Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
First off I think you know I am not a huge fan of a second referendum.
What I find very difficult to accept however is that a referendum is not democratic. Just as I disagree with those who criticised Cam for promising the first one, asking the people (the very same people you asked last time) can never be undemocratic.
On your logic (which I do have sympathy for when it comes to a second EURef) we could not have another GE before each and every manifesto commitment had been enacted by the government. Which is patently absurd.
It can't be done. This appears to be another zombie day for May, indulged by Cabinet ministers who don't know what else to do - so far.
It can be done - and could have been done from the beginning - by cutting out the ERG. That she hasn't done so is understandable from a purely party perspective, but was a mistake nevertheless.
Has anybody else been afflicted by Brexit Madness to the same degree as Andrew Adonis? He used to be regarded as a "wise man", now he's gone full moonbat.
ACGrayling comes a close second....but Adonis really has lost it - its almost worth no-dealing to watch him explode. Almost.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
If they don’t like her she will lose her seat.
Yes hopefully. That way Yardly can get an MP who properly represents their interests and views.
What a mean spirited comment. Why mention your disdain for what she has allegedly done to Labour. I think she has done a fine job personall.y
I thought it was a rather generous-spirited comment; harder to wish someone well if you dislike what they have done.
Reminds me that while I was absent, two of the sites higher profile posters passed away; Mark Senior & Plato. RIP to both
Very good to see you back mate.
+1
Thank you, thank you
Yes, good to see you back.
Cheers Richard
Can you please give us three lines (or a header if you have the time and OGH is up for it??) on the @isam take on it all?
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
It can't be done. This appears to be another zombie day for May, indulged by Cabinet ministers who don't know what else to do - so far.
It can be done - and could have been done from the beginning - by cutting ut the ERG. That she hasn't done so is understandable from a purely party perspective, but was a mistake nevertheless.
Yes, but I meant in terms of TM's leadership and the markers she's laid down, it can't be. Her leadership has been all about party unity at all costs, usually resolved by indulging the right. It's hit the limit and can go no further, but there's no consensus for a solution.
It can't be done. This appears to be another zombie day for May, indulged by Cabinet ministers who don't know what else to do - so far.
It can be done - and could have been done from the beginning - by cutting out the ERG. That she hasn't done so is understandable from a purely party perspective, but was a mistake nevertheless.
The ERG are probably more representative of the Party than the other MPs (and also not too far from Conservative voters) - so if they want people stuffing envelopes and knocking on doors they have a tricky balancing act....
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
A Remainer became PM. She cut out her Brexit [ugly word...] secretaries and buggered the negotiations herself. The Commons is mostly pro-EU by a large margin.
You can certainly argue the ERG have been idiotic. And they're, what, 30 MPs?
Blaming Leavers as a group when not one of them has led the shambolic government just seems odd to me. I wanted to leave the EU. I still do. And if I'd been negotiating on behalf of the UK, I'd accept your criticism. But as you've blamed Leave-voters generally, I'm curious what you think I should've done differently.
Before, and immediately after, the result my own view on leaving was very flexible. The only 'red line' I had was no membership of the customs union.
The bigger 'crime' is that none of the leading leavers - Boris, Gove, Davis etc - did the statesmanlike thing and spelled out to their colleagues the hard truths that needed telling at the outset. That the referendum result and the economic and political realities directed toward a very soft Brexit. Neither did any of them put forward a coherent plan (indeed didn't Boris literally go into hiding for days after the vote?). Nor did most of them stick around in office once the inevitable need to start making compromises came into view, preferring to run for it and then carp from the sidelines.
Of all of them, Gove appears recently to recognise much of this, but he was hardly outspoken from the beginning.
20 years ago he'd have just wrote strongly worded letters to a minister and nobody would have ever known anything about it... Now with Twitter his madness is public for everyone to dissect.
A Remainer became PM. She cut out her Brexit [ugly word...] secretaries and buggered the negotiations herself. The Commons is mostly pro-EU by a large margin.
You can certainly argue the ERG have been idiotic. And they're, what, 30 MPs?
Blaming Leavers as a group when not one of them has led the shambolic government just seems odd to me. I wanted to leave the EU. I still do. And if I'd been negotiating on behalf of the UK, I'd accept your criticism. But as you've blamed Leave-voters generally, I'm curious what you think I should've done differently.
Before, and immediately after, the result my own view on leaving was very flexible. The only 'red line' I had was no membership of the customs union.
Theresa May's record as Home Secretary included a botched attempt to take us out of the ECHR (remember the whole cat thing?), which would quite likely have seen us in breach of Art 2 TEU and thus suspended from the EU under Art 7 TEU, and endless moaning about how FoM meant she could not bring down immigration numbers. You will forgive me for questioning her "remainer" credentials. She almost certainly backed remain, halfheartedly, for tactical reasons and backed the wrong horse. After that she got lucky and we got unlucky.
A Remainer became PM. She cut out her Brexit [ugly word...] secretaries and buggered the negotiations herself. The Commons is mostly pro-EU by a large margin.
You can certainly argue the ERG have been idiotic. And they're, what, 30 MPs?
Blaming Leavers as a group when not one of them has led the shambolic government just seems odd to me. I wanted to leave the EU. I still do. And if I'd been negotiating on behalf of the UK, I'd accept your criticism. But as you've blamed Leave-voters generally, I'm curious what you think I should've done differently.
Before, and immediately after, the result my own view on leaving was very flexible. The only 'red line' I had was no membership of the customs union.
Mr Dancer, I don't believe the line about Mrs May being a "remainer". She has bought into the hard Brexit narrative in almost every way. Had she not, she would have reached for broader consensus that would have more accurately represented the marginal nature of the vote. She wasn't helped, of course, by having a moron as LoTO, but she need not have been so tribal. Your posts give me the impression you are a very reasonable leaver whom I can have respect for. You are though, in an apparent minority. Most leavers who post online seem to take the "yah boo sucks" approach, and it will be them, not you, that I laugh at when our inevitable re-entry to the European family of nations takes place.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
I am sure had the vote been the other way around Nigel Farage, and most people who share your views might not have been advancing that argument.
UKIP would probably have had to win enough seats at the next GE to hold the balance of power for Leave to get another crack at a referendum, I doubt 6million signatures on a petition would have done, quite rightly.
That's a very good thread and makes a lot of sense. Mark Scott's response about the English Civil War seems apt too. Thanks for the link.
Yes, so good that it deserves a copy n paste
"History repeats itself. An observation on the English Civil War, by historian Ronald Hutton:
"There were always, indeed, two civil wars in progress during its duration: that between the contending parties, and that between those who wished to fight it and the bulk of the population, who had never desired it, barely understood it, and only wanted to get through it with the minimum of damage to all that they held dear."
A Remainer became PM. She cut out her Brexit [ugly word...] secretaries and buggered the negotiations herself. The Commons is mostly pro-EU by a large margin.
You can certainly argue the ERG have been idiotic. And they're, what, 30 MPs?
Blaming Leavers as a group when not one of them has led the shambolic government just seems odd to me. I wanted to leave the EU. I still do. And if I'd been negotiating on behalf of the UK, I'd accept your criticism. But as you've blamed Leave-voters generally, I'm curious what you think I should've done differently.
Before, and immediately after, the result my own view on leaving was very flexible. The only 'red line' I had was no membership of the customs union.
Theresa May's record as Home Secretary included a botched attempt to take us out of the ECHR (remember the whole cat thing?), which would quite likely have seen us in breach of Art 2 TEU and thus suspended from the EU under Art 7 TEU, and endless moaning about how FoM meant she could not bring down immigration numbers. You will forgive me for questioning her "remainer" credentials. She almost certainly backed remain, halfheartedly, for tactical reasons and backed the wrong horse. After that she got lucky and we got unlucky.
I think economically she may always have been a Remainer, but because of her formative Home Office time , her heart is very much with the visceral thrust of Leave - immigration.
"Boris Johnson has called on Theresa May to “channel the spirit of Moses” and urge the EU to “let her people go” as he advocated for a no-deal Brexit."
Wasn't the exodus followed by 40 years in the wilderness?
A Remainer became PM. She cut out her Brexit [ugly word...] secretaries and buggered the negotiations herself. The Commons is mostly pro-EU by a large margin.
You can certainly argue the ERG have been idiotic. And they're, what, 30 MPs?
Blaming Leavers as a group when not one of them has led the shambolic government just seems odd to me. I wanted to leave the EU. I still do. And if I'd been negotiating on behalf of the UK, I'd accept your criticism. But as you've blamed Leave-voters generally, I'm curious what you think I should've done differently.
Before, and immediately after, the result my own view on leaving was very flexible. The only 'red line' I had was no membership of the customs union.
Theresa May's record as Home Secretary included a botched attempt to take us out of the ECHR (remember the whole cat thing?), which would quite likely have seen us in breach of Art 2 TEU and thus suspended from the EU under Art 7 TEU, and endless moaning about how FoM meant she could not bring down immigration numbers. You will forgive me for questioning her "remainer" credentials. She almost certainly backed remain, halfheartedly, for tactical reasons and backed the wrong horse. After that she got lucky and we got unlucky.
+1. My view of her also. She is almost as duplicitous as Boris Johnson, only without the extra-marital shagging.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
First off I think you know I am not a huge fan of a second referendum.
What I find very difficult to accept is that a referendum is not democratic. Just as I disagree with those who criticised Cam for promising the first one, asking the people (the very same people you asked last time) can never be undemocratic.
On your logic (which I do have sympathy for) we could not have another GE before each and every manifesto commitment had been enacted by the government. Which is patently absurd.
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
It can't be done. This appears to be another zombie day for May, indulged by Cabinet ministers who don't know what else to do - so far.
It can be done - and could have been done from the beginning - by cutting ut the ERG. That she hasn't done so is understandable from a purely party perspective, but was a mistake nevertheless.
Yes, but I meant in terms of TM's leadership and the markers she's laid down, it can't be. Her leadership has been all about party unity at all costs, usually resolved by indulging the right. It's hit the limit and can go no further, but there's no consensus for a solution.
Yes, but objectively since this moment was always going to arrive, she would have been better showing leadership by engineering a showdown and facing down the right early on. Rather than waiting until her and the country's backs are against the wall.
That isn't her way, of course, so she simply plays for time and hopes for the best. And, of course, being mistrusted as a supposed 'remainer' she had to prove her worth to her new gang by demonstrating the zeal of the convert.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
If it takes 2 years to Leave, which it apparently does, that means that every time there is a referendum, if Leave win, by the time we look like leaving Remain can say the last result is invalid
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Tyndall trots out this line so often, he is basically trolling.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
I repeat the line because, as I have just discussed with Topping, it is both logical and right. You may think democracy is something that is only worth abiding by if you are winning, I do not. If you go down this road then you destroy people's faith in the democratic process and the whole thing becomes worthless.
What a mean spirited comment. Why mention your disdain for what she has allegedly done to Labour. I think she has done a fine job personall.y
I thought it was a rather generous-spirited comment; harder to wish someone well if you dislike what they have done.
Reminds me that while I was absent, two of the sites higher profile posters passed away; Mark Senior & Plato. RIP to both
Very good to see you back mate.
+1
Thank you, thank you
Yes, good to see you back.
Cheers Richard
Can you please give us three lines (or a header if you have the time and OGH is up for it??) on the @isam take on it all?
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
If they don’t like her she will lose her seat.
Yes hopefully. That way Yardly can get an MP who properly represents their interests and views.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
If they don’t like her she will lose her seat.
Yes hopefully. That way Yardly can get an MP who properly represents their interests and views.
One seat where the politics has changed somewhat. Used to be a Labour-Tory bellwhether -for ages it went with the party in Government. Finally broken when Labour won in 92 although Major stayed PM.
Had the second most working class profile for any Tory seat (after Gosport).
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
The difference as I see it - and I do recognise my purist view is not shared by many - is that at a GE we do not vote for any individual policy, we vote for an individual representative. As long as that representative is allowed to take their seat in Parliament the contract with the electorate has been fulfilled. If subsequently there is a recall and a new vote because the MP turns out to be unfit to hold office it is not a problem as the original vote was respected.
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
Hmm. We vote for individuals yes, but we do so in order for them to enact a set of promises which have been described in a manifesto.
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
I repeat the line because, as I have just discussed with Topping, it is both logical and right. You may think democracy is something that is only worth abiding by if you are winning, I do not. If you go down this road then you destroy people's faith in the democratic process and the whole thing becomes worthless.
In campaigning for Leave you inpliedly undertook that you could deliver a liveable-with version of brexit. You have been given a reasonable amount of time to prove that you can, and it is now clear that you can't. Your claim is easily demolished by absurdity: even you will presumably not claim that if we have still not exited by 2025 and polls then show 95% of the population in favour of remaining, democracy obliges us to brexit. So it is just a matter of judgment as to what is a reasonable time for you to make good your claim. I think you have already had it.
A Remainer became PM. She cut out her Brexit [ugly word...] secretaries and buggered the negotiations herself. The Commons is mostly pro-EU by a large margin.
You can certainly argue the ERG have been idiotic. And they're, what, 30 MPs?
Blaming Leavers as a group when not one of them has led the shambolic government just seems odd to me. I wanted to leave the EU. I still do. And if I'd been negotiating on behalf of the UK, I'd accept your criticism. But as you've blamed Leave-voters generally, I'm curious what you think I should've done differently.
Before, and immediately after, the result my own view on leaving was very flexible. The only 'red line' I had was no membership of the customs union.
Theresa May's record as Home Secretary included a botched attempt to take us out of the ECHR (remember the whole cat thing?), which would quite likely have seen us in breach of Art 2 TEU and thus suspended from the EU under Art 7 TEU, and endless moaning about how FoM meant she could not bring down immigration numbers. You will forgive me for questioning her "remainer" credentials. She almost certainly backed remain, halfheartedly, for tactical reasons and backed the wrong horse. After that she got lucky and we got unlucky.
+1. My view of her also. She is almost as duplicitous as Boris Johnson, only without the extra-marital shagging.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
I'm not a huge lover of crisps, but I'd put these as my favourtie:
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
May's policy reminds me of those beginners' computer programs back in the 80's
10 TABLE Meaningful Vote on the WA 20 REMOVE Meaningful Vote due to lack of support 30 GOTO 10
Theresa May has at least two other loops:
while (true) do 1) schedule important statement for later that day 2) arrive half an hour late 3) say nothing done
for (ever) do a: invite opponents to meetings (or EU summits) b: tell them what you've been telling everyone for months c: don't listen, answer questions or engage in debate done
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
REF2 in 2019 can be laid at 3.4 on Betfair - a 30% chance.
I've made good money over the last few months laying this whenever it goes short and closing out when it goes back to where it should be - quite long, a 20% chance at best - and I am very happy to do so again at 3.4.
Rationale: It cannot happen under a Tory PM since it would risk destroying the party. Therefore it can only happen under a Labour PM. To get a Labour PM you need 3 things, (i) a GE pre Brexit, (ii) REF2 in the Labour manifesto, (iii) Labour to win.
If all of those things happen (in themselves considerably less than a 30% cumulative probability) you get REF2 but it could easily be 2020 before it takes place, bearing in mind the wrangling over the format and that Labour would want to first negotiate a different (softer) deal.
Here's an interesting question for obsessive users of social media, (not referring to PBers, talking generally). Since you started using social media obsessively, have you become a happier or an angrier person? Also, have you most likely caused other people to feel happier or angrier via your posts?
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
#Dickbot
What does that mean?
I assume it means that as he disagrees with your views you must therefore be a dick, which probably says more about him, or maybe it is something you have said to him previously?
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
#Dickbot
What does that mean?
I assume it means that as he disagrees with your views you must therefore be a dick, which probably says more about him, or maybe it is something you have said to him previously?
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
FOM is not quite the same as immigration but in any case no-one in power actually wants to reduce immigration, so any such voters will be disappointed.
"Boris Johnson has called on Theresa May to “channel the spirit of Moses” and urge the EU to “let her people go” as he advocated for a no-deal Brexit."
Wasn't the exodus followed by 40 years in the wilderness?
Yes, but only as a punishment because the Israelites got cold feet at the prospect of actually entering the Promised Land. Still seems apt.
Mr. Foremain, I'd be wary of taking the internet and its assorted denizens as necessarily indicative of the general population. Often, lunatics and idiots seem to get the most notice taken of them.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
It's a poll of people who watch channel 5 out of choice.
I'm surprised bananas aren't on there somewhere...
Here's an interesting question for obsessive users of social media, (not referring to PBers, talking generally). Since you started using social media obsessively, have you become a happier or an angrier person? Also, have you most likely caused other people to feel happier or angrier via your posts?
Here's an interesting question for obsessive users of social media, (not referring to PBers, talking generally). Since you started using social media obsessively, have you become a happier or an angrier person? Also, have you most likely caused other people to feel happier or angrier via your posts?
How would you know? How could you measure it objectively?
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
It's a poll of people who watch channel 5 out of choice.
I'm surprised bananas aren't on there somewhere...
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
Immigration was clearly a big factor but there has been 40 years of insidious EU-baiting by most of the press - that has inevitably got under people's skin and a lot of people are simply think the EU is a 'bad thing'.
I think it's one reason why the younger generations are more pro-EU (less anti-EU if you like)... Many don't read the papers at all.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No it wasnt.
It was an issue for some, it was not an issue for others. All by definition is then wrong.
Mr. Foremain, I'd be wary of taking the internet and its assorted denizens as necessarily indicative of the general population. Often, lunatics and idiots seem to get the most notice taken of them.
The problem is, Mr Dancer, most of the pro-leave people I see on the TV and those few that I know socially also tend to be of the divisive "screw you we won" mentality. So it isn't just t'internet
Biggest driver for sure - as was accepted by everyone at the time. It's a rewrite of history to suggest otherwise.
Which is why talk of TM being unreasonable with her 'red line' of an end to FOM is the purest hogwash. That particular condition was not optional if one was to pay any regard whatsoever to the true (albeit sadly xenophobic) spirit of the Referendum.
Here's an interesting question for obsessive users of social media, (not referring to PBers, talking generally). Since you started using social media obsessively, have you become a happier or an angrier person? Also, have you most likely caused other people to feel happier or angrier via your posts?
How would you know? How could you measure it objectively?
How would you know how you feel? Well if you don't know, nobody does.
Responses like that will fuel the ScottBot conspiracists, pal!
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No it wasnt.
It was an issue for some, it was not an issue for others. All by definition is then wrong.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
Immigration was clearly a big factor but there has been 40 years of insidious EU-baiting by most of the press - that has inevitably got under people's skin and a lot of people are simply think the EU is a 'bad thing'.
I think it's one reason why the younger generations are more pro-EU (less anti-EU if you like)... Many don't read the papers at all.
Interesting observation. Could well have some basis.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
If they don’t like her she will lose her seat.
Only if she joins TIG
My guess is that she is one of the small number of MPs who has a large personal vote. But she’d certainly struggle to hold on if she did leave Labour. I expect all the TIG MPs to lose their seats except, perhaps, Allen, Wollaston and Gapes.
Yes, and like others I'm bearish on Gapes.
Allen and Wollaston I expect will end up joining the Lib Dems after the next election. A gang of two would be a very lonely place to be.
Biggest driver for sure - as was accepted by everyone at the time. It's a rewrite of history to suggest otherwise.
Which is why talk of TM being unreasonable with her 'red line' of an end to FOM is the purest hogwash. That particular condition was not optional if one was to pay any regard whatsoever to the true (albeit sadly xenophobic) spirit of the Referendum.
I agree it was the biggest driver, but I don't think she had to make it a red line. She should have just done whatever she liked, and at the next GE (which would probably have been very soon after such a deal) we could have voted for parties that offered a harder or softer line on FOM, and I don't think either side could have complained with the result.
REF2 in 2019 can be laid at 3.4 on Betfair - a 30% chance.
I've made good money over the last few months laying this whenever it goes short and closing out when it goes back to where it should be - quite long, a 20% chance at best - and I am very happy to do so again at 3.4.
Rationale: It cannot happen under a Tory PM since it would risk destroying the party. Therefore it can only happen under a Labour PM. To get a Labour PM you need 3 things, (i) a GE pre Brexit, (ii) REF2 in the Labour manifesto, (iii) Labour to win.
If all of those things happen (in themselves considerably less than a 30% cumulative probability) you get REF2 but it could easily be 2020 before it takes place, bearing in mind the wrangling over the aformat and that Labour would want to first negotiate a different (softer) deal.
Sorry to quibble, especially as you are making money out of it, and kindly helping others with your tip. But. Surely, the following is possible too, certainly non zero. We leave. The process goes badly, the government is shown to have been negligent in a number of key areas. The pro- EU movement continues and grows. Labour finally comes out for ref 2 and leads the polls handily. A handful more Tories move to TIG, meaning no majority. Government accepts ref as an alternative to VONC and probable Corbyn led government. A lot there, but not zero chance.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
If they don’t like her she will lose her seat.
Only if she joins TIG
My guess is that she is one of the small number of MPs who has a large personal vote. But she’d certainly struggle to hold on if she did leave Labour. I expect all the TIG MPs to lose their seats except, perhaps, Allen, Wollaston and Gapes.
Yes, and like others I'm bearish on Gapes.
Allen and Wollaston I expect will end up joining the Lib Dems after the next election. A gang of two would be a very lonely place to be.
Yep, sounds like I got Gapes wrong.
One of the reasons we won't have EP elections is that they will be a big boost to TIG, just as they were to UKIP.
May's policy reminds me of those beginners' computer programs back in the 80's
10 TABLE Meaningful Vote on the WA 20 REMOVE Meaningful Vote due to lack of support 30 GOTO 10
Theresa May has at least two other loops:
while (true) do 1) schedule important statement for later that day 2) arrive half an hour late 3) say nothing done
for (ever) do a: invite opponents to meetings (or EU summits) b: tell them what you've been telling everyone for months c: don't listen, answer questions or engage in debate done
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
It's a poll of people who watch channel 5 out of choice.
I'm surprised bananas aren't on there somewhere...
On topic, I already have a very nice green number against Our Pete for both the nomination and the Presidency, at much longer odds than those currently available, so many thanks to those who tipped him previously.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No it wasnt.
It was an issue for some, it was not an issue for others. All by definition is then wrong.
yeah. All is wrong. But only by a rounding error.
Had it just been immigration I for one would have voted Remain and I suspect there are at least 2% like me on that.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
Britain loves Remain crisps. Hurrah!
How do you work that out? Two of the top three are from the Good'ol US of A (Fritolay and P&G) and the third is owned by PepsiCo.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
Britain loves Remain crisps. Hurrah!
How do you work that out? Two of the top three are from the Good'ol US of A (Fritolay and P&G) and the third is owned by PepsiCo.
Full of yummy growth hormones and chlorine, then. Leaver crisps.
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
If they don’t like her she will lose her seat.
Only if she joins TIG
My guess is that she is one of the small number of MPs who has a large personal vote. But she’d certainly struggle to hold on if she did leave Labour. I expect all the TIG MPs to lose their seats except, perhaps, Allen, Wollaston and Gapes.
Yes, and like others I'm bearish on Gapes.
Allen and Wollaston I expect will end up joining the Lib Dems after the next election. A gang of two would be a very lonely place to be.
Yep, sounds like I got Gapes wrong.
One of the reasons we won't have EP elections is that they will be a big boost to TIG, just as they were to UKIP.
I doubt TIG will fight the European elections. They have no membership or party structure and they would undermine the Lib Dems, with whom they presumably want to ally in future. The EP election is regional party lists and so there is no scope for targeting individual seats.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
Britain loves Remain crisps. Hurrah!
How do you work that out? Two of the top three are from the Good'ol US of A (Fritolay and P&G) and the third is owned by PepsiCo.
Gary Lineker reference for one I guess. How they get into a God tier is beyond me, they're generic crap. Should be swapped with McCoys at least.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
Britain loves Remain crisps. Hurrah!
How do you work that out? Two of the top three are from the Good'ol US of A (Fritolay and P&G) and the third is owned by PepsiCo.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No it wasnt.
It was an issue for some, it was not an issue for others. All by definition is then wrong.
yeah. All is wrong. But only by a rounding error.
like the approach
so using rounding 100% of theUK population voted to Leave and nobody wants to remain
How would you know how you feel? Well if you don't know, nobody does.
Responses like that will fuel the ScottBot conspiracists, pal!
Spectacularly missed the point. Upgrade your code...
I know how I feel now, but I can't objectively claim I am more or less angry than I was 5 years ago. And nor can anyone else.
I get angry about different stuff. I am occasionally angry about Brexit. I wasn't 5 years ago...
That last time I recall shouting and swearing in anger a colleague had put a very heavy box somewhere I didn't want it. I don't do that so much anymore.
Biggest driver for sure - as was accepted by everyone at the time. It's a rewrite of history to suggest otherwise.
Which is why talk of TM being unreasonable with her 'red line' of an end to FOM is the purest hogwash. That particular condition was not optional if one was to pay any regard whatsoever to the true (albeit sadly xenophobic) spirit of the Referendum.
I agree it was the biggest driver, but I don't think she had to make it a red line. She should have just done whatever she liked, and at the next GE (which would probably have been very soon after such a deal) we could have voted for parties that offered a harder or softer line on FOM, and I don't think either side could have complained with the result.
I have some worries about WHAT Immigration was the driver. And where. IIRC there's some evidence that in some areas the driver was EU immigrants, in others BAME
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
I'm not sure 2 is true at all. From my twitter feed it seems to have coursed its way through the previously Tory-voting professional classes to an astonishing degree. People who I would not have imagined signing it have been touting it enthusiastically.
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
How would you know how you feel? Well if you don't know, nobody does.
Responses like that will fuel the ScottBot conspiracists, pal!
Spectacularly missed the point. Upgrade your code...
I know how I feel now, but I can't objectively claim I am more or less angry than I was 5 years ago. And nor can anyone else.
I get angry about different stuff. I am occasionally angry about Brexit. I wasn't 5 years ago...
That last time I recall shouting and swearing in anger a colleague had put a very heavy box somewhere I didn't want it. I don't do that so much anymore.
Am I more or less angry?
How the fuck should I know?
You just need to establish how angry you were on 23/6/16, and be that angry for ever. Because democracy.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No. It was the second most important factor in the Leave vote.
Biggest driver for sure - as was accepted by everyone at the time. It's a rewrite of history to suggest otherwise.
Which is why talk of TM being unreasonable with her 'red line' of an end to FOM is the purest hogwash. That particular condition was not optional if one was to pay any regard whatsoever to the true (albeit sadly xenophobic) spirit of the Referendum.
I agree it was the biggest driver, but I don't think she had to make it a red line. She should have just done whatever she liked, and at the next GE (which would probably have been very soon after such a deal) we could have voted for parties that offered a harder or softer line on FOM, and I don't think either side could have complained with the result.
She went straight to the sharpest, leading edge of Leave, because of her own formative experience at the Home Office, and then claimed she was attempting a deal to unite the country.
I think what you have in Theresa May is an unsustainable collision of her idea that tory unity represents the truest British unity, nurtured since her late-adolescent days in Oxfordshire when, in her world, the Tory party and her mother was Britain, with a developing personal conviction against immigration. This has meant even her very limited understanding of uniting the country has been compromised by lying, and the result is an incoherent and catastrophic mess.
My take is that, once Leave won the referendum, whoever was PM should have done a deal with the EU and that was that. Parliament should not have had any say on it. Our relationship with the EU will change from govt to govt as our relationships with other countries do. Giving MPs the chance to filibuster the process was ultimately too tempting for them.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
The problem with May's deal is that there is no unilateral exit from it. May is binding her successors which defeats the entire point.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
I guess so, but my belief is that, if May's deal takes us out of FOM, the majority of Leave voters wouldn't really care if we are bound by the rest of it. If it hadn't been for mass immigration we wouldnt have had the rise of UKIP leading to a manifesto commitment to a referendum that facilitated a Leave victory. I dont think most people care that much about most the rest of it, it's quite a niche thing.
Whisper that on here, Sam. There is a phalanx of Leavers who will tell you the vote had nothing to do with immigration.
For the way they cast their vote, sure. No need to whisper.
okay.
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
No it wasnt.
It was an issue for some, it was not an issue for others. All by definition is then wrong.
yeah. All is wrong. But only by a rounding error.
like the approach
so using rounding 100% of theUK population voted to Leave and nobody wants to remain
really cant see what all the fuss is about :-)
Also using rounding: 0% voted Leave, 0% voted Remain, and 0% failed to vote either way.
We should probably just let MPs decide, since nobody else cared enough to express an opinion. Or to not express an opinion.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
Britain loves Remain crisps. Hurrah!
How do you work that out? Two of the top three are from the Good'ol US of A (Fritolay and P&G) and the third is owned by PepsiCo.
Walkers = Gazza = Remain
Hurrah!
Multi-millionaire tax avoider Lineker, ah yes, true man of the people....
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
It's a poll of people who watch channel 5 out of choice.
I'm surprised bananas aren't on there somewhere...
Ms Phillips is doing what I would expect her to do, as an 'old-fashioned', honourable constituency MP; use the specialist knowledge she has gained as an MP to represent the best interests of her constituents, regardless of whether it is what they, from time to time, agree with.
I am sure she will take the opportunity to tell them that not only are they wrong in what they think but in fact they don't think that at all.
Aren't we all lucky to have MPs to let us know what we really want and think.
Well, as we aren't allowed to take the rather obvious step of *asking* people what they want and think because {bad mannered hand wavy shoutiness}, secondary sources like Ms Phillips are the best we can do.
Nope. We already asked them. Once we have enacted that first instruction we can ask them again. Its called democracy.
So we know what they thought three years ago; an infallible guide to what they want and think now.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
#Dickbot
What does that mean?
I assumed he was self-identifying.
Fortunately, PB is not a judgmental place, and welcomes all sorts.
Comments
What I find very difficult to accept however is that a referendum is not democratic. Just as I disagree with those who criticised Cam for promising the first one, asking the people (the very same people you asked last time) can never be undemocratic.
On your logic (which I do have sympathy for when it comes to a second EURef) we could not have another GE before each and every manifesto commitment had been enacted by the government. Which is patently absurd.
I am repeating myself from when I was posting in 2017; If May's deal was exactly the same as Cameron's that we would have had if Remain had won, that would have done for now. We just needed to get out, then at the next GE we could vote for a party whose manifesto offered our preferred future relationship with the EU.
That's a very good thread and makes a lot of sense. Mark Scott's response about the English Civil War seems apt too. Thanks for the link.
Anfd you can't make things true by repeating them. The idea that the public is capable of making up its mind but incapable of changing it is antidemocratic nonsense, which is why you never produce a precedent or rationale for it. You just keep saying it.
Of all of them, Gove appears recently to recognise much of this, but he was hardly outspoken from the beginning.
Quite clearly if people have changed their mind (which is an 'if'), it makes no sense to press ahead with something that is no longer wanted.
"History repeats itself. An observation on the English Civil War, by historian Ronald Hutton:
"There were always, indeed, two civil wars in progress during its duration: that between the contending parties, and that between those who wished to fight it and the bulk of the population, who had never desired it, barely understood it, and only wanted to get through it with the minimum of damage to all that they held dear."
Wasn't the exodus followed by 40 years in the wilderness?
In the referendum we voted for a particular policy. Until such times as that policy is enacted we have not fulfilled the contract. As I keep repeating (ad nauseum I know) democracy is not just about asking a question, it is about abiding by the answer.
Once we have left then it would clearly be ridiculous to refuse another referendum if that is what is wanted. And if Remain won then we would be duty bound to rejoin the EU under whatever conditions they ask before asking the public again.
That isn't her way, of course, so she simply plays for time and hopes for the best. And, of course, being mistrusted as a supposed 'remainer' she had to prove her worth to her new gang by demonstrating the zeal of the convert.
The whole premise of taking back control is that we elect Parliament and that no Parliament binds its successors but the EU - and now May's deal - seek to do precisely that. An popular PM can pass an unpopular deal [Lisbon/Backstop] without a mandate and then we remain stuck with it.
10 TABLE Meaningful Vote on the WA
20 REMOVE Meaningful Vote due to lack of support
30 GOTO 10
Unless every one of those signatories is going to vote next time - but did not vote last time - then it is irrelevant.
If someone voted for the opposition last time, then votes for the opposition next time then that is a swing of 0.0 votes against the majority.
https://twitter.com/channel5_tv/status/1109907737519882240
Truly, we live in the end of days.
And I LOVE Salt n'Shake - reminds me of the treat we got as a child with the little blue twist of salt that always found its way to the bottom of the bag....
It's just that Leave has more wackos.
Had the second most working class profile for any Tory seat (after Gosport).
And of course your "as long as they take their seat in parliament" point counters any criticism of remain-inclined MPs in Leave constituencies.
1. You don't have to eligible to vote to sign the petition - simply a UK resident
2. The vast majority of those signing it will be voters for non-Conservative parties already.
https://www.seabrookcrisps.com/
while (true)
do
1) schedule important statement for later that day
2) arrive half an hour late
3) say nothing
done
for (ever)
do
a: invite opponents to meetings (or EU summits)
b: tell them what you've been telling everyone for months
c: don't listen, answer questions or engage in debate
done
THE LEAVE VOTE WAS ALL ABOUT IMMIGRATION.
REF2 in 2019 can be laid at 3.4 on Betfair - a 30% chance.
I've made good money over the last few months laying this whenever it goes short and closing out when it goes back to where it should be - quite long, a 20% chance at best - and I am very happy to do so again at 3.4.
Rationale: It cannot happen under a Tory PM since it would risk destroying the party. Therefore it can only happen under a Labour PM. To get a Labour PM you need 3 things, (i) a GE pre Brexit, (ii) REF2 in the Labour manifesto, (iii) Labour to win.
If all of those things happen (in themselves considerably less than a 30% cumulative probability) you get REF2 but it could easily be 2020 before it takes place, bearing in mind the wrangling over the format and that Labour would want to first negotiate a different (softer) deal.
Here's an interesting question for obsessive users of social media, (not referring to PBers, talking generally). Since you started using social media obsessively, have you become a happier or an angrier person? Also, have you most likely caused other people to feel happier or angrier via your posts?
I'm surprised bananas aren't on there somewhere...
I think it's one reason why the younger generations are more pro-EU (less anti-EU if you like)... Many don't read the papers at all.
It was an issue for some, it was not an issue for others. All by definition is then wrong.
Which is why talk of TM being unreasonable with her 'red line' of an end to FOM is the purest hogwash. That particular condition was not optional if one was to pay any regard whatsoever to the true (albeit sadly xenophobic) spirit of the Referendum.
Responses like that will fuel the ScottBot conspiracists, pal!
Allen and Wollaston I expect will end up joining the Lib Dems after the next election. A gang of two would be a very lonely place to be.
But. Surely, the following is possible too, certainly non zero.
We leave. The process goes badly, the government is shown to have been negligent in a number of key areas. The pro- EU movement continues and grows. Labour finally comes out for ref 2 and leads the polls handily. A handful more Tories move to TIG, meaning no majority.
Government accepts ref as an alternative to VONC and probable Corbyn led government.
A lot there, but not zero chance.
One of the reasons we won't have EP elections is that they will be a big boost to TIG, just as they were to UKIP.
While (true)
Do
1) SAY nothing has changed
Done
Hurrah!
so using rounding 100% of theUK population voted to Leave and nobody wants to remain
really cant see what all the fuss is about :-)
I know how I feel now, but I can't objectively claim I am more or less angry than I was 5 years ago. And nor can anyone else.
I get angry about different stuff. I am occasionally angry about Brexit. I wasn't 5 years ago...
That last time I recall shouting and swearing in anger a colleague had put a very heavy box somewhere I didn't want it. I don't do that so much anymore.
Am I more or less angry?
How the fuck should I know?
https://www.twitter.com/robmanuel/status/1110142913802051585
For those that have me pegged as an extreme Remainer, I should point out that I would not sign this petition on principle.
I was amused to see Mark Field come out as being open to revocation. He's clearly noticed that more people in his constituency have signed the petition than voted for him last time.
But it was an important factor.
I think what you have in Theresa May is an unsustainable collision of her idea that tory unity represents the truest British unity, nurtured since her late-adolescent days in Oxfordshire when, in her world, the Tory party and her mother was Britain, with a developing personal conviction against immigration. This has meant even her very limited understanding of uniting the country has been compromised by lying, and the result is an incoherent and catastrophic mess.
We should probably just let MPs decide, since nobody else cared enough to express an opinion. Or to not express an opinion.
Multi-millionaire tax avoider Lineker, ah yes, true man of the people....
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/09/revealed-scheme-gary-lineker-tax-barbados-home
No wonder he's in favour of Remain.
Fortunately, PB is not a judgmental place, and welcomes all sorts.