I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
"The result has isolated Britain, paralysed its political system, jeopardised peace in Ireland and made the UK a laughing stock – and that’s before Brexit has even happened."
Doesn't seem too eviscerating.
yeah you're simply telling me the Irish are shit scared of Brexit
The problem with Dots' argument concerning a repeat referendum is that it assumes no one has any interest in basic principles of democracy and are only interested in their own side winning. To answer the question posed in bold. No, even if Leave were 50 points ahead I would still not support a repeat referendum and nor should anyone else.
Repeating the question because you didn't like the answer even before the original decision has been enacted is undemocratic and will always be undemocratic whether you know your side is going to win or not.
And the idea that a second referendum, even if it is won by Leave again, will restore faith in British democracy is just laughable. It will just prove the old adage that they will keep asking the same question again for as long as they can until we give them the answer they want.
It won't be a repeat question.
And the original question was so flawed, as has now become abundantly clear, as to be invalid. You can't ask a simplistic binary question on something so complex and nor can one of the options be tabled when no-one had any idea what it actually meant: no one had any working definition of 'Leave.'
You're clearly one of these closed mindset people but you ought to realise much of the rest of the human race isn't.
I think to be fair to the headers author it is a piece putting head above parapet honestly in favour of something, to end the damaging impasse and unite the country, whilst explaining how and why.
True it doesn’t go as far as define the question (as a rodent said, that’s another story) but asks the brexiteers is only option to hold their nose and vote for the obnoxious?
Esther McVey admits she will have to hold her nose. So politics 2019 is same as was 1478? if you are on a rack being branded with hot irons for long enough, you will eventually admit you are a witch? Brexiteer James Gray, North Wiltshire has called the deal obnoxious and yet must switch his vote for it.
If anyone feels the sweat of having no brexit on their mind it’s because May and her ministers keep putting it there as a mantra. But the actual problem going forward is to sign into law a bad deal, an obnoxious deal and it’s vassalage - hang a grievance around the neck of the Conservative Party that will burn bright in elections long after the architect is a baroness, and blaming you for making a mess of her legacy.
Vassalage quite logically is where we are in and under EU with a say, but move from in with opt outs and some influence, to out with opt ins - like Norway, we end up less in though without influence over what we are still part of or aligned to. Rule takers no longer rule shapers. Such horrendous end point comes when someone tries brexit not just for 52% but the 48 as well, tries to straddle both sides to give something to everyone, a compromise to bring the country back together. Yet doing so in their own sweet ignorance, actually making things worse.
My argument is simple, if it comes to this, or has already reached this, how is Leave going to stop vassalage or any bad deal other than completing direct democracy process, putting a bad deal back to the people, explaining to voters exactly why it is the very bad deal? The Velociraptor that is Farage is clearly up for that. But the ERG, like the great plodding diplodocus is still chewing the cud trying to work it out.
What makes you think voting into law something obnoxious is your only option and can turn out well, James etc?
I see the problem. You basically have no idea of what the Norway option (for the example you use) actually is and have just believed the rubbish put about by the hard liners and Remainers who have sought to undermine it as a viable option.
It turns out that a bad deal is better than no deal. Obviously.
You keep saying this, but it's not a bad deal. It's actually a pretty good deal. All the benefits of 45+ EU trade deals, no free movement, all the benefits of the single market, no membership fees and now an exit mechanism should the EU try and sabotage the long terms trade deal.
That has been my reading of it too. I have never heard anyone from the Labour benches engage in that sort of examination of the deal - they just oppose for the sake of opposing rather than providing any analysis for their opposition.
Yes because that is their job. And the ERG have allowed them to do this with impunity.
And @Charles looking back at the time it turns out that Theresa did not make a formal offer for consensus talks when a group of AIUI cross-party MPs approached Letwin very early on in the process.
The problem with Dots' argument concerning a repeat referendum is that it assumes no one has any interest in basic principles of democracy and are only interested in their own side winning. To answer the question posed in bold. No, even if Leave were 50 points ahead I would still not support a repeat referendum and nor should anyone else.
Repeating the question because you didn't like the answer even before the original decision has been enacted is undemocratic and will always be undemocratic whether you know your side is going to win or not.
And the idea that a second referendum, even if it is won by Leave again, will restore faith in British democracy is just laughable. It will just prove the old adage that they will keep asking the same question again for as long as they can until we give them the answer they want.
It won't be a repeat question.
And the original question was so flawed, as has now become abundantly clear, as to be invalid. You can't ask a simplistic binary question on something so complex and nor can one of the options be tabled when no-one had any idea what it actually meant: no one had any working definition of 'Leave.'
You're clearly one of these closed mindset people but you ought to realise much of the rest of the human race isn't.
Of course it is a repeat question. However you tart it up it will still basically be stay in or leave.
You are clearly one of those limited intelligence people who ought to realise they are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
To be honest, I've completely switched off thinking about what I want. All the outcomes look disastrous from here, one way or another. I'm just hunkering down for the next stage, whatever that might be.
Fair enough. I’m hunkering down too.
I will be furious if we leave with no deal and sad if we leave with a deal which has been bludgeoned through and has no real consent behind it, not least because it makes more likely that May will stay on and she is the last person who should be in charge of thFTA negotiations. If she goes God knows who will replace her, probably someone even worse.
The whole thing is a national embarrassment.
Oh boy. If you think it bad already, pass this deal and then see how things pan out. There’s party political arguments here that haven’t even surfaced yet. Don’t ever forget, polls showed a large portion of voters supported the poll tax. And, if someone’s using argument you must support what was in last manifesto, someone thought it immensely sensible to put a dementia tax into the Conservative Party manifesto, right alongside the Brexit that must also be delivered.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
It turns out that a bad deal is better than no deal. Obviously.
You keep saying this, but it's not a bad deal. It's actually a pretty good deal. All the benefits of 45+ EU trade deals, no free movement, all the benefits of the single market, no membership fees and now an exit mechanism should the EU try and sabotage the long terms trade deal.
IT IS NOT A F***ING DEAL!
It is a document whereby we are able to leave and which gives us space to negotiate a deal. There is a Churchillian paraphrase in there somewhere but it bugs me when the elision is made between the WA and any final trade deal we might be able to negotiate.
I know you know this, Max but it is extremely frustrating when people use the shorthand because it simply compounds our many problems.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
"The result has isolated Britain, paralysed its political system, jeopardised peace in Ireland and made the UK a laughing stock – and that’s before Brexit has even happened."
Doesn't seem too eviscerating.
yeah you're simply telling me the Irish are shit scared of Brexit
And not pointing fingers at anyone apart from the UK. That was of course an Irish Times editorial.
For those that are interested, here are 37 Conservative MPs who I currently expect to vote against any revival of the meaningful vote (the first 31 are ERGonauts, the next six are from the Remain wing of the party):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Joseph Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Notable omissions include Bill Cash, John Baron, Dominic Raab and Bernard Jenkin, all of whom have been quiet recently so far as I can tell.
My old MP, Lee Rowley seems quite a new hardcore Brexiteer - he's also not angling for any Gov't jobs with his opposition to fracking.
The problem with Dots' argument concerning a repeat referendum is that it assumes no one has any interest in basic principles of democracy and are only interested in their own side winning. To answer the question posed in bold. No, even if Leave were 50 points ahead I would still not support a repeat referendum and nor should anyone else.
Repeating the question because you didn't like the answer even before the original decision has been enacted is undemocratic and will always be undemocratic whether you know your side is going to win or not.
And the idea that a second referendum, even if it is won by Leave again, will restore faith in British democracy is just laughable. It will just prove the old adage that they will keep asking the same question again for as long as they can until we give them the answer they want.
It won't be a repeat question.
And the original question was so flawed, as has now become abundantly clear, as to be invalid. You can't ask a simplistic binary question on something so complex and nor can one of the options be tabled when no-one had any idea what it actually meant: no one had any working definition of 'Leave.'
You're clearly one of these closed mindset people but you ought to realise much of the rest of the human race isn't.
Of course it is a repeat question. However you tart it up it will still basically be stay in or leave.
You are clearly one of those limited intelligence people who ought to realise they are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Wow, the resort to Ad Hominem. If only you knew ... but I'll keep my powder dry.
I envisage a more informed debate and vote in which various options, perhaps with AV - STV - is in place.
So not a repeat. At all.
Mind you, not that this would be a bad thing anyway. Your argument is like saying that because Clem Attlee won a landslide in 1945 we should still have a massive Labour majority. Part of the art of democracy is enabling litmus tests of public mood. Clearly much has altered in the last three years.
To be frank, your intransigence about offering the deal back to the public demonstrates to me that you've lost the argument and, with it, the public.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Alastair, I think there's an assumption that some of those on the Tory Europhile wing who supported MV2 will still support MV3. I'm not at all convinced for example that Ken Clarke will vote for it.
It turns out that a bad deal is better than no deal. Obviously.
You keep saying this, but it's not a bad deal. It's actually a pretty good deal. All the benefits of 45+ EU trade deals, no free movement, all the benefits of the single market, no membership fees and now an exit mechanism should the EU try and sabotage the long terms trade deal.
It’s not me saying it. But we clearly won’t be getting all the benefits of single market membership, while ending freedom of movement is - in my view - a terrible deal for British citizens who do not have the money to buy it.
But that's what the WA is, the downside is that it doesn't give the UK a say in setting the rules while we are in the transition state, but our efforts there have been piss poor for the last 20 years anyway so it's a no change situation.
When we Brexit and it all turns sour (as some Remainers will always claim), then you have a case. How do you explain some Remainers (eg LDs) demanding a second referendum immediately after the vote?
For those that are interested, here are 37 Conservative MPs who I currently expect to vote against any revival of the meaningful vote (the first 31 are ERGonauts, the next six are from the Remain wing of the party):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Joseph Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Notable omissions include Bill Cash, John Baron, Dominic Raab and Bernard Jenkin, all of whom have been quiet recently so far as I can tell.
That seems about right, save that I think Lucy Allan has switched.
Alastair, I think there's an assumption that some of those on the Tory Europhile wing who supported MV2 will still support MV3. I'm not at all convinced for example that Ken Clarke will vote for it.
This is a non-exhaustive list. Plenty of MPs are keeping their counsel. Some will have been thinking over the weekend. Some of those on that list are, I think, potentially wooable.
That list is plenty long enough, however, to make the Prime Minister's job impossible unless something changes, I think.
For those that are interested, here are 37 Conservative MPs who I currently expect to vote against any revival of the meaningful vote (the first 31 are ERGonauts, the next six are from the Remain wing of the party):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Joseph Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Notable omissions include Bill Cash, John Baron, Dominic Raab and Bernard Jenkin, all of whom have been quiet recently so far as I can tell.
Has anyone ever noticed before the interesting regional dynamics of this all based around the M3-M4-M40 corridors? In the middle you have Theresa May's constituency of Maidenhead. Surrounding it you have Steve Baker (High Wycombe), Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield), Adam Afryie (Windsor), Philip Lee (Bracknell) and John Redwood (Wokingham). Is it so common to find such extremists at either end of the Brexit spectrum in such a small geographical area?
So the ERG are simply now trying to engineer no-deal, having given up on getting their deal.
The ERG are a cancer, they need removing from the Tories before they can win another election/
Little choice when up against the mendacious May who is happy to sell us down the river with her dogs dinner of an agreement. Far better to take your chances than be kept in limbo for eternity.
For those that are interested, here are 37 Conservative MPs who I currently expect to vote against any revival of the meaningful vote (the first 31 are ERGonauts, the next six are from the Remain wing of the party):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Joseph Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Notable omissions include Bill Cash, John Baron, Dominic Raab and Bernard Jenkin, all of whom have been quiet recently so far as I can tell.
That seems about right, save that I think Lucy Allan has switched.
She's going back and forth but I think having wobbled, she's firmed back up again. Hard to keep track though, I agree.
When we Brexit and it all turns sour (as some Remainers will always claim), then you have a case. How do you explain some Remainers (eg LDs) demanding a second referendum immediately after the vote?
I explain it as the consequence of them being anti democratic numpties. The trouble is that that argument has been receding in the rear view mirror at a rate of 24 hours per day for nearly 3 years and is now virtually invisible.
Are you saying in my analogy that we have to build the reactors at 10x the estimate, and let thousands of disabled children be born, before we can legitimately have a rethink?
I’m not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting a second referendum between types of Brexit or between a type and remain? The problem with your hypothesis is how many types do you want and who is going to explain the differences?
The question asked was superficially simple: do you want to remain in the EU? I think that anything more complicated than that runs into the same sort of problems that we currently have in the HoC. The attempt by Parliament to fine tune the process has been a disaster. Negotiations are, rightly, a matter for the Executive. I just don’t see this working at all.
He is right, however, that there should have been a specific proposition.
It is as if we had held a referendum on "do you want a fairer voting system?" (or some similar neutrally worded question), and after deciding yes, parliament falls into a huge argument over whether we go for STV or AMS or a List system (as it surely would). The PM wants a List system so she sets about forcing this through.
Meanwhile Boris appears to have worked out how to best bring about May's demise. With Boris against surely the chance of having the vote on Tuesday reduces significantly.
‘There should have been a specific proposition’.
Very good comparisons, voting for ‘a fairer voting system” and then getting some sows ear of a change to satisfy politicians vested interests. Wish I had used that example myself! it’s spot on to this brexit mess and politicians saying “got to respect the people’s wishes as my legislation does”
I don't see how pulling the meaningful vote works. What on earth does she go to the EU summit saying?
I'm virtually certain she won't bring MV3. She will wait on the EU who will set 2 yr delay, which means she will return next week for MV3 with a simple message:
This ... or a long delay.
Now, remind me, who was it that said that last month?
But (as per my question at 8.12) what action does Long Delay require from parliament?
It worries me that while there was a majority AGAINST No Deal last week and FOR a non-specific extension, too many reluctant "respect the will of the people" MPs would be scared of putting their name to a two-year can-kick; and No Deal remains the default.
So does TM think the votes last week give her authority to agree one? Or am I wrong to be worried?
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see fit (and, no, that does not include choosing to ignore it) and then be judged for it at the next election
A separate point is that introducing a second referendum at this point is changing to rules of the game after the event. If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it
(And, I don’t agree that a second referendum will drain the well. But I thought you story was about Vortigern and his castle not a queen and her palace? The fighting dragons were the Saxons and the British/Welsh)
Democratic my butt, a system that has only a handful of seats changing so placemen are there for life so that a few at the top can run the country to suit their chums , there is scant democracy in the UK and nowadays it is approaching banana republic as the Tories ignore and steamroll over the unwritten constitution. Time to bring out the tumbrils.
malc
hope alls well
have to say your boys did a cracking job at Twickenham, shame they were pipped at the end
Hello Alan, Yes all well here, hope same with you. Hard to believe after they were so bad in first half and then to lose the victory right at the death. Great game though and great advert for rugby.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
"The result has isolated Britain, paralysed its political system, jeopardised peace in Ireland and made the UK a laughing stock – and that’s before Brexit has even happened."
Doesn't seem too eviscerating.
yeah you're simply telling me the Irish are shit scared of Brexit
And not pointing fingers at anyone apart from the UK. That was of course an Irish Times editorial.
I rather gathered that
Its like expecting a Guardian editorial to be supportive of JRM
but of course post Brexit its Ireland that will be the more isolated unless it is to throw itself ever more at the beck and call of Germany, Ireland that has a peace problem everyone else will just walk away from and Ireland that will have to roll with the UK on rebalancing economies.
Brexit was of course was always going to be bad news for Ireland but Varadkar has made it worse than it need be.
I’m not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting a second referendum between types of Brexit or between a type and remain? The problem with your hypothesis is how many types do you want and who is going to explain the differences?
The question asked was superficially simple: do you want to remain in the EU? I think that anything more complicated than that runs into the same sort of problems that we currently have in the HoC. The attempt by Parliament to fine tune the process has been a disaster. Negotiations are, rightly, a matter for the Executive. I just don’t see this working at all.
He is right, however, that there should have been a specific proposition.
It is as if we had held a referendum on "do you want a fairer voting system?" (or some similar neutrally worded question), and after deciding yes, parliament falls into a huge argument over whether we go for STV or AMS or a List system (as it surely would). The PM wants a List system so she sets about forcing this through.
Meanwhile Boris appears to have worked out how to best bring about May's demise. With Boris against surely the chance of having the vote on Tuesday reduces significantly.
‘There should have been a specific proposition’.
Very good comparisons, voting for ‘a fairer voting system” and then getting some sows ear of a change to satisfy politicians vested interests. Wish I had used that example myself! it’s spot on to this brexit mess and politicians saying “got to respect the people’s wishes as my legislation does”
How a Strange Massachusetts Election Helps Explain Britain’s Brexit Chaos
__________________________________________
It gets some things wrong but the election Brexit is compared to is perhaps a good comparison to what happened in the referendum.
tl:dr They voted the guy out in a referendum (to do with alleged charges) and on the same day voted for him in the election to decide the replacement over a few other candidates.
A few thoughts - first, and you might find this strange, I think all public holidays should be abolished. The days should be added to a worker's leave entitlement and they should be able to decide if and when they take their days off rather than the Government forcing them to take days off work because it's a public holiday. No one should lose any holiday but the extra days can be taken when the worker (and the organisation) want.
On topic, I've always been opposed to a second vote. I've thought having a public say on any withdrawal agreement would be a nice idea but there are two problems - first, the WA is incomprehensible legalese to most and I wouldn't trust the Government to produce an objective 20 page summary in plain English. Second, if you oppose the Agreement, what do you want - to remain, to leave without an Agreement, to renegotiate the Agreement. Without an clear exposition of what a No vote would mean, it's as meaningless as asking people to vote on an IN/OUT referendum without explaining how OUT was actually going to happen....
As for the politics, we can all see the steps of the dance. IF MV3 (to use the shorthand) isn't tabled before the EU Summit, what does May say to the 27? If she has no realistic prospect of getting the WA through the Commons, she will have to ask for an extension and we'll see what the EU says. I confess it seems implausible the EU will refuse an extension but they might put conditions on it that May finds impossible to accept.
That will then leave revocation at the 11th hour (well past it in truth) and the option to re-commence the A50 process at a time when the UK's position is more clearly defined. The political price for that revocation to avoid No Deal will, I suspect, be May's resignation as she will have failed in her primary aim to honour the Referendum result. With A50 revoked life will go on economically but politically it will get interesting.
Wow, the resort to Ad Hominem. If only you knew ... but I'll keep my powder dry.
I envisage a more informed debate and vote in which various options, perhaps with AV - STV - is in place.
So not a repeat. At all.
Mind you, not that this would be a bad thing anyway. Your argument is like saying that because Clem Attlee won a landslide in 1945 we should still have a massive Labour majority. Part of the art of democracy is enabling litmus tests of public mood. Clearly much has altered in the last three years.
To be frank, your intransigence about offering the deal back to the public demonstrates to me that you've lost the argument and, with it, the public.
Ad hominem in response to Ad hominem. So you have no cause to moan.
And no, again you show you idiocy. When we elect MPs they go into office. The result of the election is respected. We then have a system whereby after a period of time we re-elect them or not.
What you are saying is that if, for example, a few more people had voted for Labour MPs at the last election as a means of limiting May's majority (as lots of people seem to claim was the reason) and we had happened to get a Corbyn majority, we should have immediately had another election before he took office because we hadn't actually wanted Corbyn to win.
Of course that is not how the system does or should work. If the public are asked a question in a vote they have every right to expect that the result of that vote will be respected. Otherwise how are they to believe that democracy has any value at all?
It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.
Without an equal number of Lab MPs to counter then, yes.
Not easy.
Of those Labour MPs possibly tempted, surely direction of travel to a softer brexit gives them better cover than May’s deal?
A few observations to run passed you. Does it matter how the DUP come on board? Davis and I think Mogg too saying the issue needs to be sorted, but if the DUP come on board because of a nice big bung, and some other titbits like seat at table for further negotiation (something May could stitch a successor up with if she granted that) that would be nothing has substantially changed? Rather than look sorted, with big money bung would it fact look sordid, and rather off putting to play along with?
And something Mr Tyndall said I have been thinking over. Originally there was no meaningful vote, till grieves intervened? In a counter factual universe cabinet would have agreed it end of story? That both feels tempting... but also sort of wrong?
On the DUP it clearly will matter to some but perhaps not as many as we think. It depends how many really are looking to climb down and how many were only using the DUP as an excuse. But the money will presumably not be announced till later so we can pretend that is not a factor.
I'd agree something like this does seem like it should require parliamentary sign off. But I think that would have been the case in the sense legislation would still be needed? Very different if it was a fait accompli though I guess.
The government have been quite open all along with its use of pieces of silver and other bribes, so its not as bad as secret deals like the way Philip Green shut people up with the issues they had. However, for anyone coming on board because the DUP onboard, the bung argument can make laughing stock of any claim issues really resolved?
Getting DUP onside with a nice big bung might prove a fig leaf for some, but could allow others to make counter productive fuss out of it? “That’s not how to sort issues properly, big money bungs just add stench of political corruption to already difficult situation” etc.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
"The result has isolated Britain, paralysed its political system, jeopardised peace in Ireland and made the UK a laughing stock – and that’s before Brexit has even happened."
Doesn't seem too eviscerating.
yeah you're simply telling me the Irish are shit scared of Brexit
And not pointing fingers at anyone apart from the UK. That was of course an Irish Times editorial.
I rather gathered that
Its like expecting a Guardian editorial to be supportive of JRM
but of course post Brexit its Ireland that will be the more isolated unless it is to throw itself ever more at the beck and call of Germany, Ireland that has a peace problem everyone else will just walk away from and Ireland that will have to roll with the UK on rebalancing economies.
Brexit was of course was always going to be bad news for Ireland but Varadkar has made it worse than it need be.
I don't think those "beck and call of Germany" warnings are particularly valid. It is a smaller member of a quasi-political and currency union. The bubble was sobering and I believe there are sensible measures to ensure equity for all EU members.
As for its peace problem, it is of course more NI/UK with the peace problem and the talk of no deal by Varadkar and indeed the EU is perhaps them acknowledging that it is the UK with the problem (can't remember too many letterbombs sent to the GAA at Croke Park). Any actions against the Province's nationalists, meanwhile, will simply further push the reunification movement.
F1: there's a Ladbrokes market on Constructors' winner without the big three.
Not inclined to bet myself. I think the tight favourites Haas and Renault are likely accurate. Off-chance Racing Point and Alfa Romeo might challenge, though. Force India (now Racing Point) had a weak start to last season yet would've finished very close to Renault, just behind, had they not been docked a bundle of points for the financial rescue.
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see fit (and, no, that does not include choosing to ignore it) and then be judged for it at the next election
A separate point is that introducing a second referendum at this point is changing to rules of the game after the event. If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it
(And, I don’t agree that a second referendum will drain the well. But I thought you story was about Vortigern and his castle not a queen and her palace? The fighting dragons were the Saxons and the British/Welsh)
Democratic my butt, a system that has only a handful of seats changing so placemen are there for life so that a few at the top can run the country to suit their chums , there is scant democracy in the UK and nowadays it is approaching banana republic as the Tories ignore and steamroll over the unwritten constitution. Time to bring out the tumbrils.
malc
hope alls well
have to say your boys did a cracking job at Twickenham, shame they were pipped at the end
Hello Alan, Yes all well here, hope same with you. Hard to believe after they were so bad in first half and then to lose the victory right at the death. Great game though and great advert for rugby.
For those that are interested, here are 37 Conservative MPs who I currently expect to vote against any revival of the meaningful vote (the first 31 are ERGonauts, the next six are from the Remain wing of the party):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Joseph Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Notable omissions include Bill Cash, John Baron, Dominic Raab and Bernard Jenkin, all of whom have been quiet recently so far as I can tell.
I think its interesting how many of them are in constituencies south of London.
And how few are from Leave strongholds in the Midlands and North.
Having so many bank holidays, on changing days of the week in March/april doesn't seem like the idea of someone which has thought through it..
Typical Labour , promise anything that comes into their head knowing they will never enact it, we had almost 50 years of the lying toerags in Scotland. Only things they prioritise is their own bankbooks, merely chance if it helps the public in any small way.
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
To be honest, I've completely switched off thinking about what I want. All the outcomes look disastrous from here, one way or another. I'm just hunkering down for the next stage, whatever that might be.
Fair enough. I’m hunkering down too.
I will be furious if we leave with no deal and sad if we leave with a deal which has been bludgeoned through and has no real consent behind it, not least because it makes more likely that May will stay on and she is the last person who should be in charge of thFTA negotiations. If she goes God knows who will replace her, probably someone even worse.
The whole thing is a national embarrassment.
This is the Tories’ really big problem. May is the best they have. All other known leader options are worse. It is, of course, the opposite for Labour.
Now let’s be honest, if polls showed leave with 20 point lead if there was second referendum, would many be very hostile to a new public vote on the deal, because it’s is so clearly undemocratic and brexit betrayal, actually be in favour?
This is the thing about procedural stuff - people actually feel genuine, non-tactical emotion about the fairness of this vs that vs the other; They often feel more strongly about these fairness issues than the underlying issues. But their views also line up very strongly with the thing that's tactically best for their side. This predicts almost all political parties' views on voting systems, nearly every politician's take on referendums at any given time, and the views of most of their followers.
If you find yourself getting angry about a procedure (as opposed to an issue) it's worth taking a step back and considering that you probably wouldn't be feeling that if the circumstances were different. That doesn't mean that nobody's right about the procedure, but it does mean you should be suspicious of your own convictions about who it is.
Great post. I'm reminded of the seat reduction debate – it was largely supported only by supporters of the parties would stand to gain from it. Which kind of undermined the technical arguments.
I have a feeling MV3 will be pulled this week and so our popcorn can stay in the cupboard. We will see tomorrow.
If it is pulled May will reportedly ask for a 2 year extension and we may well never leave at all
And she would be well in her rights to do so. We have entered a bizarre phase whereby those who purport to be in favour of Leaving keep voting against it!
I know we have an interesting definition of anti semitism when it comes to the Labour party but not liking TIG and people defecting to it doesn't quite cover it I feel.
A few thoughts - first, and you might find this strange, I think all public holidays should be abolished. The days should be added to a worker's leave entitlement and they should be able to decide if and when they take their days off rather than the Government forcing them to take days off work because it's a public holiday. No one should lose any holiday but the extra days can be taken when the worker (and the organisation) want.
That is already the case. Employees and workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday per year (28 days if you are full time, 5 days a week) but the legislation makes no provision for specific days of the year to be taken. Bank Holidays (there is a technically difference between bank and public holidays but it is slight) are merely customary holidays, days in which the Banks in the City close. There are restrictions on trading on Sundays and Christmas Day but otherwise employees and employers can, in principle, determine when those 5.6 weeks (28 days) are taken, so long as they are.
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see fit (and, no, that does not include choosing to ignore it) and then be judged for it at the next election
A separate point is that introducing a second referendum at this point is changing to rules of the game after the event. If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it
(And, I don’t agree that a second referendum will drain the well. But I thought you story was about Vortigern and his castle not a queen and her palace? The fighting dragons were the Saxons and the British/Welsh)
Democratic my butt, a system that has only a handful of seats changing so placemen are there for life so that a few at the top can run the country to suit their chums , there is scant democracy in the UK and nowadays it is approaching banana republic as the Tories ignore and steamroll over the unwritten constitution. Time to bring out the tumbrils.
malc
hope alls well
have to say your boys did a cracking job at Twickenham, shame they were pipped at the end
Hello Alan, Yes all well here, hope same with you. Hard to believe after they were so bad in first half and then to lose the victory right at the death. Great game though and great advert for rugby.
Greatest draw ever?
Must be hard to beat , can you imagine anyone ever thinking you would get a score like that. Be a long time if ever before there is ever a higher score draw.
Mr. Slackbladder, given it's so soon after the Christchurch shootings, this might be motivated by someone enacting either a copycat or reprisal attack. If it's either of those, that increases the chances of more of the same *and* the other type of attack.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
"The result has isolated Britain, paralysed its political system, jeopardised peace in Ireland and made the UK a laughing stock – and that’s before Brexit has even happened."
Doesn't seem too eviscerating.
yeah you're simply telling me the Irish are shit scared of Brexit
And not pointing fingers at aTimes editorial.
I rather gathered that
Brexit was of course was always going to be bad news for Ireland but Varadkar has made it worse than it need be.
I don't think those "beck and call of Germany" warnings are particularly valid. It is a smaller member of a quasi-political and currency union. The bubble was sobering and I believe there are sensible measures to ensure equity for all EU members.
As for its peace problem, it is of course more NI/UK with the peace problem and the talk of no deal by Varadkar and indeed the EU is perhaps them acknowledging that it is the UK with the problem (can't remember too many letterbombs sent to the GAA at Croke Park). Any actions against the Province's nationalists, meanwhile, will simply further push the reunification movement.
Ireland has just lost the one large country that thinks like it does, free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point. A similar issue faces other small European countries like the Scandies. There is no longer someone to be the bad guy on blocking protectionism and centralism. ireland will probably see this first commission moves to equalise tax. Thats why I say beck and call since for a lot of the small states finding a modus vivendi with german hegemony is all they can do. Im just finishing off Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis and even allowing for " well he would say that wouldnt he ", the observations on how the EU is run are gobsmacking in places.
On the peace issue I said over a year ago there was no benefit for anyone in stirring up the North. Varadkar went ahead anyhow to gain a short term electoral advantage which he then failed to expolit. All he has achieved is to put inter irish relations back 20 years. No doubt hell eventually waltz off to some job in Brussels but someone else will have to tidy up his shit and the ordinary joes just pay the price of his career ambitions. Boris O'johnson.
we can now call in the GFA need for parity of esteem and make 12 July a national holiday too
I'm sure a holiday in the middle if July would be more popular than one in the middle of March!
Im still trying to follow the logic of making Paddys day a UK wide holiday but not for George, Andy or Taffy. Seems odd.
Its already a holiday in Northern Ireland and the Scots get St Andrews (end of November) but nothing for the English (late April) or Welsh (1 March).
I suspect holidays in warmer weather might be more popular.....could take a leaf out of the former Soviet Union's book and celebrate the end of WWII on May 9th - already a public holiday in the Channel Islands...
Ireland has just lost the one large country that thinks like it does, free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point. A similar issue faces other small European countries like the Scandies. There is no longer someone to be the bad guy on blocking protectionism and centralism. ireland will probably see this first commission moves to equalise tax. Thats why I say beck and call since for a lot of the small states finding a modus vivendi with german hegemony is all they can do. Im just finishing off Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis and even allowing for " well he would say that wouldnt he ", the observations on how the EU is run are gobsmacking in places.
On the peace issue I said over a year ago there was no benefit for anyone in stirring up the North. Varadkar went ahead anyhow to gain a short term electoral advantage which he then failed to expolit. All he has achieved is to put inter irish relations back 20 years. No doubt hell eventually waltz off to some job in Brussels but someone else will have to tidy up his shit and the ordinary joes just pay the price of his career ambitions. Boris O'johnson.
A few thoughts - first, and you might find this strange, I think all public holidays should be abolished. The days should be added to a worker's leave entitlement and they should be able to decide if and when they take their days off rather than the Government forcing them to take days off work because it's a public holiday. No one should lose any holiday but the extra days can be taken when the worker (and the organisation) want.
That is already the case. Employees and workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks holiday per year (28 days if you are full time, 5 days a week) but the legislation makes no provision for specific days of the year to be taken. Bank Holidays (there is a technically difference between bank and public holidays but it is slight) are merely customary holidays, days in which the Banks in the City close. There are restrictions on trading on Sundays and Christmas Day but otherwise employees and employers can, in principle, determine when those 5.6 weeks (28 days) are taken, so long as they are.
20 or so years ago the NHS Trust where I worked decided to offer us an extra 3 days holiday if we were prepared to agree to give up* the (then at any rate) customary Friday off before Spring Bank Holiday Monday and August Bank Holiday. Of course we agreed, especially as pretty well everyone thought patient care would be improved. Meant I got nearly 7 weeks holiday, which quite frankly seemed daft to me.
Incidentally, I'd far rather July 12th as a holiday rather than St Patrick's Day. We're overloaded with Bank/Public holidays from mid March to late May as it is. This year I suspect a Bank/Public holiday on Guy Fawkes Day would be celebrated with extra fervour!
(1) it is wholly illegitimate for a government to put a Leave/Remain choice to the electorate on the grounds it will be implemented, have it come back 52:48 Leave, and to then tell them they have to choose again between a fairly Remainy version of Leave and an even more Remainy Remain. If would be like insisting on a second referendum between Canada+ and no-deal if the result had been R52 L48.
(2) "What could be more democratic than another vote?" Well, another one, if we follow this logic. And another. It's nonsense. The correct answer, of course, is "Implementing the results of the existing vote"
(3) If the result of a second referendum is R52 L48, should due attention be given to the L48 in the way it is to the R48? That would mean the government seeking a fairly Leave-y Remain outcome, say EFTA or Norway+.
(4) If polls showed L60 R40, a second referendum would still be illegitimate for all these reasons.
Ireland has just lost the one large country that thinks like it does, free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point. A similar issue faces other small European countries like the Scandies. There is no longer someone to be the bad guy on blocking protectionism and centralism. ireland will probably see this first commission moves to equalise tax. Thats why I say beck and call since for a lot of the small states finding a modus vivendi with german hegemony is all they can do. Im just finishing off Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis and even allowing for " well he would say that wouldnt he ", the observations on how the EU is run are gobsmacking in places.
On the peace issue I said over a year ago there was no benefit for anyone in stirring up the North. Varadkar went ahead anyhow to gain a short term electoral advantage which he then failed to expolit. All he has achieved is to put inter irish relations back 20 years. No doubt hell eventually waltz off to some job in Brussels but someone else will have to tidy up his shit and the ordinary joes just pay the price of his career ambitions. Boris O'johnson.
What did he do to "stir up the north"?
weaponising the whole border issue
but weve been through this several times as you know, so I'm taking the question as an early morning troll
Mr. Drutt, indeed, point 1) is particularly sensible. If we'd voted 52% Remain the political/media class would be speaking about accepting democracy and enacting the result and that the matter was settled for decades now, if not forever.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
"The result has isolated Britain, paralysed its political system, jeopardised peace in Ireland and made the UK a laughing stock – and that’s before Brexit has even happened."
Doesn't seem too eviscerating.
yeah you're simply telling me the Irish are shit scared of Brexit
And not pointing fingers at aTimes editorial.
I rather gathered that
Brexit was of course was always going to be bad news for Ireland but Varadkar has made it worse than it need be.
I don't think those "beck and call of Germany" warnings are particularly valid. It is a smaller member of a quasi-political and currency union. The bubble was sobering and I believe there are sensible measures to ensure equity for all EU members.
Any actions against the Province's nationalists, meanwhile, will simply further push the reunification movement.
Ireland has just lost the one large country that thinks like it does, free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point. A similar issue faces other small European countries like the Scandies. There is no longer someone to be the bad guy on blocking protectionism and centralism. ireland will probably see this first commission moves to equalise tax. Thats why I say beck and call since for a lot of the small states finding a modus vivendi with german hegemony is all they can do. Im just finishing off Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis and even allowing for " well he would say that wouldnt he ", the observations on how the EU is run are gobsmacking in places.
On the peace issue I said over a year ago there was no benefit for anyone in stirring up the North. Varadkar went ahead anyhow to gain a short term electoral advantage which he then failed to expolit. All he has achieved is to put inter irish relations back 20 years. No doubt hell eventually waltz off to some job in Brussels but someone else will have to tidy up his shit and the ordinary joes just pay the price of his career ambitions. Boris O'johnson.
Ireland has cornered the market in nations that are free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point which are members of the EU.
(1) it is wholly illegitimate for a government to put a Leave/Remain choice to the electorate on the grounds it will be implemented, have it come back 52:48 Leave, and to then tell them they have to choose again between a fairly Remainy version of Leave and an even more Remainy Remain. If would be like insisting on a second referendum between Canada+ and no-deal if the result had been R52 L48.
(2) "What could be more democratic than another vote?" Well, another one, if we follow this logic. And another. It's nonsense. The correct answer, of course, is "Implementing the results of the existing vote"
(3) If the result of a second referendum is R52 L48, should due attention be given to the L48 in the way it is to the R48? That would mean the government seeking a fairly Leave-y Remain outcome, say EFTA or Norway+.
(4) If polls showed L60 R40, a second referendum would still be illegitimate for all these reasons.
Extremely logical and cogent points. And I am not at all sure about a second vote for many reasons including those you set out. But as I have observed on here before, the flaw is that you are asking the same people. You are not asking an external party to overturn something the British People voted to do. You are asking the British People. Again.
Just as I can't disagree with Cameron's decision to put an issue to the people, so can I not disagree on principle with a second vote (although I don't happen to think it is a good idea). So then you have @Tyndall's view which is have it one day after the WA is voted through and we are out which again, is fair enough but at this point, I think it is all in the mix.
Dots should cite his sources, I have doubts about the accuracy of the historical story in the first paragraph.
There is a leave case for a second vote. I've been amazed how it has not gained even more traction as an idea in parliament.
‘Dots should cite his sources’
The historical sources? That’s a fair question if you claim I “adapted” the original to suit my narrative, but in defence the original so far as it is history was long ago adapted into myth and folklore. Sure not a queen but a king, but was the king Vortigern? Did Vortigern give Kent to the Saxons (in sort of brexit betrayal)? Perhaps as picture we could have used Kent and Welsh flags facing off. And was the boy born to a virgin mother?
Apparently though the hill where Merlin said there are red and white dragons fighting beneath is a tourist attraction. Try to pick a sunny day.
we can now call in the GFA need for parity of esteem and make 12 July a national holiday too
I'm sure a holiday in the middle if July would be more popular than one in the middle of March!
Im still trying to follow the logic of making Paddys day a UK wide holiday but not for George, Andy or Taffy. Seems odd.
Labour proposed four new bank holidays, one for each nation's patron saint, in their 2017 manifesto.
yes, but as I read the tweet, this is now only for St Pat.
You probably misunderstood the tweet, which is Labour's chief tweeter's fault, aided and abetted by the good professor playing silly people. It was sent on St Patrick's Day so that is the context. Labour's policy seems to be a bank holiday for each country.
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
To be honest, I've completely switched off thinking about what I want. All the outcomes look disastrous from here, one way or another. I'm just hunkering down for the next stage, whatever that might be.
Fair enough. I’m hunkering down too.
I will be furious if we leave with no deal and sad if we leave with a deal which has been bludgeoned through and has no real consent behind it, not least because it makes more likely that May will stay on and she is the last person who should be in charge of thFTA negotiations. If she goes God knows who will replace her, probably someone even worse.
The whole thing is a national embarrassment.
This is the Tories’ really big problem. May is the best they have. All other known leader options are worse. It is, of course, the opposite for Labour.
No she's not. Hunt, Javid, Rabb all a major step up. Many others significant improvements.
Ireland has just lost the one large country that thinks like it does, free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point. A similar issue faces other small European countries like the Scandies. There is no longer someone to be the bad guy on blocking protectionism and centralism. ireland will probably see this first commission moves to equalise tax. Thats why I say beck and call since for a lot of the small states finding a modus vivendi with german hegemony is all they can do. Im just finishing off Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis and even allowing for " well he would say that wouldnt he ", the observations on how the EU is run are gobsmacking in places.
On the peace issue I said over a year ago there was no benefit for anyone in stirring up the North. Varadkar went ahead anyhow to gain a short term electoral advantage which he then failed to expolit. All he has achieved is to put inter irish relations back 20 years. No doubt hell eventually waltz off to some job in Brussels but someone else will have to tidy up his shit and the ordinary joes just pay the price of his career ambitions. Boris O'johnson.
What did he do to "stir up the north"?
weaponising the whole border issue
but weve been through this several times as you know, so I'm taking the question as an early morning troll
ha no wasn't meant to be - weaponising the border ignores the fact that the border would have to have been addressed. Don't shoot the messenger. It's not as though no one would have noticed it (and of course there is the whole wanting a united ireland thing).
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
To be honest, I've completely switched off thinking about what I want. All the outcomes look disastrous from here, one way or another. I'm just hunkering down for the next stage, whatever that might be.
Fair enough. I’m hunkering down too.
I will be furious if we leave with no deal and sad if we leave with a deal which has been bludgeoned through and has no real consent behind it, not least because it makes more likely that May will stay on and she is the last person who should be in charge of thFTA negotiations. If she goes God knows who will replace her, probably someone even worse.
The whole thing is a national embarrassment.
This is the Tories’ really big problem. May is the best they have. All other known leader options are worse. It is, of course, the opposite for Labour.
No she's not. Hunt, Javid, Rabb all a major step up. Many others significant improvements.
The other benefit would be clearing out the deadwood from the Cabinet. I honestly believe there are far better in the second tier.
(1) it is wholly illegitimate for a government to put a Leave/Remain choice to the electorate on the grounds it will be implemented, have it come back 52:48 Leave, and to then tell them they have to choose again between a fairly Remainy version of Leave and an even more Remainy Remain. If would be like insisting on a second referendum between Canada+ and no-deal if the result had been R52 L48.
(2) "What could be more democratic than another vote?" Well, another one, if we follow this logic. And another. It's nonsense. The correct answer, of course, is "Implementing the results of the existing vote"
(3) If the result of a second referendum is R52 L48, should due attention be given to the L48 in the way it is to the R48? That would mean the government seeking a fairly Leave-y Remain outcome, say EFTA or Norway+.
(4) If polls showed L60 R40, a second referendum would still be illegitimate for all these reasons.
Extremely logical and cogent points. And I am not at all sure about a second vote for many reasons including those you set out. But as I have observed on here before, the flaw is that you are asking the same people. You are not asking an external party to overturn something the British People voted to do. You are asking the British People. Again.
Just as I can't disagree with Cameron's decision to put an issue to the people, so can I not disagree on principle with a second vote (although I don't happen to think it is a good idea). So then you have @Tyndall's view which is have it one day after the WA is voted through and we are out which again, is fair enough but at this point, I think it is all in the mix.
Yep I think that is fair comment. Telling people they cannot have another vote once the first has been enacted would again be completely wrong.
Mr. Drutt, indeed, point 1) is particularly sensible. If we'd voted 52% Remain the political/media class would be speaking about accepting democracy and enacting the result and that the matter was settled for decades now, if not forever.
The pesky electorate voted the wrong way.
When the facts changed, J M Keynes changed his mind. What did he have that the electorate doesn't?
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
To be honest, I've completely switched off thinking about what I want. All the outcomes look disastrous from here, one way or another. I'm just hunkering down for the next stage, whatever that might be.
Fair enough. I’m hunkering down too.
I will be furious if we leave with no deal and sad if we leave with a deal which has been bludgeoned through and has no real consent behind it, not least because it makes more likely that May will stay on and she is the last person who should be in charge of thFTA negotiations. If she goes God knows who will replace her, probably someone even worse.
The whole thing is a national embarrassment.
This is the Tories’ really big problem. May is the best they have. All other known leader options are worse. It is, of course, the opposite for Labour.
No she's not. Hunt, Javid, Rabb all a major step up. Many others significant improvements.
Raab was surprised to find Dover is on the way to France. Theresa May has a geography degree, so she is already one up on her former Brexit minister.
Ireland has just lost the one large country that thinks like it does, free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point. A similar issue faces other small European countries like the Scandies. There is no longer someone to be the bad guy on blocking protectionism and centralism. ireland will probably see this first commission moves to equalise tax. Thats why I say beck and call since for a lot of the small states finding a modus vivendi with german hegemony is all they can do. Im just finishing off Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis and even allowing for " well he would say that wouldnt he ", the observations on how the EU is run are gobsmacking in places.
On the peace issue I said over a year ago there was no benefit for anyone in stirring up the North. Varadkar went ahead anyhow to gain a short term electoral advantage which he then failed to expolit. All he has achieved is to put inter irish relations back 20 years. No doubt hell eventually waltz off to some job in Brussels but someone else will have to tidy up his shit and the ordinary joes just pay the price of his career ambitions. Boris O'johnson.
What did he do to "stir up the north"?
weaponising the whole border issue
but weve been through this several times as you know, so I'm taking the question as an early morning troll
ha no wasn't meant to be - weaponising the border ignores the fact that the border would have to have been addressed. Don't shoot the messenger. It's not as though no one would have noticed it (and of course there is the whole wanting a united ireland thing).
of course the border would have to be addressed and LVs predecessor had set up a mechanism to do so, LV decided to take a different approach. As for the UI thing the south has always had an Augustinian approach to it.
Ireland has just lost the one large country that thinks like it does, free trade, open markets, atlanticist to a point.
Why do you talk in the past tense about things that haven't happened yet, and how has the way Ireland has handled Brexit made your laundry list of bad things any worse for them?
I did mention this early on this morning. Any extension continues our membership with all that entails including international treaties. To me next week is the point when the decision is for TM deal or remain which is the likely destination of a long extension
(1) it is wholly illegitimate for a government to put a Leave/Remain choice to the electorate on the grounds it will be implemented, have it come back 52:48 Leave, and to then tell them they have to choose again between a fairly Remainy version of Leave and an even more Remainy Remain. If would be like insisting on a second referendum between Canada+ and no-deal if the result had been R52 L48.
(2) "What could be more democratic than another vote?" Well, another one, if we follow this logic. And another. It's nonsense. The correct answer, of course, is "Implementing the results of the existing vote"
(3) If the result of a second referendum is R52 L48, should due attention be given to the L48 in the way it is to the R48? That would mean the government seeking a fairly Leave-y Remain outcome, say EFTA or Norway+.
(4) If polls showed L60 R40, a second referendum would still be illegitimate for all these reasons.
Extremely logical and cogent points. And I am not at all sure about a second vote for many reasons including those you set out. But as I have observed on here before, the flaw is that you are asking the same people. You are not asking an external party to overturn something the British People voted to do. You are asking the British People. Again.
Just as I can't disagree with Cameron's decision to put an issue to the people, so can I not disagree on principle with a second vote (although I don't happen to think it is a good idea). So then you have @Tyndall's view which is have it one day after the WA is voted through and we are out which again, is fair enough but at this point, I think it is all in the mix.
Yep I think that is fair comment. Telling people they cannot have another vote once the first has been enacted would again be completely wrong.
I think people would be queuing up to say (post a WA-approved exit on March 29 or after a technical extension in, say, June) that "we were not out yet" so given that, together with where we are now (ie chaos) I think those timing red lines break down.
Comments
And the original question was so flawed, as has now become abundantly clear, as to be invalid. You can't ask a simplistic binary question on something so complex and nor can one of the options be tabled when no-one had any idea what it actually meant: no one had any working definition of 'Leave.'
You're clearly one of these closed mindset people but you ought to realise much of the rest of the human race isn't.
And @Charles looking back at the time it turns out that Theresa did not make a formal offer for consensus talks when a group of AIUI cross-party MPs approached Letwin very early on in the process.
You are clearly one of those limited intelligence people who ought to realise they are dumber than a bag of rocks.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum?
It is a document whereby we are able to leave and which gives us space to negotiate a deal. There is a Churchillian paraphrase in there somewhere but it bugs me when the elision is made between the WA and any final trade deal we might be able to negotiate.
I know you know this, Max but it is extremely frustrating when people use the shorthand because it simply compounds our many problems.
I envisage a more informed debate and vote in which various options, perhaps with AV - STV - is in place.
So not a repeat. At all.
Mind you, not that this would be a bad thing anyway. Your argument is like saying that because Clem Attlee won a landslide in 1945 we should still have a massive Labour majority. Part of the art of democracy is enabling litmus tests of public mood. Clearly much has altered in the last three years.
To be frank, your intransigence about offering the deal back to the public demonstrates to me that you've lost the argument and, with it, the public.
When we Brexit and it all turns sour (as some Remainers will always claim), then you have a case. How do you explain some Remainers (eg LDs) demanding a second referendum immediately after the vote?
That list is plenty long enough, however, to make the Prime Minister's job impossible unless something changes, I think.
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1107552078682091520
Are you saying in my analogy that we have to build the reactors at 10x the estimate, and let thousands of disabled children be born, before we can legitimately have a rethink?
Have a good day all.
Very good comparisons, voting for ‘a fairer voting system” and then getting some sows ear of a change to satisfy politicians vested interests. Wish I had used that example myself! it’s spot on to this brexit mess and politicians saying “got to respect the people’s wishes as my legislation does”
Please, please, not the f-ing dementia tax again.
It worries me that while there was a majority AGAINST No Deal last week and FOR a non-specific extension, too many reluctant "respect the will of the people" MPs would be scared of putting their name to a two-year can-kick; and No Deal remains the default.
So does TM think the votes last week give her authority to agree one? Or am I wrong to be worried?
Its like expecting a Guardian editorial to be supportive of JRM
but of course post Brexit its Ireland that will be the more isolated unless it is to throw itself ever more at the beck and call of Germany, Ireland that has a peace problem everyone else will just walk away from and Ireland that will have to roll with the UK on rebalancing economies.
Brexit was of course was always going to be bad news for Ireland but Varadkar has made it worse than it need be.
No way would she ever have become PM otherwise...
How a Strange Massachusetts Election Helps Explain Britain’s Brexit Chaos
__________________________________________
It gets some things wrong but the election Brexit is compared to is perhaps a good comparison to what happened in the referendum.
tl:dr They voted the guy out in a referendum (to do with alleged charges) and on the same day voted for him in the election to decide the replacement over a few other candidates.
A few thoughts - first, and you might find this strange, I think all public holidays should be abolished. The days should be added to a worker's leave entitlement and they should be able to decide if and when they take their days off rather than the Government forcing them to take days off work because it's a public holiday. No one should lose any holiday but the extra days can be taken when the worker (and the organisation) want.
On topic, I've always been opposed to a second vote. I've thought having a public say on any withdrawal agreement would be a nice idea but there are two problems - first, the WA is incomprehensible legalese to most and I wouldn't trust the Government to produce an objective 20 page summary in plain English. Second, if you oppose the Agreement, what do you want - to remain, to leave without an Agreement, to renegotiate the Agreement. Without an clear exposition of what a No vote would mean, it's as meaningless as asking people to vote on an IN/OUT referendum without explaining how OUT was actually going to happen....
As for the politics, we can all see the steps of the dance. IF MV3 (to use the shorthand) isn't tabled before the EU Summit, what does May say to the 27? If she has no realistic prospect of getting the WA through the Commons, she will have to ask for an extension and we'll see what the EU says. I confess it seems implausible the EU will refuse an extension but they might put conditions on it that May finds impossible to accept.
That will then leave revocation at the 11th hour (well past it in truth) and the option to re-commence the A50 process at a time when the UK's position is more clearly defined. The political price for that revocation to avoid No Deal will, I suspect, be May's resignation as she will have failed in her primary aim to honour the Referendum result. With A50 revoked life will go on economically but politically it will get interesting.
And no, again you show you idiocy. When we elect MPs they go into office. The result of the election is respected. We then have a system whereby after a period of time we re-elect them or not.
What you are saying is that if, for example, a few more people had voted for Labour MPs at the last election as a means of limiting May's majority (as lots of people seem to claim was the reason) and we had happened to get a Corbyn majority, we should have immediately had another election before he took office because we hadn't actually wanted Corbyn to win.
Of course that is not how the system does or should work. If the public are asked a question in a vote they have every right to expect that the result of that vote will be respected. Otherwise how are they to believe that democracy has any value at all?
Getting DUP onside with a nice big bung might prove a fig leaf for some, but could allow others to make counter productive fuss out of it? “That’s not how to sort issues properly, big money bungs just add stench of political corruption to already difficult situation” etc.
As for its peace problem, it is of course more NI/UK with the peace problem and the talk of no deal by Varadkar and indeed the EU is perhaps them acknowledging that it is the UK with the problem (can't remember too many letterbombs sent to the GAA at Croke Park). Any actions against the Province's nationalists, meanwhile, will simply further push the reunification movement.
Not inclined to bet myself. I think the tight favourites Haas and Renault are likely accurate. Off-chance Racing Point and Alfa Romeo might challenge, though. Force India (now Racing Point) had a weak start to last season yet would've finished very close to Renault, just behind, had they not been docked a bundle of points for the financial rescue.
And how few are from Leave strongholds in the Midlands and North.
If you find yourself getting angry about a procedure (as opposed to an issue) it's worth taking a step back and considering that you probably wouldn't be feeling that if the circumstances were different. That doesn't mean that nobody's right about the procedure, but it does mean you should be suspicious of your own convictions about who it is.
Great post. I'm reminded of the seat reduction debate – it was largely supported only by supporters of the parties would stand to gain from it. Which kind of undermined the technical arguments.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1107588455767437312
On the peace issue I said over a year ago there was no benefit for anyone in stirring up the North. Varadkar went ahead anyhow to gain a short term electoral advantage which he then failed to expolit. All he has achieved is to put inter irish relations back 20 years. No doubt hell eventually waltz off to some job in Brussels but someone else will have to tidy up his shit and the ordinary joes just pay the price of his career ambitions. Boris O'johnson.
I suspect holidays in warmer weather might be more popular.....could take a leaf out of the former Soviet Union's book and celebrate the end of WWII on May 9th - already a public holiday in the Channel Islands...
Meant I got nearly 7 weeks holiday, which quite frankly seemed daft to me.
Incidentally, I'd far rather July 12th as a holiday rather than St Patrick's Day. We're overloaded with Bank/Public holidays from mid March to late May as it is.
This year I suspect a Bank/Public holiday on Guy Fawkes Day would be celebrated with extra fervour!
*Edited to correct silly mistake.
https://twitter.com/RemainerNow/status/1107306644109705216
(1) it is wholly illegitimate for a government to put a Leave/Remain choice to the electorate on the grounds it will be implemented, have it come back 52:48 Leave, and to then tell them they have to choose again between a fairly Remainy version of Leave and an even more Remainy Remain. If would be like insisting on a second referendum between Canada+ and no-deal if the result had been R52 L48.
(2) "What could be more democratic than another vote?" Well, another one, if we follow this logic. And another. It's nonsense. The correct answer, of course, is "Implementing the results of the existing vote"
(3) If the result of a second referendum is R52 L48, should due attention be given to the L48 in the way it is to the R48? That would mean the government seeking a fairly Leave-y Remain outcome, say EFTA or Norway+.
(4) If polls showed L60 R40, a second referendum would still be illegitimate for all these reasons.
but weve been through this several times as you know, so I'm taking the question as an early morning troll
The pesky electorate voted the wrong way.
From their perspective, what's not to like?
Just as I can't disagree with Cameron's decision to put an issue to the people, so can I not disagree on principle with a second vote (although I don't happen to think it is a good idea). So then you have @Tyndall's view which is have it one day after the WA is voted through and we are out which again, is fair enough but at this point, I think it is all in the mix.
The historical sources? That’s a fair question if you claim I “adapted” the original to suit my narrative, but in defence the original so far as it is history was long ago adapted into myth and folklore. Sure not a queen but a king, but was the king Vortigern? Did Vortigern give Kent to the Saxons (in sort of brexit betrayal)? Perhaps as picture we could have used Kent and Welsh flags facing off. And was the boy born to a virgin mother?
Apparently though the hill where Merlin said there are red and white dragons fighting beneath is a tourist attraction. Try to pick a sunny day.
http://www.landoflegends.wales/location/dinas-emrys
Are we missing business opportunity for PB to sponsor a design of anoraks?
https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1107592965877309440
The French are laughing at us.