My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.
Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?
Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief
JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"
PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"
NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
Actually your point re Farage would only hold water if he had explicitly said the result of the referendum was final, and another one would be "not politically credible", and would "not accept the sovereign voice of the British people" , then gone on to demand second referendum.
This struck me too. Voting against the rule of law in Hungary to curry favour with a authoritarian government and undermine the interests of the other EU members is not just craven and lacking any moral basis. It's completely stupid.
My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.
Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?
Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief
JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"
PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"
NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")
AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.
Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.
Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
Alexander was of course the first Caesar.
He saw Roxanne and he seized 'er.
I see you’re introducing a new class to the history of paronomasia, starting with the really ancient examples...
Well, with everyone kicking off over Brexit, the first full week of school behind us, the Test series over and Warwickshire stealing, oops, signing all our best bowlers - even the ones still under contract - one must find something to joke about.
Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")
AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.
Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.
Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
Alexander was of course the first Caesar.
He saw Roxanne and he seized 'er.
I see you’re introducing a new class to the history of paronomasia, starting with the really ancient examples...
Well, with everyone kicking off over Brexit, the first full week of school behind us, the Test series over and Warwickshire stealing, oops, signing all our best bowlers - even the ones still under contract - one must find something to joke about.
You have a point. Was the first week back that bad ?
My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.
Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?
JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"
PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"
NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
Before the vote, Remain campaigning politicians said there would be no second referendum, this is a once in a generation vote, it would not be politically credible to rerun the vote, people should just get on with their lives and accept it etc etc... but they are not sticking to that now.
On the other hand, it is blindingly obvious that the likes of UKIP/Farage would have continued campaigning to Leave had Remain won, and they never once said that wouldn't be the case
Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")
AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.
Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.
Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
Alexander was of course the first Caesar.
He saw Roxanne and he seized 'er.
I see you’re introducing a new class to the history of paronomasia, starting with the really ancient examples...
Well, with everyone kicking off over Brexit, the first full week of school behind us, the Test series over and Warwickshire stealing, oops, signing all our best bowlers - even the ones still under contract - one must find something to joke about.
You have a point. Was the first week back that bad ?
Don't ask...
(And I mean that, unfortunately.)
Edit - mind you, it could be worse, I could support Middlesex, whose fans seem to be a little frustrated to judge by this message:
Would it help is were [sic] to select two players at random (probably not Murtagh or Harris) and hang them from the floodlights? I don't wish to overreact but it might be somewhat motivational.
JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"
PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"
NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")
AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.
Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.
Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
Alexander was of course the first Caesar.
He saw Roxanne and he seized 'er.
I see you’re introducing a new class to the history of paronomasia, starting with the really ancient examples...
Well, with everyone kicking off over Brexit, the first full week of school behind us, the Test series over and Warwickshire stealing, oops, signing all our best bowlers - even the ones still under contract - one must find something to joke about.
You have a point. Was the first week back that bad ?
Don't ask...
(And I mean that, unfortunately.)
Edit - mind you, it could be worse, I could support Middlesex, whose fans seem to be a little frustrated to judge by this message:
Would it help is were [sic] to select two players at random (probably not Murtagh or Harris) and hang them from the floodlights? I don't wish to overreact but it might be somewhat motivational.
I wish you a better second week. And now I must be off.
(edit) Even Yorkshire in the depths of their Boycott crisis never went quite that far.
Interesting and well-argued article, as always from David. The one point I'd throw into the mix is that if a referendum is on the cards with Remain a possibility, the EU will emphatically do what they can to facilitate it - delay A50, promise to cancel the process without requiring anything, etc. They see it as akin to having a relative who you're quite fond of who has been deranged but is showing signs of recovery - naturally you do all you can to encourage it, and you certainly don't start creating difficiulties. Getting agreement from the EU27 is a hurdle, but overcoming such hurdles when there's a clear consensus is an EU speciality and it'll be done.
That means that the time factor is a lot less critical than David suggests. Conversely, the belief in Government circles that we can just ask for a few months' extension is risky, because the EU are as fed up with it all as the average British voter, and they'll only agree to an extension if the deal has basically been done and time is needed for loose ends - not because we say we haven't quite made up our minds what we want about the Irish border.
By the way, did we ever get the necessary confirmation that @TSE had actually fulfilled his wager and eaten a pineapple pizza after the Rose Bowl Test?
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
Interesting and well-argued article, as always from David. The one point I'd throw into the mix is that if a referendum is on the cards with Remain a possibility, the EU will emphatically do what they can to facilitate it - delay A50, promise to cancel the process without requiring anything, etc. They see it as akin to having a relative who you're quite fond of who has been deranged but is showing signs of recovery - naturally you do all you can to encourage it, and you certainly don't start creating difficiulties. Getting agreement from the EU27 is a hurdle, but overcoming such hurdles when there's a clear consensus is an EU speciality and it'll be done.
That means that the time factor is a lot less critical than David suggests. Conversely, the belief in Government circles that we can just ask for a few months' extension is risky, because the EU are as fed up with it all as the average British voter, and they'll only agree to an extension if the deal has basically been done and time is needed for loose ends - not because we say we haven't quite made up our minds what we want about the Irish border.
Albeit the relative considers themselves not deranged at all and the interfering family member to be a pain in the arse they want rid of
Mr. Jessop, I have some sympathy with that perspective but would add two points: 1) Cameron could've insisted on an 'official' Leave perspective ahead of calling a referendum. 2) May is ultimately responsible for the unholy cocktail of prevarication and capitulation that has characterised the negotiations to date. She undercut her [Leave] Brexit Secretary with a proposal that has drawn criticism from EU-sceptic Conservatives, pro-EU Conservatives, and the EU. That cannot be considered the fault of Leave generally or any Leave politician in particular.
On 1), that would have been manna form heaven for the leave campaigns, who for obvious reasons couldn't agree on a line even if they had wanted - which they didn't. Having a line 'forced' on them by a remain-campaigning government would have just led to yet more febrile complaints from leavers about betrayals - even if they agreed with that line. Because that was the way to win.
Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave.
On 2), May is in a fairly impossible situation; *whatever* decision her government makes will upset large parts of her government, party and the wider country. It might have been good if the leave ministers who have flounced out had produced a credible plan, or in fact done any effing work, in their two years in position. As they didn't, my sympathy for them is about as high as Corbyn's is for Israelis.
They had more than two years, they had decades. But it turns out the buccaneering Brexiteers couldn’t be arsed to do the hard work of learning about how the EU functions, about UK trade flows, about just in time supply chains, about the WTO, about how trade deals are done, about the Irish border and so on. They preferred to make speeches about liberty and tyranny, and to leave the difficult stuff to others certain in the knowledge that whatever happened they’d be fine.
The leave side published a 1,000 page document, "Change or Go?" in 2015. It went into masses of detail. Can you direct me to the equivalent from the pro-EU side?
This tweet has a picture of Matthew Parris's comment on this thread, which he accidentally posted into the Times CMS instead of the vanilla comment box:
Mr. Jessop, I have some sympathy with that perspective but would add two points: 1) Cameron could've insisted on an 'official' Leave perspective ahead of calling a referendum. 2) May is ultimately responsible for the unholy cocktail of prevarication and capitulation that has characterised the negotiations to date. She undercut her [Leave] Brexit Secretary with a proposal that has drawn criticism from EU-sceptic Conservatives, pro-EU Conservatives, and the EU. That cannot be considered the fault of Leave generally or any Leave politician in particular.
On 1), that would have been manna form heaven for the leave campaigns, who for obvious reasons couldn't agree on a line even if they had wanted - which they didn't. Having a line 'forced' on them by a remain-campaigning government would have just led to yet more febrile complaints from leavers about betrayals - even if they agreed with that line. Because that was the way to win.
Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave.
On 2), May is in a fairly impossible situation; *whatever* decision her government makes will upset large parts of her government, party and the wider country. It might have been good if the leave ministers who have flounced out had produced a credible plan, or in fact done any effing work, in their two years in position. As they didn't, my sympathy for them is about as high as Corbyn's is for Israelis.
They had more than two years, they had decades. But it turns out the buccaneering Brexiteers couldn’t be arsed to do the hard work of learning about how the EU functions, about UK trade flows, about just in time supply chains, about the WTO, about how trade deals are done, about the Irish border and so on. They preferred to make speeches about liberty and tyranny, and to leave the difficult stuff to others certain in the knowledge that whatever happened they’d be fine.
The leave side published a 1,000 page document, "Change or Go?" in 2015. It went into masses of detail. Can you direct me to the equivalent from the pro-EU side?
And the IEA Brexit Prize published a winning and five runner-up essays, and the likes of Hannan and Carswell wrote books on the subject over more than a decade.
"The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."
You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
An anti-semitic party being one which this week backed the openly anti-semitic Hungarian government? No, that's OK, it's whether the party leader has over the years been too pally with Palestinians.
There are people with perfectly genuine concerns about anti-semitism who need to be listened to, and then there are people and media who use it selectively to criticise those they don't like.
I rather think the meaningful vote is going to be a damp squib. A withdrawal agreement and sufficiently ambiguous definition of the future relationship will pass the Commons relatively easily with grudging support from the ERG and abstentions from the opposition parties who fear being held responsible for whatever chaos might follow a no vote or killer amendment.
The fun starts during the transition period when the future relationship is actually hammered out and during which ther is time for a leadership election, GE, referendum... whatever. I’ve had it confirmed by a pretty senior member of the Government that the party will sit on its hands to get the WA over the line and, after March, it’s all to play for.
Interesting and well-argued article, as always from David. The one point I'd throw into the mix is that if a referendum is on the cards with Remain a possibility, the EU will emphatically do what they can to facilitate it - delay A50, promise to cancel the process without requiring anything, etc. They see it as akin to having a relative who you're quite fond of who has been deranged but is showing signs of recovery - naturally you do all you can to encourage it, and you certainly don't start creating difficiulties. Getting agreement from the EU27 is a hurdle, but overcoming such hurdles when there's a clear consensus is an EU speciality and it'll be done.
That means that the time factor is a lot less critical than David suggests. Conversely, the belief in Government circles that we can just ask for a few months' extension is risky, because the EU are as fed up with it all as the average British voter, and they'll only agree to an extension if the deal has basically been done and time is needed for loose ends - not because we say we haven't quite made up our minds what we want about the Irish border.
I agree about the article but not sure your comments do anything but inflame the issue. It is patronising and if that is the attitude I believe voters will reject their overtures.
I only see a second referendum in the event TM deal is voted down and WTO looms. How we get to it is a different matter and there must be a chance we crash out.
The most important news of the day is the Irish waking up to armageddon awaiting them on the 29th March in no deal case and they are now open to compromise. It appears they have blinked first and a dose of realism set in.
What is not surprising is neither Sky or BBC are reporting it
I still remain confident TM will get the deal and it will pass the HOC despite Emily Thornberry comments that labour will 'probably' vote against it
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
How offensive. I knew someone who died in a car crash
Fuck off
Charming
Let me rephrase. You're not going to emotionally blackmail people out of using metaphors, please go away.
You fool. I was joking about the phrase being offensive by way of parodying McDonnell's offence taken at Chuka's "Call off the Dogs" and Tom Tugendhat's at Boris's "Suicide Vest", although one of my friends did die in a car crash.
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
Thereby fulfilling the sixth and only outstanding demand of Feargus O'Connor's famous Charter - annual elections.
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
Every time the opposition takes the lead in an opinion poll, we have a GE! We are told the mid terms mean nothing... unless it's Brexit, in which case all previous comments are struck from the record
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
You’ve already said that it would be fine for Leavers to continuously campaign for Brexit if they had lost. Sooner or later you will stumble accidentally into some consistency.
My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.
Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?
Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
Because it's far from clear what the first referendum meant?
The first referendum meant we should "Leave the EU"
Beyond that "what future relationship should we have with the EU" was characterised by dishonesty on both sides - Leave a host of mutually exclusive offers and Remain flat out denial of what the future of the EU looks like.
I understand Gove's point that we should 'get over the line' and get out of the EU - then lets debate what form of relationship we should have going forward - from WTO to rejoining. At the moment some are seeking to use that debate to subvert the outcome of the referendum - which in my view is much more damaging than Brexit itself.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
Thereby fulfilling the sixth and only outstanding demand of Feargus O'Connor's famous Charter - annual elections.
That would end up worse than the US House, where two-year terms mean that everyone’s focussed on their own re-election, rather than actually doing the job they were elected to do.
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
Which is totally different.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
You’ve already said that it would be fine for Leavers to continuously campaign for Brexit if they had lost. Sooner or later you will stumble accidentally into some consistency.
You are missing the point. Remainers explicitly said a second referendum was not politically credible, there wouldn't be one, and the result of the 2016 referendum was final. Now they are campaigning for a second referendum.
Hardcore leavers never said they would stop, so the comparison doesn't exist. Remainers are entitled to campaign still, and we can note their hypocrisy.
Mr. Jessop, I have some sympathy with that perspective but would add two points: 1) Cameron could've insisted on an 'official' Leave perspective ahead of calling a referendum. 2) May is ultimately responsible for the unholy cocktail of prevarication and capitulation that has characterised the negotiations to date. She undercut her [Leave] Brexit Secretary with a proposal that has drawn criticism from EU-sceptic Conservatives, pro-EU Conservatives, and the EU. That cannot be considered the fault of Leave generally or any Leave politician in particular.
On 1), that would have been manna form heaven for the leave campaigns, who for obvious reasons couldn't agree on a line even if they had wanted - which they didn't. Having a line 'forced' on them by a remain-campaigning government would have just led to yet more febrile complaints from leavers about betrayals - even if they agreed with that line. Because that was the way to win.
Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave.
On 2), May is in a fairly impossible situation; *whatever* decision her government makes will upset large parts of her government, party and the wider country. It might have been good if the leave ministers who have flounced out had produced a credible plan, or in fact done any effing work, in their two years in position. As they didn't, my sympathy for them is about as high as Corbyn's is for Israelis.
They had more than two years, they had decades. But it turns out the buccaneering Brexiteers couldn’t be arsed to do the hard work of learning about how the EU functions, about UK trade flows, about just in time supply chains, about the WTO, about how trade deals are done, about the Irish border and so on. They preferred to make speeches about liberty and tyranny, and to leave the difficult stuff to others certain in the knowledge that whatever happened they’d be fine.
The leave side published a 1,000 page document, "Change or Go?" in 2015. It went into masses of detail. Can you direct me to the equivalent from the pro-EU side?
In fairness, the hardline pro-EU side doesn't need a plan other than, 'enthusiastically sign up to whatever half-baked nonsense was dreamt up in Brussels this week'. I paraphrase of course.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
You’ve already said that it would be fine for Leavers to continuously campaign for Brexit if they had lost. Sooner or later you will stumble accidentally into some consistency.
I see logic has no place in the Meeksian world.
Rejoiners can continually campaign as well.
What we don't have though in this country is for elections or referendums to be rerun if one side doesn't like the result.
"Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
“If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."
What took them so effing long to see the blatantly obvious?
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
You’ve already said that it would be fine for Leavers to continuously campaign for Brexit if they had lost. Sooner or later you will stumble accidentally into some consistency.
You are missing the point. Remainers explicitly said a second referendum was not politically credible, there wouldn't be one, and the result of the 2016 referendum was final. Now they are campaigning for a second referendum.
Hardcore leavers never said they would stop, so the comparison doesn't exist. Remainers are entitled to campaign still, and we can note their hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy is of Leavers wanting Remainers to shut up, especially when the wheels are coming off the Leave wagon.
Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.
Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.
But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.
What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..
Which is totally different.
The result is bein applies. The Leavers are making a complete balls-up of it.
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
The result will be applied once we have left the EU and that is what the second referendum supporters are trying to block.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
It’s not anti-democratic to point out that it’s not working out as advertised and it’s time to rethink. The public is entitled to change its mind at any time, not just when Leavers allow them to.
By that theory every time someone thinks a government isn't working out as advertised we should rerun the previous general election.
This spectacle makes me wonder how far the establishment will go to get rid of Corbyn when he forms the next government.
I would never have thought a military coup would be possible in this country but now I'm not so sure...
Airbus kick up a stink over PM Jezza? Send in the army!
I rather think the meaningful vote is going to be a damp squib. A withdrawal agreement and sufficiently ambiguous definition of the future relationship will pass the Commons relatively easily with grudging support from the ERG and abstentions from the opposition parties who fear being held responsible for whatever chaos might follow a no vote or killer amendment.
The fun starts during the transition period when the future relationship is actually hammered out and during which ther is time for a leadership election, GE, referendum... whatever. I’ve had it confirmed by a pretty senior member of the Government that the party will sit on its hands to get the WA over the line and, after March, it’s all to play for.
Theresa will be on her bike on 30th March, Con will get a new leader and then general election sometime next Summer is my guess.
I rather think the meaningful vote is going to be a damp squib. A withdrawal agreement and sufficiently ambiguous definition of the future relationship will pass the Commons relatively easily with grudging support from the ERG and abstentions from the opposition parties who fear being held responsible for whatever chaos might follow a no vote or killer amendment.
The fun starts during the transition period when the future relationship is actually hammered out and during which ther is time for a leadership election, GE, referendum... whatever. I’ve had it confirmed by a pretty senior member of the Government that the party will sit on its hands to get the WA over the line and, after March, it’s all to play for.
Theresa will be on her bike on 30th March, Con will get a new leader and then general election sometime next Summer is my guess.
Interestingly, the tyres here are Soft, Ultrasoft and Hypersoft. Mercedes are doing qualifying runs on the Soft, the hardest tyre, thinking that they might be able to run them in Q2 and therefore start the race on them. The Hypers are going to be good for no more than half a dozen laps in the race, and the Ultras aren’t much better.
My daughter in law's sister in Vancouver has just posted on her facebook page a lovely all fruit pizza.
So from pineapple to banana to all fruit pizzas
The pub I am just passing on the bus sells chocolate pizzas. Indeed its only main courses are stonebaked pizzas so those who stay for dessert eat pizza after pizza.
"The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."
You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
An anti-semitic party being one which this week backed the openly anti-semitic Hungarian government? No, that's OK, it's whether the party leader has over the years been too pally with Palestinians.
There are people with perfectly genuine concerns about anti-semitism who need to be listened to, and then there are people and media who use it selectively to criticise those they don't like.
We are at a point where both our leading parties are happy to provide succour to anti-Semites. It is awful and utterly depressing. I don’t know whether Tory expediency is worse than Labour conviction.
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
Does it?
Who can say what the PM's view really is... Remember when "Brexit meant Brexit" ?
My guess is that everything Hammond says is with the connivance of Theresa May. The "differences" between 10 and 11 Downing St. are entirely manufactured as Theresa continues to string everyone along.
Mr. Sandpit, hmm. That does risk Mercedes losing out on the start line, though. And if everyone's in the same boat with a one stop, I wonder if that would prove advantageous.
Does increase the safety car window, but if one comes early on, starting on the soft tyre could be a serious problem.
I do not normally watch Dateline London on BBC but both EU contributors confirmed there has been a big change in Europe and that Merkel and Macron want to keep TM in power as they consider Boris or Corbyn as unacceptable
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
Does it?
Who can say what the PM's view really is... Remember when "Brexit meant Brexit" ?
My guess is that everything Hammond says is with the connivance of Theresa May. The "differences" between 10 and 11 Downing St/ are entirely manufactured as Theresa continues to string everyone along.
He was only talking about a delay of a few weeks, to allow time for the actual legislation to pass, according to the Sun report. This was after Leadsom had warned there may not be enough parliamentary time.
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
If I'm reading the report right this is something he said in a cabinet meeting. Presumably in cabinet meetings you can say things that aren't the collective cabinet view, because that's how the cabinet considers things and works out what its view is.
So the story seems to be that someone else says, "ruh roh, maybe we won't have time to get stuff through parliament", and Hammond says, "well that's up to us, we could extend things for a few weeks if we wanted to", and somebody calls the Spectator and gets them to write a hostile piece about him.
I think you're forgetting the practicalities of this.
I think you're forgetting the practicalities of this.
If, for example, the civil service had produced a paper that laid out the practical effects of leaving Euratom, Brexiteers would have cried Project fear and treachery.
It was not possible to produce a sensible plan for leaving then, or indeed now.
There are many sensible plans for Brexit, but they all involve trade-offs between different priorities and no-one wants to admit to those trade-offs.
This prevents us from having a rational debate about these trade-offs - though in fairness so does the Remain attitude that any choice with negative economic impacts is only for the insane.
I do not normally watch Dateline London on BBC but both EU contributors confirmed there has been a big change in Europe and that Merkel and Macron want to keep TM in power as they consider Boris or Corbyn as unacceptable
The panel see a deal
Of course they want her in power - they know she will sell out on Chequers if she can. Despite all your attempts at spin, nobody is reporting anything about HOW the issues will be resolved, other than the desperate hopes of Remainers that May will simply roll over on everything.
If you can explain how the NI backstop and customs partnership can be resolved, go for it. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.
"The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."
You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
An anti-semitic party being one which this week backed the openly anti-semitic Hungarian government? No, that's OK, it's whether the party leader has over the years been too pally with Palestinians.
There are people with perfectly genuine concerns about anti-semitism who need to be listened to, and then there are people and media who use it selectively to criticise those they don't like.
And those who ignore evil because it suits their ideology. That's the position too many in Labour find themselves in.
For the record - again - i think what the Conservative MEPs did this week was stupid and utterly self-defeating. I won't defend it. *You* choose to defend the sickness in your party, and the person responsible for allowing it to fester.
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
If I'm reading the report right this is something he said in a cabinet meeting. Presumably in cabinet meetings you can say things that aren't the collective cabinet view, because that's how the cabinet considers things and works out what its view is.
So the story seems to be that someone else says, "ruh roh, maybe we won't have time to get stuff through parliament", and Hammond says, "well that's up to us, we could extend things for a few weeks if we wanted to", and somebody calls the Spectator and gets them to write a hostile piece about him.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
If I'm reading the report right this is something he said in a cabinet meeting. Presumably in cabinet meetings you can say things that aren't the collective cabinet view, because that's how the cabinet considers things and works out what its view is.
So the story seems to be that someone else says, "ruh roh, maybe we won't have time to get stuff through parliament", and Hammond says, "well that's up to us, we could extend things for a few weeks if we wanted to", and somebody calls the Spectator and gets them to write a hostile piece about him.
Actually, on reflection you’re right. The quotes attributed to Hammond were made in Cabinet, where of course debate should be encouraged.
"Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
“If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."
What took them so effing long to see the blatantly obvious?
Well Varadkhar is very dim. But once again, I am not hearing anything about how the NI backstop will be resolved. They seem to still be saying they want the same thing. What if anything has actually changed?
My daughter in law's sister in Vancouver has just posted on her facebook page a lovely all fruit pizza.
So from pineapple to banana to all fruit pizzas
The pub I am just passing on the bus sells chocolate pizzas. Indeed its only main courses are stonebaked pizzas so those who stay for dessert eat pizza after pizza.
I stick to beer.
Why the hell would you bother with a main course if you can have chocolate pizza pud?
I suspect some people might not find a Chocolate Turkish Delight pizza overly appealling. But lets face it, they'll be the sort of po-faced people on a permanent diet....
My daughter in law's sister in Vancouver has just posted on her facebook page a lovely all fruit pizza.
So from pineapple to banana to all fruit pizzas
The pub I am just passing on the bus sells chocolate pizzas. Indeed its only main courses are stonebaked pizzas so those who stay for dessert eat pizza after pizza.
I stick to beer.
Why the hell would you bother with a main course if you can have chocolate pizza pud?
I suspect some people might not find a Chocolate Turkish Delight pizza overly appealling. But lets face it, they'll be the sort of po-faced people on a permanent diet....
Chocolate pizza just sounds like a giant soggy chocolate digestive.
I do not normally watch Dateline London on BBC but both EU contributors confirmed there has been a big change in Europe and that Merkel and Macron want to keep TM in power as they consider Boris or Corbyn as unacceptable
The panel see a deal
Of course they want her in power - they know she will sell out on Chequers if she can. Despite all your attempts at spin, nobody is reporting anything about HOW the issues will be resolved, other than the desperate hopes of Remainers that May will simply roll over on everything.
If you can explain how the NI backstop and customs partnership can be resolved, go for it. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.
Not sure if you read the earlier thread but the Irish government have blinked and are to negotiate the deal as they recognise it would be armageddon for them from 29th March.
And by the way, your sell out is another person acceptance. The problem you have is that you are in a minority fighting for a lost cause and tend to become aggressive at the prospects of a deal that will command majority support in the UK. Also your tendency to become abusive is unnecessary.
Mr. Sandpit, hmm. That does risk Mercedes losing out on the start line, though. And if everyone's in the same boat with a one stop, I wonder if that would prove advantageous.
Does increase the safety car window, but if one comes early on, starting on the soft tyre could be a serious problem.
It’s very difficult to overtake and it’s a short run to the first corner, it’s a strategy that could work if they can get through Q2 on the hardest tyres. Starting on them could allow a one stop strategy, while everyone else makes two stops.
Safety car is nailed on by the the way, 10 from 10 races and it’s not Monaco where there’s a crane every 50m. Betfair are 1.16 but not really woken up yet, I’m hoping for 1.25-1.3. Under 15.5 finishers is 1.57, that looks value but again not really woken up yet. I’m going to hold off the bets until the morning.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge a very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that the are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
When May pushed through Chequers, Remainers went into orgasms because they finally got their soft Brexit, they went on about how the grown ups were now in charge and how this was a good compromise that everyone sensible would accept.
May and her team were all over the airwaves pushing her deal. Business groups were piling in to support her. We were told by Remainers that the public would be happy with a solution because they were fed up with Brexit and just wanted it done.
What happened? The public didn’t fall for it at all, May miscalculated that Cabinet members would not resign and the whole thing unravelled in a few days. Tory members and the public saw straight through it. Polling shows that almost everyone think it sucks.
Go back to Cameron and the re-negotiation - same plan, same outcome.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
The fun anad games will come when some really unpleasant aspects of the deal have to be put in a Treaty that binds Parliament..... If the "ultras" put their line in the sand - in a provision that Parliament is not bound in perpetuity - and Corbyn agrees that he doesn't want to have to be beholden to Brussels, so agrees to support it... Will it fail in the EU Parliament? Because then it becomes an interesting constitutional clash.
If you start on the softs and there's an instant safety car, everyone else could switch to the softs. You then either follow suit but for hypers/ultras and have to make another stop, screwing yourself, or you stay out, everyone's right behind you with no stop to make, and you lose out when you have to make your single stop later.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
+1
That is how I see it only the European leaders including Tusk, Junckers, Merkel, Macron, the Irish and others will be adding positively to the conclusion.
This is why I do not see labour holding their mps together to vote it down
I do not normally watch Dateline London on BBC but both EU contributors confirmed there has been a big change in Europe and that Merkel and Macron want to keep TM in power as they consider Boris or Corbyn as unacceptable
The panel see a deal
Of course they want her in power - they know she will sell out on Chequers if she can. Despite all your attempts at spin, nobody is reporting anything about HOW the issues will be resolved, other than the desperate hopes of Remainers that May will simply roll over on everything.
If you can explain how the NI backstop and customs partnership can be resolved, go for it. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.
Not sure if you read the earlier thread but the Irish government have blinked and are to negotiate the deal as they recognise it would be armageddon for them from 29th March.
And by the way, your sell out is another person acceptance. The problem you have is that you are in a minority fighting for a lost cause and tend to become aggressive at the prospects of a deal that will command majority support in the UK. Also your tendency to become abusive is unnecessary.
Er - there is NO evidence that the public support your ‘compromise’. In fact, the vast majority of leavers support No Deal. Remainers support remain. Nobody supports Chequers.
I read the report, but as I said, there is no information at all about what has actually changed. What are the Irish government now prepared to accept?
I keep asking you to explain HOW you think the issues will be resolved. You have no idea. So this stuff is nonsense.
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Hammond in the same breath as Hunt and Javid as a likely candidate for next Tory leader. He doesn't have a cat's hell of a chance I'd suggest. His narrow minded accountants approach to politics exemplified by his attempted attack on the self employed in his ill fated 2017 Budget and his perceived deviousness on the EU exemplified by the above has put paid to that.
If you start on the softs and there's an instant safety car, everyone else could switch to the softs. You then either follow suit but for hypers/ultras and have to make another stop, screwing yourself, or you stay out, everyone's right behind you with no stop to make, and you lose out when you have to make your single stop later.
The hypers are good for only half a dozen laps in the race, no other available tyre can make the remainder of the race distance so they’ll need two stops.
But if the safety car isn’t on the first lap or two, everyone else needs to stop after only half a dozen laps whereas you can continue for an SC pit window further into the race.
This struck me too. Voting against the rule of law in Hungary to curry favour with a authoritarian government and undermine the interests of the other EU members is not just craven and lacking any moral basis. It's completely stupid.
This is surely profoundly delusional. How exactly does voting against the vast majority of the EU in favour of a renegade government who are gradually demolishing democracy there and which might be thought to be indicative of a desire on our part to weaken or divide the EU win us "brownie points" ?
I find the Tory vote on this surprising and disappointing but if that is their idea of a cunning plan to get a deal with the people we have just pissed off its time to pass the negotiations over to Baldrick.
My daughter in law's sister in Vancouver has just posted on her facebook page a lovely all fruit pizza.
So from pineapple to banana to all fruit pizzas
The pub I am just passing on the bus sells chocolate pizzas. Indeed its only main courses are stonebaked pizzas so those who stay for dessert eat pizza after pizza.
I stick to beer.
Why the hell would you bother with a main course if you can have chocolate pizza pud?
I suspect some people might not find a Chocolate Turkish Delight pizza overly appealling. But lets face it, they'll be the sort of po-faced people on a permanent diet....
Chocolate pizza just sounds like a giant soggy chocolate digestive.
You make that sound like a bad thing. Just pre-dunked is all....
"Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
“If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."
What took them so effing long to see the blatantly obvious?
Well Varadkhar is very dim. But once again, I am not hearing anything about how the NI backstop will be resolved. They seem to still be saying they want the same thing. What if anything has actually changed?
The "Cojoined Twins" strategy. Varadkar gets his backstop deal in the WA keeping NI in the customs union but there is another agreement saying that only GB stays in the customs union as well concurrently to the first agreement.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I don’t get what Hammond is playing at. Everything he says seems to directly contradict the PM and the collective cabinet view.
Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Hammond in the same breath as Hunt and Javid as a likely candidate for next Tory leader. He doesn't have a cat's hell of a chance I'd suggest. His narrow minded accountants approach to politics exemplified by his attempted attack on the self employed in his ill fated 2017 Budget and his perceived deviousness on the EU exemplified by the above has put paid to that.
Agreed, he’s got no chance. He may well end up third in the MPs’ ballot though, as the “remain candidate”. Two of Javid, Hunt and Gove are most likely to go to the members, depending on the timing of the contest.
I agree with the header. Public enthusiasm for Brexit is in irrevocable decline and the Leavers' morale is shattered. I'll wager even Boris wants it done and dusted now with whatever fudged, vassal-state arrangement Theresa is able to wrangle. Brexit has been disastrous for Boris's career and he'll want it out of the way and forgotten before he even attempts a comeback.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
Which is why, contrary to David's lead article, the chances of a second referendum are very high.
This is also the suggestion in the Matthew Parris article. The problem I have with this - apart from finding the Richard Nabavi logic about how MPs will behave generally convincing - is that I'm a bit hazy on how you get from everybody hating the hypothetical TMay-Barnier Deal to having a referendum on something. I mean, I get the grand narrative arc that a referendum is the only way to get out of the impasse, but who proposes it when, and who votes for it?
I think the most plausible scenario is that the cabinet makes the political calculation that they are better off preempting all of this by proposing a referendum before we get to the meaningful vote.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
Good try but not going to happen before the meaningful vote
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
The only problem with that scenario is 2. When has May ever been "all over the airways" trying to win support for any of her ideas? It's just not her style. At best she will probably make a speech and then the odd reference back to her speech as if recalcitrant pupils are not studying hard enough.
If you start on the softs and there's an instant safety car, everyone else could switch to the softs. You then either follow suit but for hypers/ultras and have to make another stop, screwing yourself, or you stay out, everyone's right behind you with no stop to make, and you lose out when you have to make your single stop later.
The hypers are good for only half a dozen laps in the race, no other available tyre can make the remainder of the race distance so they’ll need two stops.
But if the safety car isn’t on the first lap or two, everyone else needs to stop after only half a dozen laps whereas you can continue for an SC pit window further into the race.
It’s a strategy, but likely a sub optimal one, as it necessarily involves sacrificing pace. Singapore can be something of a lottery, but the fastest cars on the circuit tend to win.
Comments
https://twitter.com/hhesterm/status/1040582408242954240
The prime difference is that Leave currently want Remain’s silence while if Remain had won Leave would have wanted the right to be noisy. The commitment to the right to democratic dissent is tissue thin.
I'll get my coat...
Was the first week back that bad ?
On the other hand, it is blindingly obvious that the likes of UKIP/Farage would have continued campaigning to Leave had Remain won, and they never once said that wouldn't be the case
(And I mean that, unfortunately.)
Edit - mind you, it could be worse, I could support Middlesex, whose fans seem to be a little frustrated to judge by this message:
Would it help is were [sic] to select two players at random (probably not Murtagh or Harris) and hang them from the floodlights? I don't wish to overreact but it might be somewhat motivational.
But I shall smoke something out shortly.
To give a general election equivalent Farage was acting like an opposition leader promising to continue to campaign for his beliefs even if defeated.
While the second referendum campaigners are the equivalent of a government which has lost a general election saying that the vote needs to be rerun.
Nobody is saying that EU supporters cannot campaign to rejoin but it is fair to point out the anti-democratic hypocrisy of those who are trying to stop the Referendum result being applied.
Of course campaigning to rejoin the EU would require making a positive case for doing so instead of the pedalling of lies so not something that second referendum supporters have much experience of.
(edit) Even Yorkshire in the depths of their Boycott crisis never went quite that far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAxEJEODbvc
That means that the time factor is a lot less critical than David suggests. Conversely, the belief in Government circles that we can just ask for a few months' extension is risky, because the EU are as fed up with it all as the average British voter, and they'll only agree to an extension if the deal has basically been done and time is needed for loose ends - not because we say we haven't quite made up our minds what we want about the Irish border.
https://brexitcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ChangeorGo.pdf
https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1040873355279327232
There are people with perfectly genuine concerns about anti-semitism who need to be listened to, and then there are people and media who use it selectively to criticise those they don't like.
The fun starts during the transition period when the future relationship is actually hammered out and during which ther is time for a leadership election, GE, referendum... whatever. I’ve had it confirmed by a pretty senior member of the Government that the party will sit on its hands to get the WA over the line and, after March, it’s all to play for.
I only see a second referendum in the event TM deal is voted down and WTO looms. How we get to it is a different matter and there must be a chance we crash out.
The most important news of the day is the Irish waking up to armageddon awaiting them on the 29th March in no deal case and they are now open to compromise. It appears they have blinked first and a dose of realism set in.
What is not surprising is neither Sky or BBC are reporting it
I still remain confident TM will get the deal and it will pass the HOC despite Emily Thornberry comments that labour will 'probably' vote against it
Beyond that "what future relationship should we have with the EU" was characterised by dishonesty on both sides - Leave a host of mutually exclusive offers and Remain flat out denial of what the future of the EU looks like.
I understand Gove's point that we should 'get over the line' and get out of the EU - then lets debate what form of relationship we should have going forward - from WTO to rejoining. At the moment some are seeking to use that debate to subvert the outcome of the referendum - which in my view is much more damaging than Brexit itself.
Hardcore leavers never said they would stop, so the comparison doesn't exist. Remainers are entitled to campaign still, and we can note their hypocrisy.
Rejoiners can continually campaign as well.
What we don't have though in this country is for elections or referendums to be rerun if one side doesn't like the result.
Honestly, I'm hoping for SeanT and MalcolmG to turn up and raise the tone a bit.
Third practice underway.
You are missing the point. Remainers explicitly said a second referendum was not politically credible, there wouldn't be one, and the result of the 2016 referendum was final. Now they are campaigning for a second referendum.
Hardcore leavers never said they would stop, so the comparison doesn't exist. Remainers are entitled to campaign still, and we can note their hypocrisy.
The hypocrisy is of Leavers wanting Remainers to shut up, especially when the wheels are coming off the Leave wagon.
I would never have thought a military coup would be possible in this country but now I'm not so sure...
Airbus kick up a stink over PM Jezza? Send in the army!
So from pineapple to banana to all fruit pizzas
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1040907613372862464
https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1040904369837928448
I stick to beer.
Who can say what the PM's view really is... Remember when "Brexit meant Brexit" ?
My guess is that everything Hammond says is with the connivance of Theresa May. The "differences" between 10 and 11 Downing St. are entirely manufactured as Theresa continues to string everyone along.
Does increase the safety car window, but if one comes early on, starting on the soft tyre could be a serious problem.
The panel see a deal
So the story seems to be that someone else says, "ruh roh, maybe we won't have time to get stuff through parliament", and Hammond says, "well that's up to us, we could extend things for a few weeks if we wanted to", and somebody calls the Spectator and gets them to write a hostile piece about him.
This prevents us from having a rational debate about these trade-offs - though in fairness so does the Remain attitude that any choice with negative economic impacts is only for the insane.
If you can explain how the NI backstop and customs partnership can be resolved, go for it. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.
For the record - again - i think what the Conservative MEPs did this week was stupid and utterly self-defeating. I won't defend it.
*You* choose to defend the sickness in your party, and the person responsible for allowing it to fester.
1. A deal, loosely based on Chequers, blanketed in plentiful fudge, is agreed between the UK government and the EU negotiating team (don't forget that it will still need approval by the EU parliament and by EU27 governments, BTW).
2. Theresa May and her ministers are all over the airwaves saying it's a good deal for Britain which will implement Brexit but protect the economy. There will also be a huge and very public sigh of relief from business and from independent economic commentators. The pound will rise. It will look like very good news indeed that there is a deal.
3. Meanwhile the ultras will be crying 'Betrayal!' as usual, but they will have a difficult calculation to make, because:
4. Labour will be saying it's a rotten deal, and they could have picked unicorns out of hats, and that they are minded to vote against it, and:
5. There will be an proposed amendment in parliament seeking to make the deal subject to a referendum.
6. The Leavers, and most of the Conservative Party generally, won't want that. Soft Remainers will want to get the deal agreed, and will be aware that once you go down the referendum bolthole you could end up with Brexit with No Deal. I think the likelihood is that the amendment will be rejected.
7. .. and that therefore the deal will be grudgingly approved, faute de mieux, with a stream of MPs saying that they don't like the deal but will reluctantly support it because either they want Brexit to happen to respect the referendum result and don't want a delay to Article 50, or because they don't want a chaotic No Deal.
Of course, there is plenty or room for all this to be dislodged by 'events'.
I don't think May can expect loyalty from him.
I suspect some people might not find a Chocolate Turkish Delight pizza overly appealling. But lets face it, they'll be the sort of po-faced people on a permanent diet....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOq5IJgXkhg
And by the way, your sell out is another person acceptance. The problem you have is that you are in a minority fighting for a lost cause and tend to become aggressive at the prospects of a deal that will command majority support in the UK. Also your tendency to become abusive is unnecessary.
Safety car is nailed on by the the way, 10 from 10 races and it’s not Monaco where there’s a crane every 50m. Betfair are 1.16 but not really woken up yet, I’m hoping for 1.25-1.3.
Under 15.5 finishers is 1.57, that looks value but again not really woken up yet. I’m going to hold off the bets until the morning.
May and her team were all over the airwaves pushing her deal. Business groups were piling in to support her. We were told by Remainers that the public would be happy with a solution because they were fed up with Brexit and just wanted it done.
What happened? The public didn’t fall for it at all, May miscalculated that Cabinet members would not resign and the whole thing unravelled in a few days. Tory members and the public saw straight through it. Polling shows that almost everyone think it sucks.
Go back to Cameron and the re-negotiation - same plan, same outcome.
Sorry, predicting that May will be able to spin a pile of poo is ignoring reality. The public won’t fall for it. Leavers won’t fall for it. If she backs down on Chequers there will be more resignations. There will be uproar and May will be in deep trouble. Labour will vote against and and probably the DUP as well.
ERG will not need many to vote it down.
If you start on the softs and there's an instant safety car, everyone else could switch to the softs. You then either follow suit but for hypers/ultras and have to make another stop, screwing yourself, or you stay out, everyone's right behind you with no stop to make, and you lose out when you have to make your single stop later.
That is how I see it only the European leaders including Tusk, Junckers, Merkel, Macron, the Irish and others will be adding positively to the conclusion.
This is why I do not see labour holding their mps together to vote it down
I read the report, but as I said, there is no information at all about what has actually changed. What are the Irish government now prepared to accept?
I keep asking you to explain HOW you think the issues will be resolved. You have no idea. So this stuff is nonsense.
But if the safety car isn’t on the first lap or two, everyone else needs to stop after only half a dozen laps whereas you can continue for an SC pit window further into the race.
I find the Tory vote on this surprising and disappointing but if that is their idea of a cunning plan to get a deal with the people we have just pissed off its time to pass the negotiations over to Baldrick.
The people's vote campaign is building a crescendo, and by the time there is a withdrawal agreement on the table, if they've succeeded then there will be a broad consensus about the necessity of a further democratic mandate before proceeding.
Consulting his lawyers
While you’re around, what would the likely effects of a hurricane hitting Dubai be ?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/15/hurricane-category-6-this-is-how-world-ends-book-climate-change