The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
Nah, there's no equivalent. Maybe Red in SE8's posts
Oh btw you may have to explain your response to two posters. But i understood.
While we’re looking for responses. We are still awaiting your clarification from page 191 (I think) of the thread where your logic proclaimed it such a great idea for the ROI to align with the U.K. because of the large percentage of trade it does with the U.K. but bizarrely you don’t come to the same conclusion for the U.K. with the EU.
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We come from far too different starting points to ever agree on this and we clearly have difficulty in understanding the thinking behind our respective comments.
I don't think that my comments come from a forelock tugging mentality. I have always though of myself as rather a contrarian rebel and would be appalled if I found myself heading the way you suggest.
You're not going to Bristol rovers away by any chance? We could meet up for a chat. You will see that I don't have two heads.
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. - far too generic. Anyway, who says we cannot say anything negative ... or positive for that matter ... we live in a democracy to the best of my knowledge.
No problem saying anything negative about how our political 'masters' are handling Brexit - I do it all the time.
Deferential - if you knew me, you would know that is far from the actual circumstances.
Right wing - mentioned it before, doesn't describe me.
Regarding a possible referendum, my words from last year: "The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity."
Nah, there's no equivalent. Maybe Red in SE8's posts
Oh btw you may have to explain your response to two posters. But i understood.
While we’re looking for responses. We are still awaiting your clarification from page 191 (I think) of the thread where your logic proclaimed it such a great idea for the ROI to align with the U.K. because of the large percentage of trade it does with the U.K. but bizarrely you don’t come to the same conclusion for the U.K. with the EU.
Nah, there's no equivalent. Maybe Red in SE8's posts
Oh btw you may have to explain your response to two posters. But i understood.
While we’re looking for responses. We are still awaiting your clarification from page 191 (I think) of the thread where your logic proclaimed it such a great idea for the ROI to align with the U.K. because of the large percentage of trade it does with the U.K. but bizarrely you don’t come to the same conclusion for the U.K. with the EU.
Just saying
I am still awaiting when you will stick to what you asked me privately here. I have the messages still.
So have I. I’ll post them and show you to be the prick you really are.
Hi Chippy, Done this off forum. Think we need to bury the hatchet. Both Charlton fans and shouldn’t really let the shitty Brexit stuff overshadow that. As far as I’m concerned we agree to disagree. I’m sorry that we have gotten along so badly just recently. Anyway I’ve said my piece and really do mean that I’d happily buy you a pint at some point. Hopefully we can celebrate new owners soon. Best Wishes Dave
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We come from far too different starting points to ever agree on this and we clearly have difficulty in understanding the thinking behind our respective comments.
I don't think that my comments come from a forelock tugging mentality. I have always though of myself as rather a contrarian rebel and would be appalled if I found myself heading the way you suggest.
You're not going to Bristol rovers away by any chance? We could meet up for a chat. You will see that I don't have two heads.
Hi Tubs. Yes I know, Brexit makes us take against fellow Charlton fans with whom we would otherwise get along great. See above for other examples. I can see you're a decent person with decent hopes and expectations. I am not going to Bristol Rovers, frankly after watching today on the stream i am not sure I am going again this season, but I'll happily buy you a beer if our paths cross. You ever been to Prague?
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. - far too generic. Anyway, who says we cannot say anything negative ... or positive for that matter ... we live in a democracy to the best of my knowledge.
No problem saying anything negative about how our political 'masters' are handling Brexit - I do it all the time.
Deferential - if you knew me, you would know that is far from the actual circumstances.
Right wing - mentioned it before, doesn't describe me.
Regarding a possible referendum, my words from last year: "The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity."
What happens if someone with actual influence over the way this is being handled says anything negative about how our political masters are handlng Brexit...
There's a seemingly endless well of shitty headlines designed to put pressure on anyone who dares to question our approach to negotiations.
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
I agree! Anybody opposing the government can be vilified as a friend of the EU27 or against the "will of the people". Many have posted on here their opposition to a second referendum although not citing the angle above that it would distort the negotiation.
What Blair has done is list the various binary questions which need answers. It appears that the Customs Union is the simplest and might be addressed via an amendment in Parliament over the next month?
Whisper it quietly but some observers suggest that the movement behind Brexit is already defeated! The Alt-right cannot continue in office without the complicity of the centre right. Anna Soubry and others might have 20 colleagues to support them and this is enough to steer the UK out of this mess.
We only arrived here because of a combination of a BoJo leadership play, the tenacity of Farage and others and a very complex play by Corbyn and McDonnell.
The Labour front bench wanted a blue on blue fight all along. Elements of Blair's article support the view that this is what we will see in 2018.
M.Barnier and Corbyn both have plenty of time to wait. So where I agree with you is that the likes of Blair should not be throwing out lifebelts such as a second referendum to May. For soon she might be desperate enough to grasp that opportunity to push the responsibilty onto the voters.
Neoliberals might think it democratic and feel confident that they will win. I suspect they have no understanding of the forces unleashed by a second vote. The first one will look like a picnic!
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We did not have a referendum because opinion polls said Leave would win. So why should we have one because they say Remain would win? The second referendum idea is too blatantly an attempt to deny the result of the first referendum to be called democratic. And if there were another referendum and Remain won, should we have another if the polls show Leave is in the lead a year later?
After all, whatever May comes up with will be a deal negotiated by a Remain PM and a Remain Cabinet. It will not be the best result we could have got because they did not wish to leave in the first place and are desperate to stay.
Now tell me which bit of this is conspiracy theory?
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We come from far too different starting points to ever agree on this and we clearly have difficulty in understanding the thinking behind our respective comments.
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We come from far too different starting points to ever agree on this and we clearly have difficulty in understanding the thinking behind our respective comments.
I don't think that my comments come from a forelock tugging mentality. I have always though of myself as rather a contrarian rebel and would be appalled if I found myself heading the way you suggest.
You're not going to Bristol rovers away by any chance? We could meet up for a chat. You will see that I don't have two heads.
Hi Tubs. Yes I know, Brexit makes us take against fellow Charlton fans with whom we would otherwise get along great. See above for other examples. I can see you're a decent person with decent hopes and expectations. I am not going to Bristol Rovers, frankly after watching today on the stream i am not sure I am going again this season, but I'll happily buy you a beer if our paths cross. You ever been to Prague?
I have, just the one all too brief visit by motorbike. Stayed in ceski krumlov (sp?)though. Great place if you not been.
The argument against a second referendum (and I agree with it) is where do you stop? There is an almost unarguable application of logic by those that support brexit that it would be patently, even logically absurd to have another referendum which is well expressed by @Southbank above. The bit that gets to me is the reluctance to apply the same kind of stark reasoning and logic to other matters, and of course the Irish border is the one that concerns me. Those supporting brexit warn against a form of doublethink in regard to another referendum, but then plunge into doublethink that says you can have both an open border but have restrictions that close it at the same time. If brexiters say you can't have another referendum for obvious reasons, why don't they say you can't have an open yet closed border for obvious reasons too?
There is no need for a 2nd referendum. May should hold up her hands and say we cannot negotiate an exit that can improve the economy in my lifetime. The vote was non-binding. Ditch it.
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We did not have a referendum because opinion polls said Leave would win. So why should we have one because they say Remain would win? The second referendum idea is too blatantly an attempt to deny the result of the first referendum to be called democratic. And if there were another referendum and Remain won, should we have another if the polls show Leave is in the lead a year later?
After all, whatever May comes up with will be a deal negotiated by a Remain PM and a Remain Cabinet. It will not be the best result we could have got because they did not wish to leave in the first place and are desperate to stay.
Now tell me which bit of this is conspiracy theory?
So what you're saying is; May fought a court case against parliamentary authority and convention, invoked Article 50 by any measure well before we were ready, announced her red lines that have hamstrung negotiations and our approach since and called an election in order to ensure a parliamentary majority big enough to push through any Brexit the Tories fancied, yet she doesn't really want to Leave?
Yeah no conspiracy theory at work in that at all...
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We did not have a referendum because opinion polls said Leave would win. So why should we have one because they say Remain would win? The second referendum idea is too blatantly an attempt to deny the result of the first referendum to be called democratic. And if there were another referendum and Remain won, should we have another if the polls show Leave is in the lead a year later?
After all, whatever May comes up with will be a deal negotiated by a Remain PM and a Remain Cabinet. It will not be the best result we could have got because they did not wish to leave in the first place and are desperate to stay.
Now tell me which bit of this is conspiracy theory?
So what you're saying is; May fought a court case against parliamentary authority and convention, invoked Article 50 by any measure well before we were ready, announced her red lines that have hamstrung negotiations and our approach since and called an election in order to ensure a parliamentary majority big enough to push through any Brexit the Tories fancied, yet she doesn't really want to Leave?
Yeah no conspiracy theory at work in that at all...
She voted Remain and has refused to say she would not vote Remain again when asked. That is pretty conclusive. She has caved in and crossed her own supposed red lines every time the EU has upped the ante and she will do so again in the coming months. Her heart is not in it and neither is it for the majority in the Cabinet, the Tory parliamentary Party as a whole and the House of Commons. The majority who voted Leave do not have political representation to reflect their weight in society. Whatever the final Brexit outcome this political disjuncture will have long term consequences.
The difference in that to the unclarity by both the current leaders is rather staggering. I'm sure the response will be "Iraq bla bla bla" but it's a good read.
There are half facts that misrepresent the reality and claims that are simply not true because the report is representing the 'elite'. Yup them again.
The potentially legitimate argument for another referendum fails to address the effect the knowledge of a commitment to this would have on current talks with the EU. I have no doubt that this is the reason for publicly calling for it, undermine the talks and force us all to vote to stay in.
Anyone reading this objectively would surely acknowledge this. I don't expect too many people on here to agree with me, but then I'm used to that☺.
Your post reinforces my theory that there would be a very high correlation between voting Brexit and believing conspiracy theories. As always there is a boring common sense alternative to a conspiracy theory.
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
We did not have a referendum because opinion polls said Leave would win. So why should we have one because they say Remain would win? The second referendum idea is too blatantly an attempt to deny the result of the first referendum to be called democratic. And if there were another referendum and Remain won, should we have another if the polls show Leave is in the lead a year later?
After all, whatever May comes up with will be a deal negotiated by a Remain PM and a Remain Cabinet. It will not be the best result we could have got because they did not wish to leave in the first place and are desperate to stay.
Now tell me which bit of this is conspiracy theory?
So what you're saying is; May fought a court case against parliamentary authority and convention, invoked Article 50 by any measure well before we were ready, announced her red lines that have hamstrung negotiations and our approach since and called an election in order to ensure a parliamentary majority big enough to push through any Brexit the Tories fancied, yet she doesn't really want to Leave?
Yeah no conspiracy theory at work in that at all...
She voted Remain and has refused to say she would not vote Remain again when asked. That is pretty conclusive. She has caved in and crossed her own supposed red lines every time the EU has upped the ante and she will do so again in the coming months. Her heart is not in it and neither is it for the majority in the Cabinet, the Tory parliamentary Party as a whole and the House of Commons. The majority who voted Leave do not have political representation to reflect their weight in society. Whatever the final Brexit outcome this political disjuncture will have long term consequences.
That the majority who voted leave do not have political representation, if true should not phase brexiters, because they tell us they knew what they were voting for, including how it would happen and who the main players would be.
Labour knows that it has to align with the Tory remainers on Europe. Not as difficult as that may sound as it isn't about having a policy of staying in but ensuring the Brexit is soft - despite what the press may say - they are not far apart in this area. They have been pushed too far by the Brexiters and the reaction is imminent. That doesn't mean we will stay in - an election can throw everything upin the air and everybody knows that. It wont be part of the campaign, but if there is a clear pro -Europe mandate in the election it will be far easier to get a public vote on any agreement which is the remainer's last hope.
There is a genuine view within some parts of the Tory party that any damage Corbyn may cause can be fixed whereas the damage leaving the EU will cause will last generations. That is a very dangerous view if you are the government. The problem is Brexiters have got greedy. They want everything at once and it should have been enough to leave and work from there. They are alienating their fellow Tories who feel differently.
There will be an election by the end of the Spring and that will ultimately decide our future on Europe.
I still can’t see it. Polls and electorate are too volatile and the Tories could very easily lose. Parties in power don’t elect to lose power. I’m also not sure that either of the two parties are so far apart as to make the future of Brexit so black or white based on the outcome.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a seismic shift in Labour policy that gives voters a real and clear alternative to what is currently being offered by the Tories.
There are enough Tories who just can't stomach the direction we are going on Europe. It is bigger than winning or losing an election for them. Elections will continue to be won and lost in the future, but we will be stuck with a hard Brexit!
There are enough Tories who just can't stomach the direction we are going on Europe. It is bigger than winning or losing an election for them. Elections will continue to be won and lost in the future, but we will be stuck with a hard Brexit!
The vote on amendment five will be very interesting. We know the Tory “traitors” will get support from the other side of the house in enough numbers to make the vote extremely close unless some sort of fudge is agreed to stave off any problem in the vote which of course will happen. We know that will happen because a vote even if won by a tiny majority of perhaps two or three could result in May falling. Once this vote is out of the way we will trundle or stumble towards the Brexit door.
There will be an election by the end of the Spring and that will ultimately decide our future on Europe.
I still can’t see it. Polls and electorate are too volatile and the Tories could very easily lose. Parties in power don’t elect to lose power. I’m also not sure that either of the two parties are so far apart as to make the future of Brexit so black or white based on the outcome.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a seismic shift in Labour policy that gives voters a real and clear alternative to what is currently being offered by the Tories.
In normal circumstances I would absolutely agree - they hang on to power by their fingernails if necessary. But these are not normal circumstances and if there is a snap election, perhaps forced by a vote of no confidence, a Conservative leadership challenge or May just losing the plot, then if ever there was an election to want to lose that will be it.
There will be an election by the end of the Spring and that will ultimately decide our future on Europe.
I still can’t see it. Polls and electorate are too volatile and the Tories could very easily lose. Parties in power don’t elect to lose power. I’m also not sure that either of the two parties are so far apart as to make the future of Brexit so black or white based on the outcome.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a seismic shift in Labour policy that gives voters a real and clear alternative to what is currently being offered by the Tories.
Does it really need to be a seismic shift or simply an evolution into a Norway + CU stance? It appears that Labour are about to announce their commitment to a Customs Union in time for a vote on the issue.
At the same time May is looking to make a speech talking of divergence in certain areas over time. Commentators suggest that the EU27 see this as yet another cake proposition. And this will result in a Canada deal offer from the EU.
So over a period of weeks or months we might see a Blue Party proposition of Canada vs the Red Party supporting Norway.
As posted before the Norway option has the support of a large part of the electorate compared to the Alt-right with 20-30% supporting a leave everything approach.
Please note that the Labour leadership stance on the single market is less clear and is a far more complex proposition than a simple binary question around the Customs Union. For it involves the four freedoms and the ECJ.
Then again the single market does support passporting for financial services and access to the EU which might equate to an additional 0.5% growth of GDP every year.
Let us be very clear that the Brexit media are going to get very noisy when they realise that their revolution is failing. And they will be looking for scapegoats for their defeat. And what they will call the defeat of "the will of the people".
So Labour policy shifts will be designed to maintain support and standing in the polls. This as well as matching the evolution of the discussions with the EU27.
What the above assumes is that those 30% who want to abort the process altogether will align with Starmer, Corbyn and McDonnell. That is perhaps a separate discussion to be addressed once we have clarity?
There will be an election by the end of the Spring and that will ultimately decide our future on Europe.
I still can’t see it. Polls and electorate are too volatile and the Tories could very easily lose. Parties in power don’t elect to lose power. I’m also not sure that either of the two parties are so far apart as to make the future of Brexit so black or white based on the outcome.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a seismic shift in Labour policy that gives voters a real and clear alternative to what is currently being offered by the Tories.
Does it really need to be a seismic shift or simply an evolution into a Norway + CU stance? It appears that Labour are about to announce their commitment to a Customs Union in time for a vote on the issue.
At the same time May is looking to make a speech talking of divergence in certain areas over time. Commentators suggest that the EU27 see this as yet another cake proposition. And this will result in a Canada deal offer from the EU.
So over a period of weeks or months we might see a Blue Party proposition of Canada vs the Red Party supporting Norway.
As posted before the Norway option has the support of a large part of the electorate compared to the Alt-right with 20-30% supporting a leave everything approach.
Please note that the Labour leadership stance on the single market is less clear and is a far more complex proposition than a simple binary question around the Customs Union. For it involves the four freedoms and the ECJ.
Then again the single market does support passporting for financial services and access to the EU which might equate to an additional 0.5% growth of GDP every year.
Let us be very clear that the Brexit media are going to get very noisy when they realise that their revolution is failing. And they will be looking for scapegoats for their defeat. And what they will call the defeat of "the will of the people".
So Labour policy shifts will be designed to maintain support and standing in the polls. This as well as matching the evolution of the discussions with the EU27.
What the above assumes is that those 30% who want to abort the process altogether will align with Starmer, Corbyn and McDonnell. That is perhaps a separate discussion to be addressed once we have clarity?
Comments in the New Statesman and elsewhere that there maybe a swell of opinion against this in the Labour Party unless it can encompass tariff-free trade (which I have been espousing from day one).
However, real tariff-free trade is, currently, incompatible with CU membership so I will watch this with interest.
There will be an election by the end of the Spring and that will ultimately decide our future on Europe.
I still can’t see it. Polls and electorate are too volatile and the Tories could very easily lose. Parties in power don’t elect to lose power. I’m also not sure that either of the two parties are so far apart as to make the future of Brexit so black or white based on the outcome.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a seismic shift in Labour policy that gives voters a real and clear alternative to what is currently being offered by the Tories.
Does it really need to be a seismic shift or simply an evolution into a Norway + CU stance? It appears that Labour are about to announce their commitment to a Customs Union in time for a vote on the issue.
At the same time May is looking to make a speech talking of divergence in certain areas over time. Commentators suggest that the EU27 see this as yet another cake proposition. And this will result in a Canada deal offer from the EU.
So over a period of weeks or months we might see a Blue Party proposition of Canada vs the Red Party supporting Norway.
As posted before the Norway option has the support of a large part of the electorate compared to the Alt-right with 20-30% supporting a leave everything approach.
Please note that the Labour leadership stance on the single market is less clear and is a far more complex proposition than a simple binary question around the Customs Union. For it involves the four freedoms and the ECJ.
Then again the single market does support passporting for financial services and access to the EU which might equate to an additional 0.5% growth of GDP every year.
Let us be very clear that the Brexit media are going to get very noisy when they realise that their revolution is failing. And they will be looking for scapegoats for their defeat. And what they will call the defeat of "the will of the people".
So Labour policy shifts will be designed to maintain support and standing in the polls. This as well as matching the evolution of the discussions with the EU27.
What the above assumes is that those 30% who want to abort the process altogether will align with Starmer, Corbyn and McDonnell. That is perhaps a separate discussion to be addressed once we have clarity?
Comments in the New Statesman and elsewhere that there maybe a swell of opinion against this in the Labour Party unless it can encompass tariff-free trade (which I have been espousing from day one).
However, real tariff-free trade is, currently, incompatible with CU membership so I will watch this with interest.
The BBC story onthe subject uses the wording "a customs union" rather than "the customs union". It further expands the point, labour believe a new treaty that encompasses the major advantages of the CU can be negotiated. The article seemed to hunt labour were ready to commit to the SM as well.
I think the below article hits the nail on the head.
“How then do we explain this climate of extreme intolerance? I think it’s down to a number of factors. Here are a few of them:
1. Virtue-signalling. This is especially true of the Conservatives who voted Remain. Insecure Tories (i.e. not Jacob Rees-Mogg) are forever on the look-out for issues which demonstrate that far from being selfish reactionary Little Englanders they are at least as modern, open-minded, caring and non-racist as any socialist. Campaigning to stay in the EU, they have persuaded themselves, enables them to tick all the boxes and feel morally superior to those grisly Untermenschen who just don’t care enough about vital, world-changing issue such as the Erasmus student-exchange programme.
2. Visceral snobbery. Obviously one doesn’t want to be too rude about the disgusting, drooling, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from places like Sunderland who voted in their hordes for Brexit. Suffice to say that barely one of them read PPE at Oxford; nor is one likely to break bread with them at the Fourth of June, or bump into any of them in the interval at the latest David Hare premiere.
3. The media bubble. Hardly anyone in TV or newspapers believes in Brexit — and that applies not just to the Guardian and the BBC, but even to many of the right-wing papers that paid lip service to it. As a consequence of this bias, ardent Brexiteers are made to look like crazed outliers rather than the embodiment of the popular will.
4. Thwarted entitlement. The liberal elite who uniformly backed Remain — lawyers, bankers, corporatists, quangocrats, top civil servants, etc — have spent their whole lives ruling the roost and getting their own way. This was their first taste of being rebuffed, all the more painful for being so unexpected. They will never forget this outrage — still less forgive it.”
That will have many remainers on here frothing at the mouth especially with words like elite and phrases such as ‘popular will’. For that reason alone it is more than worth posting it.
But ... in the interest of balance ... only fair I give a view from the New Statesman.
“Brexit secretary, David Davis, has often brushed aside fears that leaving the European Union will be difficult. “There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside,” he said in October 2016.
Other Brexiteers have shown similar hubris. “The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want,” said Michael Gove before the referendum. And in July 2017, Liam Fox claimed that “the free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history”.
How times change. On 20 February, Mr Davis gave a speech that was intended to mock the gloom of other European leaders. Britain would not, he said, be “plunged into a Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction”.
The most recent Mad Max film, starring Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron, featured a citadel full of women held captive for their breast milk, a crazed tyrant hoarding scarce water in a desert, and drug-addicted men strapped to the front of enormous lorries playing glam rock music on improbably large guitars. It is certainly reassuring to hear that whatever course Brexit takes, we can expect a better outcome than this.”
Comments
It becomes more obvious by the day that when voting Brexit the nation had no idea what it would actually mean. Indeed, HM Covt still cannot say. Given that some things are dawning on some people, and as a result opinion polls are shifting moderately but consistently to an anti Brexit position, it would be the most normal thing in the world in a normal democracy to suggest that a second referendum should be held when the terms and conditions have been agreed. That being the case you would need to start talking about this now, simply to have enough time to secure political and citizen agreement in time.
The idea that we should not say this, indeed that we should not say anything negative about Brexit because this would make the work of our masters more difficult, is a classic British deferential right wing stance. Talk of a referendum hardly gives the EU side an incentive to be 'difficult' as you see it, at least no more than the continuing disarray within the British govt. does.
Just saying
I don't think that my comments come from a forelock tugging mentality. I have always though of myself as rather a contrarian rebel and would be appalled if I found myself heading the way you suggest.
You're not going to Bristol rovers away by any chance? We could meet up for a chat. You will see that I don't have two heads.
No problem saying anything negative about how our political 'masters' are handling Brexit - I do it all the time.
Deferential - if you knew me, you would know that is far from the actual circumstances.
Right wing - mentioned it before, doesn't describe me.
Regarding a possible referendum, my words from last year: "The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity."
Hi Chippy,
Done this off forum. Think we need to bury the hatchet. Both Charlton fans and shouldn’t really let the shitty Brexit stuff overshadow that. As far as I’m concerned we agree to disagree. I’m sorry that we have gotten along so badly just recently. Anyway I’ve said my piece and really do mean that I’d happily buy you a pint at some point. Hopefully we can celebrate new owners soon.
Best Wishes
Dave
There's a seemingly endless well of shitty headlines designed to put pressure on anyone who dares to question our approach to negotiations.
Anybody opposing the government can be vilified as a friend of the EU27 or against the "will of the people". Many have posted on here their opposition to a second referendum although not citing the angle above that it would distort the negotiation.
What Blair has done is list the various binary questions which need answers. It appears that the Customs Union is the simplest and might be addressed via an amendment in Parliament over the next month?
Whisper it quietly but some observers suggest that the movement behind Brexit is already defeated! The Alt-right cannot continue in office without the complicity of the centre right. Anna Soubry and others might have 20 colleagues to support them and this is enough to steer the UK out of this mess.
We only arrived here because of a combination of a BoJo leadership play, the tenacity of Farage and others and a very complex play by Corbyn and McDonnell.
The Labour front bench wanted a blue on blue fight all along. Elements of Blair's article support the view that this is what we will see in 2018.
M.Barnier and Corbyn both have plenty of time to wait. So where I agree with you is that the likes of Blair should not be throwing out lifebelts such as a second referendum to May. For soon she might be desperate enough to grasp that opportunity to push the responsibilty onto the voters.
Neoliberals might think it democratic and feel confident that they will win. I suspect they have no understanding of the forces unleashed by a second vote. The first one will look like a picnic!
And if there were another referendum and Remain won, should we have another if the polls show Leave is in the lead a year later?
After all, whatever May comes up with will be a deal negotiated by a Remain PM and a Remain Cabinet. It will not be the best result we could have got because they did not wish to leave in the first place and are desperate to stay.
Now tell me which bit of this is conspiracy theory?
I don't thu I have, just the one all too brief visit by motorbike. Stayed in ceski krumlov (sp?)though. Great place if you not been.
There is an almost unarguable application of logic by those that support brexit that it would be patently, even logically absurd to have another referendum which is well expressed by @Southbank above.
The bit that gets to me is the reluctance to apply the same kind of stark reasoning and logic to other matters, and of course the Irish border is the one that concerns me. Those supporting brexit warn against a form of doublethink in regard to another referendum, but then plunge into doublethink that says you can have both an open border but have restrictions that close it at the same time.
If brexiters say you can't have another referendum for obvious reasons, why don't they say you can't have an open yet closed border for obvious reasons too?
Yeah no conspiracy theory at work in that at all...
The majority who voted Leave do not have political representation to reflect their weight in society. Whatever the final Brexit outcome this political disjuncture will have long term consequences.
There is a genuine view within some parts of the Tory party that any damage Corbyn may cause can be fixed whereas the damage leaving the EU will cause will last generations. That is a very dangerous view if you are the government. The problem is Brexiters have got greedy. They want everything at once and it should have been enough to leave and work from there. They are alienating their fellow Tories who feel differently.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a seismic shift in Labour policy that gives voters a real and clear alternative to what is currently being offered by the Tories.
Oh and Dr Liam Fox was his usual shifty self on the same programme
At the same time May is looking to make a speech talking of divergence in certain areas over time. Commentators suggest that the EU27 see this as yet another cake proposition. And this will result in a Canada deal offer from the EU.
So over a period of weeks or months we might see a Blue Party proposition of Canada vs the Red Party supporting Norway.
As posted before the Norway option has the support of a large part of the electorate compared to the Alt-right with 20-30% supporting a leave everything approach.
Please note that the Labour leadership stance on the single market is less clear and is a far more complex proposition than a simple binary question around the Customs Union. For it involves the four freedoms and the ECJ.
Then again the single market does support passporting for financial services and access to the EU which might equate to an additional 0.5% growth of GDP every year.
Let us be very clear that the Brexit media are going to get very noisy when they realise that their revolution is failing. And they will be looking for scapegoats for their defeat. And what they will call the defeat of "the will of the people".
So Labour policy shifts will be designed to maintain support and standing in the polls. This as well as matching the evolution of the discussions with the EU27.
What the above assumes is that those 30% who want to abort the process altogether will align with Starmer, Corbyn and McDonnell. That is perhaps a separate discussion to be addressed once we have clarity?
However, real tariff-free trade is, currently, incompatible with CU membership so I will watch this with interest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43186005
I think the below article hits the nail on the head.
“How then do we explain this climate of extreme intolerance? I think it’s down to a number of factors. Here are a few of them:
1. Virtue-signalling. This is especially true of the Conservatives who voted Remain. Insecure Tories (i.e. not Jacob Rees-Mogg) are forever on the look-out for issues which demonstrate that far from being selfish reactionary Little Englanders they are at least as modern, open-minded, caring and non-racist as any socialist. Campaigning to stay in the EU, they have persuaded themselves, enables them to tick all the boxes and feel morally superior to those grisly Untermenschen who just don’t care enough about vital, world-changing issue such as the Erasmus student-exchange programme.
2. Visceral snobbery. Obviously one doesn’t want to be too rude about the disgusting, drooling, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals from places like Sunderland who voted in their hordes for Brexit. Suffice to say that barely one of them read PPE at Oxford; nor is one likely to break bread with them at the Fourth of June, or bump into any of them in the interval at the latest David Hare premiere.
3. The media bubble. Hardly anyone in TV or newspapers believes in Brexit — and that applies not just to the Guardian and the BBC, but even to many of the right-wing papers that paid lip service to it. As a consequence of this bias, ardent Brexiteers are made to look like crazed outliers rather than the embodiment of the popular will.
4. Thwarted entitlement. The liberal elite who uniformly backed Remain — lawyers, bankers, corporatists, quangocrats, top civil servants, etc — have spent their whole lives ruling the roost and getting their own way. This was their first taste of being rebuffed, all the more painful for being so unexpected. They will never forget this outrage — still less forgive it.”
https://spectator.co.uk/2018/02/even-being-pro-trump-didnt-lose-me-as-many-friends-as-being-pro-brexit/
That will have many remainers on here frothing at the mouth especially with words like elite and phrases such as ‘popular will’. For that reason alone it is more than worth posting it.
“Brexit secretary, David Davis, has often brushed aside fears that leaving the European Union will be difficult. “There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside,” he said in October 2016.
Other Brexiteers have shown similar hubris. “The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want,” said Michael Gove before the referendum. And in July 2017, Liam Fox claimed that “the free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history”.
How times change. On 20 February, Mr Davis gave a speech that was intended to mock the gloom of other European leaders. Britain would not, he said, be “plunged into a Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction”.
The most recent Mad Max film, starring Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron, featured a citadel full of women held captive for their breast milk, a crazed tyrant hoarding scarce water in a desert, and drug-addicted men strapped to the front of enormous lorries playing glam rock music on improbably large guitars. It is certainly reassuring to hear that whatever course Brexit takes, we can expect a better outcome than this.”