odious people and you still cant convince an electorate
so what does that say about you ?
Almost all of them voted they had no confidence in him. A bunch of them brief the press against him. Recently a group of MPs called for a second referendum. MPs voted against him over Syria, over the customs union (before he changed course) and over the EEA.
I have no doubt a significant number would vote for an EEA option even if he told them not to. They would also be backed in this by the TUC.
https://www.indy100.com/article/people-are-calling-out-ukips-new-antieu-poster-for-resembling-outright-nazi-propaganda--WkTYUB18EW
But you think the Turkey poster is marvellous.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/may/22/attorney-general-defies-call-to-give-400m-windfall-to-uk-charities
What do PBers think should happen with the money?
Whilst I am confident the money would do much more good going to charity, I think you have to respect the wishes of the person who gave it.
Giving it to pay down the national debt (on the info provided) seems obviously closer to what the person wanted.
https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-2017-highest-earners/special-report/article/1427306
Jeremy Corbyn -- evil genius, or a bit thick so really unlikely to understand the nuances of different post-Brexit trade arrangements so open to persuasion?
Just wondering why you posted it actually.
Kind of suggests you've given up.
Maybe you need a rest?
If it is unfrozen, the money should be used as intended. Just grabbing it and spending it on other things because other people, who did not donate the money and wish to ignore its stipulated function, is an ugly cocktail of greed and holier-than-thou arrogance. You don't get to just seize money for a purpose it was never intended.
The Government should leave it alone, but at least their intention is to 'spend' it in the way that was desired by the donors.
Those bleating about giving it to charity are a step away from suggesting we should confiscate JK Rowling's assets because of all the good they'd do if the money were given to charities.
https://twitter.com/AndrewCooper__/status/961908728801976320
So of course there's nothing else. That was Brexit. Time to deliver that ugly mandate.
And I didn't even take Media Studies at Uni.
As I said before, frenzied impotence.
The person who bequeathed it clearly intended to pay down the debt and at least making a contribution to that is surely closer to what he/she intended rather than just having it sitting there doing nothing for all time.
Leavers are desperate to evade their responsibility and the consequences of fighting a campaign with xenophobic lies. They have no answer to the point that they were xenophobic lies
That only one side exploited that is not their fault.
Politics 101. Talk to voters not just your chums and people who already think like you.
You delude yourself that the public care about your crazy obsessions about the EU. They voted to keep Muslims out of Britain and spend imagined savings on the NHS. That's all the campaign they saw. That's all the campaign you now have to deliver.
You still haven't posted an example of Jew baiting or threats to deport British citizens by the leave campaign.
Yet they argue (except Max) against the vote itself.
The country is still split down the middle. If Leavers really want the country to move on they should take this opportunity to cement Brexit. I for one would reconcile myself in the event of another Leave win.
The issue you are having is that Leave made difficult argue against points. Turkey and the NHS money were two of the toughest. We've been through why enough times so there's no need to retread that ground.
You want to call it all xenophobic because it's a safety blanket for you. It saves you from having to look at why even with government support, support of the whole British establishment, both major parties and almost all business bodies you still couldn't muster a victory against a rag-tag bunch of no-marks.
It's like a political version of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The very act of measuring what we are trying to do will in itself affect it, people will be encouraged to sabotage the negotiations in an attempt to undermine them so we vote to Remain. The negotiations are too important to be sabotaged so need to be completed first. Then if we want to hold a Rejoin referendum that can be put in a party's manifesto at the next election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
We are where we are - the best thing to do is to get on with whatever the hell Brexit Theresa May can negotiate and take stock in five years time.
The elephant in the room of course is that (now not so distant) 2022 GE. If there is any kind of transition/implementation/extension in play then goodness it will be all to play for for Labour then offering anything from EEA to staying in to any other bright idea. Because at that point the Cons will have become so identified with Brexit, and Brexit will still be the main motivating factor for the electorate (IMO) that in order to differentiate themselves they will need something pretty powerful to distinguish themselves.
If the deal is done by September, we could vote early November.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-44194711?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5b03e679a8c6a2067546cb5d&Household income '£900 lower than forecast' following Brexit&&ns_fee=0#post_5b03e679a8c6a2067546cb5d
Those are not just Leave's commitments but were both Cameron's commitments in both 2010 and 2015 too. I don't recall you calling Cameron's manifesto ugly but apologies if you did.
Edited extra bit: also, I (having forgotten Grosjean's 3 place grid penalty) made a post earlier with some early betting thoughts on Monaco which might interest you.