Question Time studio ROARS as audience member champions NO DEAL – 'nation of innovators' THE Question Time studio roared with applause last night after an audience member made a rousing case for leaving the EU with no deal, reminding the panel that “we are a nation of innovators” who have “always” done well.
I fell asleep to it. I couldn't quite work it out because there was a large round applause for this, but an equally vociferous round of applause for the next comment about giving the people a final say. Then again this was Penzance
BBC have form on loading the audience with Brexiters, particularly the kind of ruddy faced morons who would clap anything as long as it was nationalistic or xenophobic claptrap.
Question Time studio ROARS as audience member champions NO DEAL – 'nation of innovators' THE Question Time studio roared with applause last night after an audience member made a rousing case for leaving the EU with no deal, reminding the panel that “we are a nation of innovators” who have “always” done well.
Just shows how hopelessly uninformed much of the electorate is if they think "no deal" should be in any way welcomed. A point anyone think Remain will comfortably win a second referendum should keep in mind.
Why oh why do so many politicians and voters not realise that the only point of ‘no deal’ was to potentially use it as a negotiating tactic prior to invoking Article 50.
At this stage, it is a nonsense and would harm both sides.
Question Time studio ROARS as audience member champions NO DEAL – 'nation of innovators' THE Question Time studio roared with applause last night after an audience member made a rousing case for leaving the EU with no deal, reminding the panel that “we are a nation of innovators” who have “always” done well.
Just shows how hopelessly uninformed much of the electorate is if they think "no deal" should be in any way welcomed. A point anyone think Remain will comfortably win a second referendum should keep in mind.
Why oh why do so many politicians and voters not realise that the only point of ‘no deal’ was to potentially use it as a negotiating tactic prior to invoking Article 50.
At this stage, it is a nonsense and would harm both sides.
Because they think if we leave with no deal, it means we automatically have WTO rules that state we are able to import and export everything tariff free and therefore there would be no change to our current trading relationship with the EU.
I am glad that the Prime Minster and the Leader of the Opposition have the chance to debate the Government's policy, in order to influence the voting intentions of Members of Parliament. It's about time they had that opportunity. Because, you know, that's LITERALLY THEIR ONLY JOB.
I am glad that the Prime Minster and the Leader of the Opposition have the chance to debate the Government's policy, in order to influence the voting intentions of Members of Parliament. It's about time they had that opportunity. Because, you know, that's LITERALLY THEIR ONLY JOB.
May only wants the debate so she can try and elevate ‘tribal’ divisions and get her party back onside.
Question Time studio ROARS as audience member champions NO DEAL – 'nation of innovators' THE Question Time studio roared with applause last night after an audience member made a rousing case for leaving the EU with no deal, reminding the panel that “we are a nation of innovators” who have “always” done well.
Just shows how hopelessly uninformed much of the electorate is if they think "no deal" should be in any way welcomed. A point anyone think Remain will comfortably win a second referendum should keep in mind.
Why oh why do so many politicians and voters not realise that the only point of ‘no deal’ was to potentially use it as a negotiating tactic prior to invoking Article 50.
At this stage, it is a nonsense and would harm both sides.
Because they think if we leave with no deal, it means we automatically have WTO rules that state we are able to import and export everything tariff free and therefore there would be no change to our current trading relationship with the EU.
Exactly what the Aussie PM stated I believe. Idiocy is global.
“With a growing number of MPs back home insistent that they cannot vote for her deal, in an interview with the BBC from Buenos Aires, May wouldn't rule out putting her plan to a second vote.”
Question Time studio ROARS as audience member champions NO DEAL – 'nation of innovators' THE Question Time studio roared with applause last night after an audience member made a rousing case for leaving the EU with no deal, reminding the panel that “we are a nation of innovators” who have “always” done well.
This whole notion would be laughably pathetic if it wasn't so dangerous - as it is, it's just pathetic. Sure, our country has a proud history of innovation and invention, but that doesn't make us a 'nation of innovators'. You try asking someone when they last came up with something innovative and then enjoy a long good butchers at the blank look on their face as they first struggle to understand why you would even ask that question and then wrack their memory banks for a time when they actually did. The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of us go through the same routines day in, day out with all the innovative powers of a field of bewildered sheep. We do have a very fine tradition of innovation, but that is different to be a nation of innovators. It is, was and always will be a minority of very driven, highly educated, gifted people who have been our innovators. The bulk of us may vicariously take some pleasure, even pride, that such people come from our shores but we are no more like them than the Average Joes of any other country are.
The other thing that's completely missing from this 'nation of innovators' argument is any reasoning as to why we would suddenly become any more innovative if we left the EU. We are leaving a situation where we have the most cooperation and the least friction with our biggest trading partners possible. If this horrible Brexit plan comes to fruition, in March we will be in a position where both cooperation and trade become more difficult and more costly. And the solution to this? We're a 'nation of innovators'! Even if it we were 'a nation of innovators' the big question would be, why aren't we doing this innovation now? Surely it would be better doing all this innovation without the pain and upheaval of a misguided no-deal Brexit. Why would we be any more innovative outside the EU? Are those naughty French people poisoning our minds with cheap Beaujolais? Are the Germans over-organising us and stifling our creativity? Or perhaps we've all had too many Spanish holidays and developed one big mañana attitude? Of course not. There's absolutely no reason at all why we'd be any more innovative out of the EU than we are now.
I really hope that ordinary Brexit supporters amongst us start asking some awkward questions of the unicorn-pedlars soon. There is no substance to their soundbites and platitudes; people need to realise that fast before innovation is actually made a lot more difficult.
Question Time studio ROARS as audience member champions NO DEAL – 'nation of innovators' THE Question Time studio roared with applause last night after an audience member made a rousing case for leaving the EU with no deal, reminding the panel that “we are a nation of innovators” who have “always” done well.
This whole notion would be laughably pathetic if it wasn't so dangerous - as it is, it's just pathetic. Sure, our country has a proud history of innovation and invention, but that doesn't make us a 'nation of innovators'. You try asking someone when they last came up with something innovative and then enjoy a long good butchers at the blank look on their face as they first struggle to understand why you would even ask that question and then wrack their memory banks for a time when they actually did. The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of us go through the same routines day in, day out with all the innovative powers of a field of bewildered sheep. We do have a very fine tradition of innovation, but that is different to be a nation of innovators. It is, was and always will be a minority of very driven, highly educated, gifted people who have been our innovators. The bulk of us may vicariously take some pleasure, even pride, that such people come from our shores but we are no more like them than the Average Joes of any other country are.
The other thing that's completely missing from this 'nation of innovators' argument is any reasoning as to why we would suddenly become any more innovative if we left the EU. We are leaving a situation where we have the most cooperation and the least friction with our biggest trading partners possible. If this horrible Brexit plan comes to fruition, in March we will be in a position where both cooperation and trade become more difficult and more costly. And the solution to this? We're a 'nation of innovators'! Even if it we were 'a nation of innovators' the big question would be, why aren't we doing this innovation now? Surely it would be better doing all this innovation without the pain and upheaval of a misguided no-deal Brexit. Why would we be any more innovative outside the EU? Are those naughty French people poisoning our minds with cheap Beaujolais? Are the Germans over-organising us and stifling our creativity? Or perhaps we've all had too many Spanish holidays and developed one big mañana attitude? Of course not. There's absolutely no reason at all why we'd be any more innovative out of the EU than we are now.
I really hope that ordinary Brexit supporters amongst us start asking some awkward questions of the unicorn-pedlars soon. There is no substance to their soundbites and platitudes; people need to realise that fast before innovation is actually made a lot more difficult.
"We're a nation of innovators" scream a group of people who have reading the same newspaper for 40 years that peddle the lie that life in 1970s was better before all the people with funny languages and different coloured skin moved here and refuse to use self checkouts because they don't understand how they work and get scared by the woman's voice coming from the till.
I am glad that the Prime Minster and the Leader of the Opposition have the chance to debate the Government's policy, in order to influence the voting intentions of Members of Parliament. It's about time they had that opportunity. Because, you know, that's LITERALLY THEIR ONLY JOB.
May only wants the debate so she can try and elevate ‘tribal’ divisions and get her party back onside.
If only there was a way for the Prime Minister to debate the issue, live in front of MPs on both sides; and have the debate shown live on TV, broadcast on the radio and used in TV news bulletins throughout the country; every single week for the past two years.
Question Time studio ROARS as audience member champions NO DEAL – 'nation of innovators' THE Question Time studio roared with applause last night after an audience member made a rousing case for leaving the EU with no deal, reminding the panel that “we are a nation of innovators” who have “always” done well.
This whole notion would be laughably pathetic if it wasn't so dangerous - as it is, it's just pathetic. Sure, our country has a proud history of innovation and invention, but that doesn't make us a 'nation of innovators'. You try asking someone when they last came up with something innovative and then enjoy a long good butchers at the blank look on their face as they first struggle to understand why you would even ask that question and then wrack their memory banks for a time when they actually did. The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of us go through the same routines day in, day out with all the innovative powers of a field of bewildered sheep. We do have a very fine tradition of innovation, but that is different to be a nation of innovators. It is, was and always will be a minority of very driven, highly educated, gifted people who have been our innovators. The bulk of us may vicariously take some pleasure, even pride, that such people come from our shores but we are no more like them than the Average Joes of any other country are.
The other thing that's completely missing from this 'nation of innovators' argument is any reasoning as to why we would suddenly become any more innovative if we left the EU. We are leaving a situation where we have the most cooperation and the least friction with our biggest trading partners possible. If this horrible Brexit plan comes to fruition, in March we will be in a position where both cooperation and trade become more difficult and more costly. And the solution to this? We're a 'nation of innovators'! Even if it we were 'a nation of innovators' the big question would be, why aren't we doing this innovation now? Surely it would be better doing all this innovation without the pain and upheaval of a misguided no-deal Brexit. Why would we be any more innovative outside the EU? Are those naughty French people poisoning our minds with cheap Beaujolais? Are the Germans over-organising us and stifling our creativity? Or perhaps we've all had too many Spanish holidays and developed one big mañana attitude? Of course not. There's absolutely no reason at all why we'd be any more innovative out of the EU than we are now.
I really hope that ordinary Brexit supporters amongst us start asking some awkward questions of the unicorn-pedlars soon. There is no substance to their soundbites and platitudes; people need to realise that fast before innovation is actually made a lot more difficult.
Bloody elites ruining it all for us ordinary folk.
The reason the debate needs to happen is obvious from May's perspective. She is going to lose the vote and her tactic is to win the public over to help persuade MPs. So anything that might achieve this, because it won't be easy, is in her interest to do. For Corbyn, if he is being challenged he has to show he is willing to face that, even though May is the one that needs it.
For that reason, I don't understand why May wants it shown at a time when one of the most watched programmes of the year will be shown on the other side. She is the desperate one, she should let Corbyn choose the channel. Given the circumstances, ITV should be the channel she wants to broadcast it surely.
In terms of Brexit voters, we do need to understand them. I fear a massive economic penalty and I don't understand why anybody would vote for that or being generous, the serious risk of that. But I do think many honourable Brexit voters have different perspectives. What if you are not happy with the direction the EU is going? How do you stop it? How do you stop a European Army for instance? This is a valid position. A Labour hero, Tony Benn was always strongly opposed to the EU. And he had a philosphical position against it. He believed in the Power of the people and lost his brother in WW2. He set five questions for democracy to those in positions of power:
“What power have you got?” “Where did you get it from?” “In whose interests do you use it?” “To whom are you accountable?” “How do we get rid of you?”
Benn thought it was better to get a bad government you could get rid of, than a good one you couldn't. I think there are grey areas with the EU and an arrogance within it, but it is not a hopeless democratic cause. However, ultimately, the last question if answered negatively means you are not part of a democracy. I am not convinced the EU passes these tests as easily as it should. I don't apologise for being a Remainer though. Basic social democratic protections and open borders are positive things I like about being in the EU. I voted because I think this country doesn't need to risk its prosperity in this time of austerity. But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons, but fell on the other side of the line do not deserve to be criticised. Those that did it for reasons of ignorance and xenophobia do deserve it, and some did. But others didn't!
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
We currently have a better deal than any nation has or will ever have from the EU. Giving it away is incredibly silly.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
Agreed, but these are exemptions that we obtained.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
Try applying Tony Benns five questions listed above to the House of Lords or the Royal Family. There are versions of 'democracy', all of them open to improvement. I think it is true to say there are no EU politicians that have a job for life. Unlike a member of the Lords.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
Agreed, but these are exemptions that we obtained.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
So, it's not enough to get everything we want? Everyone else has to have everything we want them to have, too?
My point is that a significant number of the worst in our society voted Brexit for the wrong xenophobic reasons, and cynical politicians encouraged this. But many had very sound reasons based on their different perspectives and priorities and I can imagine how angry they feel when they are lumped into the same category. Rather than ask decent people like Blackpool why he voted, we should just respect that. I think he is wrong on this, he will think I am wrong, but that is life.
What is also clear is that the government has got the country into a mess. The solution isn't to choose between a deal that pleases nobody or a deal that pleases the minority. We need a second vote, not because we always needed one, but because we need one now. Another minister has resigned today with this message. It is time for May to stop the threats, smell the coffee and find a way out that is best for the country. Logic says in these circumstances, it has to be to find another deal, Leave altogether or let the public set the direction with another vote. How the last of these options is anti-democratic is and will always be beyond me. Let May make her case to teh British people and then check with them, not force a Hobsons choice on elected MPs she simply isn't going to win.
Try applying Tony Benns five questions listed above to the House of Lords or the Royal Family. There are versions of 'democracy', all of them open to improvement. I think it is true to say there are no EU politicians that have a job for life. Unlike a member of the Lords.
The Royal family don't have any significant power so the rest of the questions are not all that relevant to them. The House of Lords have limited power, but I agree they fail. But these are of course tests set by Tony Benn, not the law of the land. If the Royal Family and the Lords had more power, the need to address the lack of democracy would be more pressing than it currently is.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
Yet we had many variations/concessions already to our membership - no Euro, no Schingen (spelling?,) And the rebate plus we had a veto as well as say in decision making.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
Agreed, but these are exemptions that we obtained.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
So, it's not enough to get everything we want? Everyone else has to have everything we want them to have, too?
And, if not, we leave and lose everything?
Not what I am saying at all but can’t be bothered to repeat the points I have made so many times in the past.
If you think the EU is as it should be, that’s fine. I don’t.
Try applying Tony Benns five questions listed above to the House of Lords or the Royal Family. There are versions of 'democracy', all of them open to improvement. I think it is true to say there are no EU politicians that have a job for life. Unlike a member of the Lords.
The Royal family don't have any significant power so the rest of the questions are not all that relevant to them. The House of Lords have limited power, but I agree they fail. But these are of course tests set by Tony Benn, not the law of the land. If the Royal Family and the Lords had more power, the need to address the lack of democracy would be more pressing than it currently is.
By the way, there is absolutely no need to address the lack of democracy within the royal family as they have so little political power. I think they know that if they started trying to make political gestures that would be the beginning of the end for them.
Frictionless trade is a massive deal. Rather than these clowns like Davies and Fox talk about these massive deals they will strike, we have the bargaining power of 28 nations in one and we can go to places like Japan and say, build your cars here, it will give you access to our massive markets. Not sure how making your hand weaker helps you do deals - it does come down to common sense and logic.
Frictionless trade is a massive deal. Rather than these clowns like Davies and Fox talk about these massive deals they will strike, we have the bargaining power of 28 nations in one and we can go to places like Japan and say, build your cars here, it will give you access to our massive markets. Not sure how making your hand weaker helps you do deals - it does come down to common sense and logic.
Assets sadly lacking in most Brexiters, whatever their reasons for wanting to leave...
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons ...
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
You make it sound like an “us and them” situation. Until we officially leave and for decades the U.K. has helped form the rules and benefits that make the EU the EU. Of course in any such process there has to be compromise but the arguments for change within the EU are best carried out from working within. Not by picking up your ball and walking off home despite that action meaning that there is no one left to play with.
As you know, my suggested approach has never been to pick up the ball and walk away.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
Rees-Mogg is a bit of a busted flush now though, isn’t he? He tried to start a leadership contest and seemingly got nowhere near the numbers that he needed to even initiate the process.
I certainly agree that his credibility has been seriously damaged since the vote of no confidence debacle but in relation to @MuttleyCAFC post regarding the very real possibility of May resigning should her plan be voted down, the eventual new PM and cabinet could easily consist of Johnson, Gove, IDS, Grayling, JCM, Hannan etc. I think it would almost certainly be very brexit top heavy. If that were to happen then all bets are off.
The consensus is that the WA will fail at the first attempt. May might resign but suspect she will stick it out for a second attempt. The ERG were spinning that they could gather their 48 letters after the WA goes down. If risk were not an issue then this could be the perfect cocktail to force a change. This through the 20+ Tory remainers finally walking out of the circus AND working with Umunna, Starmer and other opposition leaders to deliver either Norway + CU or a People's vote... or a combination.
The pressure is building for change, the WA is rubbish and "No Deal" is simply not going to happen since only 10% of MPs support such a ludicrous outcome. May is leveraging the threat of "no deal" to get her way and after refusing to involve anybody in her "strategy" for the last two years, does she expect others to now jump on board. The fact is that others can play that "no deal" leverage game too!
She has deliberately allowed the clock down and is now stating with some arrogance that her deal is the only option. It isn't and the time has arrived when the opposition can act. How ironic all this discussion about sovereignty and democracy when May has consistently failed to work with Parliament.
Meanwhile lifting the bonnet with Labour, there's a grassroots movement to call a special conference which can be done at a fortnight's notice. May might be doing her one woman tour but Labour activists are looking to mobilise delegates representing 550,000 members as well as x million trade unionists to discuss the drive for a People's Vote.
We cannot presume the outcome of this chapter in our history but the irony is that remainers are asking for more democracy. Keir Starmer explains some of the angles to Owen Jones in a video interview if people are interested. Labour know the path they are treading but are careful not to make predictions.
Latest poll data published the other day: Just over half of Britons (51%) said that staying in the EU would be best for the economy. Just 24% think a no-deal Brexit with only 17% supporting the government’s position.
And a great post @MuttleyCAFC but one question: Are we really governed by the EU or is it simply one big CU and SM to standardise commercial rules and tariffs? Let's not fall into the trap of deflecting from the reality that Westminster decision making covers the NHS, taxes, education, benefits, housing policy and defence. 99% of Government expenditure.
Ultimately austerity for six years was a policy pursued by Cameron and Osborne not Brussels. It was they who introduced the rediculous, pointless notion of paying down the national debt. And at the same time they forced through massive cuts, blaming Labour as well as a massive cut in Corporation tax rates.
Westminster, not Brussels is responsible for UK policy and it's the Government at Westminster which follows those Tony Benn tests. English nationalists would have us believe otherwise with all their talk of Turkey joining or the UK being forced to join the Euro. Somehow that jumped from being a 15-20% minority view to 52% that day back in June 2016.
It will take another vote to prove that 55% support for Remain is True. The question is when will that happen. And will Remain run a better campaign?
Rees-Mogg is a bit of a busted flush now though, isn’t he? He tried to start a leadership contest and seemingly got nowhere near the numbers that he needed to even initiate the process.
I certainly agree that his credibility has been seriously damaged since the vote of no confidence debacle but in relation to @MuttleyCAFC post regarding the very real possibility of May resigning should her plan be voted down, the eventual new PM and cabinet could easily consist of Johnson, Gove, IDS, Grayling, JCM, Hannan etc. I think it would almost certainly be very brexit top heavy. If that were to happen then all bets are off.
The consensus is that the WA will fail at the first attempt. May might resign but suspect she will stick it out for a second attempt. The ERG were spinning that they could gather their 48 letters after the WA goes down. If risk were not an issue then this could be the perfect cocktail to force a change. This through the 20+ Tory remainers finally walking out of the circus AND working with Umunna, Starmer and other opposition leaders to deliver either Norway + CU or a People's vote... or a combination.
The pressure is building for change, the WA is rubbish and "No Deal" is simply not going to happen since only 10% of MPs support such a ludicrous outcome. May is leveraging the threat of "no deal" to get her way and after refusing to involve anybody in her "strategy" for the last two years, does she expect others to now jump on board. The fact is that others can play that "no deal" leverage game too!
She has deliberately allowed the clock down and is now stating with some arrogance that her deal is the only option. It isn't and the time has arrived when the opposition can act. How ironic all this discussion about sovereignty and democracy when May has consistently failed to work with Parliament.
Meanwhile lifting the bonnet with Labour, there's a grassroots movement to call a special conference which can be done at a fortnight's notice. May might be doing her one woman tour but Labour activists are looking to mobilise delegates representing 550,000 members as well as x million trade unionists to discuss the drive for a People's Vote.
We cannot presume the outcome of this chapter in our history but the irony is that remainers are asking for more democracy. Keir Starmer explains some of the angles to Owen Jones in a video interview if people are interested. Labour know the path they are treading but are careful not to make predictions.
Latest poll data published the other day: Just over half of Britons (51%) said that staying in the EU would be best for the economy. Just 24% think a no-deal Brexit with only 17% supporting the government’s position.
And a great post @MuttleyCAFC but one question: Are we really governed by the EU or is it simply one big CU and SM to standardise commercial rules and tariffs? Let's not fall into the trap of deflecting from the reality that Westminster decision making covers the NHS, taxes, education, benefits, housing policy and defence. 99% of Government expenditure.
Ultimately austerity for six years was a policy pursued by Cameron and Osborne not Brussels. It was they who introduced the rediculous, pointless notion of paying down the national debt. And at the same time they forced through massive cuts, blaming Labour as well as a massive cut in Corporation tax rates.
Westminster, not Brussels is responsible for UK policy and it's the Government at Westminster which follows those Tony Benn tests. English nationalists would have us believe otherwise with all their talk of Turkey joining or the UK being forced to join the Euro. Somehow that jumped from being a 15-20% minority view to 52% that day back in June 2016.
It will take another vote to prove that 55% support for Remain is True. The question is when will that happen. And will Remain run a better campaign?
Remain has never stopped campaigning. A combination of worse case economic projections which bear little relationship to the actual economy+a constant barrage of insults against Brexiters for being ill informed, stupid and old. That is what will carry on through a referendum campaign. It will not change my mind.
Rees-Mogg is a bit of a busted flush now though, isn’t he? He tried to start a leadership contest and seemingly got nowhere near the numbers that he needed to even initiate the process.
I certainly agree that his credibility has been seriously damaged since the vote of no confidence debacle but in relation to @MuttleyCAFC post regarding the very real possibility of May resigning should her plan be voted down, the eventual new PM and cabinet could easily consist of Johnson, Gove, IDS, Grayling, JCM, Hannan etc. I think it would almost certainly be very brexit top heavy. If that were to happen then all bets are off.
The consensus is that the WA will fail at the first attempt. May might resign but suspect she will stick it out for a second attempt. The ERG were spinning that they could gather their 48 letters after the WA goes down. If risk were not an issue then this could be the perfect cocktail to force a change. This through the 20+ Tory remainers finally walking out of the circus AND working with Umunna, Starmer and other opposition leaders to deliver either Norway + CU or a People's vote... or a combination.
The pressure is building for change, the WA is rubbish and "No Deal" is simply not going to happen since only 10% of MPs support such a ludicrous outcome. May is leveraging the threat of "no deal" to get her way and after refusing to involve anybody in her "strategy" for the last two years, does she expect others to now jump on board. The fact is that others can play that "no deal" leverage game too!
She has deliberately allowed the clock down and is now stating with some arrogance that her deal is the only option. It isn't and the time has arrived when the opposition can act. How ironic all this discussion about sovereignty and democracy when May has consistently failed to work with Parliament.
Meanwhile lifting the bonnet with Labour, there's a grassroots movement to call a special conference which can be done at a fortnight's notice. May might be doing her one woman tour but Labour activists are looking to mobilise delegates representing 550,000 members as well as x million trade unionists to discuss the drive for a People's Vote.
We cannot presume the outcome of this chapter in our history but the irony is that remainers are asking for more democracy. Keir Starmer explains some of the angles to Owen Jones in a video interview if people are interested. Labour know the path they are treading but are careful not to make predictions.
Latest poll data published the other day: Just over half of Britons (51%) said that staying in the EU would be best for the economy. Just 24% think a no-deal Brexit with only 17% supporting the government’s position.
And a great post @MuttleyCAFC but one question: Are we really governed by the EU or is it simply one big CU and SM to standardise commercial rules and tariffs? Let's not fall into the trap of deflecting from the reality that Westminster decision making covers the NHS, taxes, education, benefits, housing policy and defence. 99% of Government expenditure.
Ultimately austerity for six years was a policy pursued by Cameron and Osborne not Brussels. It was they who introduced the rediculous, pointless notion of paying down the national debt. And at the same time they forced through massive cuts, blaming Labour as well as a massive cut in Corporation tax rates.
Westminster, not Brussels is responsible for UK policy and it's the Government at Westminster which follows those Tony Benn tests. English nationalists would have us believe otherwise with all their talk of Turkey joining or the UK being forced to join the Euro. Somehow that jumped from being a 15-20% minority view to 52% that day back in June 2016.
It will take another vote to prove that 55% support for Remain is True. The question is when will that happen. And will Remain run a better campaign?
Remain has never stopped campaigning. A combination of worse case economic projections which bear little relationship to the actual economy+a constant barrage of insults against Brexiters for being ill informed, stupid and old. That is what will carry on through a referendum campaign. It will not change my mind.
Leave has been campaigning since 1973. I certainly think leavers are ill informed, many refused to even read the government leaflet that was sent to everyone. Some are certainly stupid - I have had first hand experience. Many were old (I fall into that category myself), but that is not something I hold against them in any way shape or form, what I hold against them is the combination of ill-informed and stupid that lead to them voting leave.
Comments
At this stage, it is a nonsense and would harm both sides.
“With a growing number of MPs back home insistent that they cannot vote for her deal, in an interview with the BBC from Buenos Aires, May wouldn't rule out putting her plan to a second vote.”
Yet she won’t allow the voters a second vote?
The other thing that's completely missing from this 'nation of innovators' argument is any reasoning as to why we would suddenly become any more innovative if we left the EU. We are leaving a situation where we have the most cooperation and the least friction with our biggest trading partners possible. If this horrible Brexit plan comes to fruition, in March we will be in a position where both cooperation and trade become more difficult and more costly. And the solution to this? We're a 'nation of innovators'! Even if it we were 'a nation of innovators' the big question would be, why aren't we doing this innovation now? Surely it would be better doing all this innovation without the pain and upheaval of a misguided no-deal Brexit. Why would we be any more innovative outside the EU? Are those naughty French people poisoning our minds with cheap Beaujolais? Are the Germans over-organising us and stifling our creativity? Or perhaps we've all had too many Spanish holidays and developed one big mañana attitude? Of course not. There's absolutely no reason at all why we'd be any more innovative out of the EU than we are now.
I really hope that ordinary Brexit supporters amongst us start asking some awkward questions of the unicorn-pedlars soon. There is no substance to their soundbites and platitudes; people need to realise that fast before innovation is actually made a lot more difficult.
For that reason, I don't understand why May wants it shown at a time when one of the most watched programmes of the year will be shown on the other side. She is the desperate one, she should let Corbyn choose the channel. Given the circumstances, ITV should be the channel she wants to broadcast it surely.
In terms of Brexit voters, we do need to understand them. I fear a massive economic penalty and I don't understand why anybody would vote for that or being generous, the serious risk of that. But I do think many honourable Brexit voters have different perspectives. What if you are not happy with the direction the EU is going? How do you stop it? How do you stop a European Army for instance? This is a valid position. A Labour hero, Tony Benn was always strongly opposed to the EU. And he had a philosphical position against it. He believed in the Power of the people and lost his brother in WW2. He set five questions for democracy to those in positions of power:
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Benn thought it was better to get a bad government you could get rid of, than a good one you couldn't. I think there are grey areas with the EU and an arrogance within it, but it is not a hopeless democratic cause. However, ultimately, the last question if answered negatively means you are not part of a democracy. I am not convinced the EU passes these tests as easily as it should. I don't apologise for being a Remainer though. Basic social democratic protections and open borders are positive things I like about being in the EU. I voted because I think this country doesn't need to risk its prosperity in this time of austerity. But I think my Remain vote was always with a condition that we should strive to make the institution better and more democratic. Those that voted Leave for similar reasons, but fell on the other side of the line do not deserve to be criticised. Those that did it for reasons of ignorance and xenophobia do deserve it, and some did. But others didn't!
On this we agree. The point is that many think we can change it from within, many believe that it is not feasible because they are too intransigent.
For all the talk of EU intransigence we had got a flexible deal better than May's deal or the no trade deals options.
The point that @MuttleyCAFC and myself are making is in respect of actual change within the EU as a whole.
There are versions of 'democracy', all of them open to improvement.
I think it is true to say there are no EU politicians that have a job for life. Unlike a member of the Lords.
And, if not, we leave and lose everything?
What is also clear is that the government has got the country into a mess. The solution isn't to choose between a deal that pleases nobody or a deal that pleases the minority. We need a second vote, not because we always needed one, but because we need one now. Another minister has resigned today with this message. It is time for May to stop the threats, smell the coffee and find a way out that is best for the country. Logic says in these circumstances, it has to be to find another deal, Leave altogether or let the public set the direction with another vote. How the last of these options is anti-democratic is and will always be beyond me. Let May make her case to teh British people and then check with them, not force a Hobsons choice on elected MPs she simply isn't going to win.
If you think the EU is as it should be, that’s fine. I don’t.
But if you want to make that interpretation, nothing I can add.
The pressure is building for change, the WA is rubbish and "No Deal" is simply not going to happen since only 10% of MPs support such a ludicrous outcome. May is leveraging the threat of "no deal" to get her way and after refusing to involve anybody in her "strategy" for the last two years, does she expect others to now jump on board. The fact is that others can play that "no deal" leverage game too!
She has deliberately allowed the clock down and is now stating with some arrogance that her deal is the only option. It isn't and the time has arrived when the opposition can act. How ironic all this discussion about sovereignty and democracy when May has consistently failed to work with Parliament.
Meanwhile lifting the bonnet with Labour, there's a grassroots movement to call a special conference which can be done at a fortnight's notice. May might be doing her one woman tour but Labour activists are looking to mobilise delegates representing 550,000 members as well as x million trade unionists to discuss the drive for a People's Vote.
We cannot presume the outcome of this chapter in our history but the irony is that remainers are asking for more democracy. Keir Starmer explains some of the angles to Owen Jones in a video interview if people are interested. Labour know the path they are treading but are careful not to make predictions.
Latest poll data published the other day: Just over half of Britons (51%) said that staying in the EU would be best for the economy. Just 24% think a no-deal Brexit with only 17% supporting the government’s position.
And a great post @MuttleyCAFC but one question: Are we really governed by the EU or is it simply one big CU and SM to standardise commercial rules and tariffs? Let's not fall into the trap of deflecting from the reality that Westminster decision making covers the NHS, taxes, education, benefits, housing policy and defence. 99% of Government expenditure.
Ultimately austerity for six years was a policy pursued by Cameron and Osborne not Brussels. It was they who introduced the rediculous, pointless notion of paying down the national debt. And at the same time they forced through massive cuts, blaming Labour as well as a massive cut in Corporation tax rates.
Westminster, not Brussels is responsible for UK policy and it's the Government at Westminster which follows those Tony Benn tests. English nationalists would have us believe otherwise with all their talk of Turkey joining or the UK being forced to join the Euro. Somehow that jumped from being a 15-20% minority view to 52% that day back in June 2016.
It will take another vote to prove that 55% support for Remain is True. The question is when will that happen. And will Remain run a better campaign?
That is what will carry on through a referendum campaign.
It will not change my mind.