Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay refuses 3 times to say she’d vote for Brexit

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 10 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay refuses 3 times to say she’d vote for Brexit

Good questioning of TMay by @IainDale getting TMay to refuse 3 times to say she'd vote for Brexit.https://t.co/5DH4ZqO2lb

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    The loss of confidence in Brexit seems to be terminal now.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 146

    The loss of confidence in Brexit seems to be terminal now.

    This is hardly the first time she has refused to answer that question. It's of course hypothetical.

    What would of course be useful is a non hypothetical question to May and Corbyn - hands on a bible Theresa and Jeremy how did you actually vote on 23 June 2016? Did they say one thing and vote another?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 610
    Third like liverpool will be!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345
    edited October 10
    FPT Scott P,

    I happily campaigned and voted for Leave, and have no regrets about it. But, I'm not expecting that people on the other side of the argument should now hold up their hands and say they were wrong. People have their pride.

    There are plenty of political issues where one is beaten, still thinks that one was right to vote the way one did, but still accepts the majority verdict.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,377
    Say Brexit 3 times into the mirror, and the ghost of Jean Claude Juncker will appear.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,200
    edited October 10
    A sensible answer would be that she would now vote Leave, as the events since June 2016 cannot be undone. I don't think 'no answer' is sustainable.

    If she can't see the positives from Brexit, she should not be PM.

    May is utterly hopeless at politics. TSE, you are a prophet...
  • She's trying to give Jacob Rees-Mogg an aneurysm isn't she?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    Sean_F said:

    FPT Scott P,

    I happily campaigned and voted for Leave, and have no regrets about it. But, I'm not expecting that people on the other side of the argument should now hold up their hands and say they were wrong. People have their pride.

    There are plenty of political issues where one is beaten, still thinks that one was right to vote the way one did, but still accepts the majority verdict.

    Yes, I can't help but feel there's a bit if mischief making going on with this particular question.
    None but the most stupid would imagine she would - or should - have changed her mind on this. Are any Tory MPs really quite that imbecilic ?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,117
    What could Theresa May say without lying ? She knows all the facts, all the reports, all the analysis. Absolute disaster is looming!

    A face-saving way has to be created for us to get out of this mess.

    Apart from the economics, the main impediment is actually organisation. I think it will take a good five years for Britain to be ready to be on its own. And billions have to be spent to create that infrastructure [ hardware, software, land, buildings etc. ]. I am not talking about doing fancy trade deals. It would make very little difference in the short run. After all, we trade with half the world today on WTO terms.

    It is the changeover from the other 50% that will take time, money and effort.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002

    She's trying to give Jacob Rees-Mogg an aneurysm isn't she?

    Ah - I'd forgotten Rees Mogg....

  • Nigelb said:

    Sean_F said:

    FPT Scott P,

    I happily campaigned and voted for Leave, and have no regrets about it. But, I'm not expecting that people on the other side of the argument should now hold up their hands and say they were wrong. People have their pride.

    There are plenty of political issues where one is beaten, still thinks that one was right to vote the way one did, but still accepts the majority verdict.

    Yes, I can't help but feel there's a bit if mischief making going on with this particular question.
    None but the most stupid would imagine she would - or should - have changed her mind on this. Are any Tory MPs really quite that imbecilic ?
    Well 84 Tory MPs wanted Andrea Leadsom to PM, so yes there are Tory MPs that imbecilic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    rcs1000 said:
    Makes you wonder why they have an age qualification for running for President. Plenty of twelve year old kids are more emotionally mature.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 809
    surbiton said:

    What could Theresa May say without lying ? She knows all the facts, all the reports, all the analysis. Absolute disaster is looming!

    A face-saving way has to be created for us to get out of this mess.

    Apart from the economics, the main impediment is actually organisation. I think it will take a good five years for Britain to be ready to be on its own. And billions have to be spent to create that infrastructure [ hardware, software, land, buildings etc. ]. I am not talking about doing fancy trade deals. It would make very little difference in the short run. After all, we trade with half the world today on WTO terms.

    It is the changeover from the other 50% that will take time, money and effort.

    Well we know - or at least she tells us - she voted Remain. If she were to say she voted leave, she'dbe asked why she voted Reamin the first time. I'd dodge the question too under the circumstances.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    @rcs1000 - Which way would you vote in a second referendum?
  • Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Brexit thrice.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,005

    She's trying to give Jacob Rees-Mogg an aneurysm isn't she?

    So there is some good in her..
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 24,104
    If you speak Spanish the speech I link to in this Tweet is well worth listening to. It's Ines Arrimadas, the leader of Ciudadanos in Catalonia, calling out the nationalism of the Junts Pel Si coalition; and, in particular, the leader of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, for his views on Catalan blood not being the same as Spanish blood (bearing in mind how many people of Spanish immigrant descent live in Catalonia). "The most rancid kind of nationalism," she calls it. Shivers down the spine stuff.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 881
    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    Ah, the man who hates democracy sticks his head out of his hole.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,052
    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    Just for you:

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%

    :love:
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,052

    @rcs1000 - Which way would you vote in a second referendum?

    REAVE
    LEMAIN
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    She's trying to give Jacob Rees-Mogg an aneurysm isn't she?

    So there is some good in her..
    Careful UD, you'll have Mhairi after you if you make comments like that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    edited October 10
    rcs1000 said:
    How quickly we forget that during the primaries trump was comparing dick size in a similar manner.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,200

    If you speak Spanish the speech I link to in this Tweet is well worth listening to. It's Ines Arrimadas, the leader of Ciudadanos in Catalonia, calling out the nationalism of the Junts Pel Si coalition; and, in particular, the leader of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, for his views on Catalan blood not being the same as Spanish blood (bearing in mind how many people of Spanish immigrant descent live in Catalonia). "The most rancid kind of nationalism," she calls it. Shivers down the spine stuff.

    I just got to the 'mas rancio' part. She is splendid.

    Viva Cataluña. Viva el Rey. Viva España!
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,785
    You would be have to be an idiot to vote for Brexit again. TMay is not that stupid...
  • PongPong Posts: 4,274
    edited October 10
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deliveroo-workers-rights-uber

    This is astonishing. By stripping away normal employment rights from some of the lowest paid workers in the economy, Deliveroo recon they've managed to cut £1 off the cost of every delivery.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,052

    Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Brexit thrice.

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    surbiton said:

    What could Theresa May say without lying ? She knows all the facts, all the reports, all the analysis. Absolute disaster is looming!

    A face-saving way has to be created for us to get out of this mess.

    Apart from the economics, the main impediment is actually organisation. I think it will take a good five years for Britain to be ready to be on its own. And billions have to be spent to create that infrastructure [ hardware, software, land, buildings etc. ]. I am not talking about doing fancy trade deals. It would make very little difference in the short run. After all, we trade with half the world today on WTO terms.

    It is the changeover from the other 50% that will take time, money and effort.

    Perhaps like Catalan independence, the vote should be suspended, enabling further discussions.

    It was after all what Boris wanted :)
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 146
    edited October 10
    Scott_P said:
    Does a 72 year old ivory tower academic - no matter how talented - who lists his pleasures as fine wine and golf necessarily get why many Brits voted leave. He doesn't really mix in their world does he or face the harsh realities of life they do.

    What may be irrational to him may be perfectly rational to others.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002

    rcs1000 said:
    twitter.com/caveheraa/status/917608372190322693
    LOL....
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 132
    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,377
    Pong said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deliveroo-workers-rights-uber

    This is astonishing. By stripping away normal employment rights from some of the lowest paid workers in the economy, Deliveroo recon they've managed to cut £1 off the cost of every delivery.

    Parcel delivery firm Hermes, which was found in a Guardian investigation to be paying some of its couriers below the “national living wage”, said it would cost £58.8m annually to employ its 15,000 staff, including £32m in national insurance contributions.

    Forget the low pay argument, this is rancid stuff - We'd love to skip national insurance at my business too. Our parent co could take it in dividend, it could be distributed as annual staff profit share, kept in the reserves or given as a pay rise to the employees.

    These "gig" companies should pay their dues.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514
    Pulpstar said:

    Pong said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deliveroo-workers-rights-uber

    This is astonishing. By stripping away normal employment rights from some of the lowest paid workers in the economy, Deliveroo recon they've managed to cut £1 off the cost of every delivery.

    Parcel delivery firm Hermes, which was found in a Guardian investigation to be paying some of its couriers below the “national living wage”, said it would cost £58.8m annually to employ its 15,000 staff, including £32m in national insurance contributions.

    Forget the low pay argument, this is rancid stuff - We'd love to skip national insurance at my business too. Our parent co could take it in dividend, it could be distributed as annual staff profit share, kept in the reserves or given as a pay rise to the employees.

    These "gig" companies should pay their dues.
    It is the corporate equivalent of a tradesman doing a job for cash.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Does a 72 year old ivory tower academic - no matter how talented - who lists his pleasures as fine wine and golf necessarily get why many Brits voted leave. He doesn't really mix in their world does he or face the harsh realities of life they do.

    What may be irrational to him may be perfectly rational to others.
    Indeed it is does. This comment should be seen through the prism of his advances in economics which show the previous views of consumers to be rational actors maximising profit in a free market, to be largely fallacious.
    He has spent his life showing that people behave irrationally all the time. He does not necessarily see that as a bad thing.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    The woman is dire, problem is the tories have nobody better. Obama's legacy is Trump, her's will be Corbyn.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pong said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deliveroo-workers-rights-uber

    This is astonishing. By stripping away normal employment rights from some of the lowest paid workers in the economy, Deliveroo recon they've managed to cut £1 off the cost of every delivery.

    Parcel delivery firm Hermes, which was found in a Guardian investigation to be paying some of its couriers below the “national living wage”, said it would cost £58.8m annually to employ its 15,000 staff, including £32m in national insurance contributions.

    Forget the low pay argument, this is rancid stuff - We'd love to skip national insurance at my business too. Our parent co could take it in dividend, it could be distributed as annual staff profit share, kept in the reserves or given as a pay rise to the employees.

    These "gig" companies should pay their dues.
    You can see why some people voted for Corbyn.

    Too much of big business has disgraced itself.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819
    Elliot said:

    For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other.

    Bollocks
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    I think Theresa May has made a mistake there.

    All she needed to say was, "If a referendum was held, now - and it is a hypothetical question, Iain, because we're not going to have one as I'm focused on getting on and delivering the mandate the British people gave the Government last year - of course I would vote to support the Government's current policy of getting on and making a success of Brexit."

    But, she didn't.

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    edited October 10
    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Does a 72 year old ivory tower academic - no matter how talented - who lists his pleasures as fine wine and golf necessarily get why many Brits voted leave. He doesn't really mix in their world does he or face the harsh realities of life they do.

    What may be irrational to him may be perfectly rational to others.
    I am not sure this is meant in a bad way to be honest, however much Scott might be wishing it could. Thaler has spent his career showing that people do not behave rationally when it comes to their own economics and he has not done so in a judgemental way. He accepts that, even when the choices are obvious to some, people are not inclined to go with the most financially beneficial decisions.

    This is what the Remain side failed to understand prior to Brexit and the Remoaners are failing to understand afterwards. For many people, perhaps most, there are things in life that are more important than simple monetary balance sheets.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Scott_P said:

    Elliot said:

    For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other.

    Bollocks
    Well that is what the most strident Remain fear mongers were telling us before the vote. Perhaps you know better? I though you were the one who kept saying we should listen to the experts.
  • So Osborne's pet quango finally realises that Britain has a productivity problem:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/obr-uk-productivity-philip-hammond-brexit-transition

    It must have been a coincidence that the OBR's optimistic forecasts matched so closely with George Osborne's requirements.

    I like this part:

    ' Even after a 40% rise from the post-crisis low, business investment today is just 5% above its pre-crisis peak almost a decade ago. This contrasts with the decades that followed the 1980s and 1990s recessions, when investment was 63% and 30% higher than the pre-recession peaks respectively. '

    Whoever would have thought that a coffee shop and carwash economy based on the cheapest possible workforce would have weak business investment.
  • Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    I think Theresa May has made a mistake there.

    All she needed to say was, "If a referendum was held, now - and it is a hypothetical question, Iain, because we're not going to have one as I'm focused on getting on and delivering the mandate the British people gave the Government last year - of course I would vote to support the Government's current policy of getting on and making a success of Brexit."

    But, she didn't.

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Yep, except I don't think its a secret.

    Plenty of pb tories are anti May and anti Brexit, Corbyn would love to read this site. He understands that the Conservative Party stands for nothing.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 4,896

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.

    Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,094
    edited October 10
    brendan16 said:



    What may be irrational to him may be perfectly rational to others.

    It's surprising that Richard Thaler hasn't figured out the utility function of rational leavers. It's not all bread and circuses.

    edit - to add that Richard Tyndall expresses it well at 9:12.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    Scott_P said:

    h

    Unless I've read the article wrong, or missed something in it, that's not what it says.

    It says he said Brexit was a example of a "large numbers of people making a decision not based on economic self-interest", and it was based on a "gut" feeling where the financials are to be worked out later. A bit like a divorce.

    That's subtly different from saying it's "completely irrational", which would only stack up if you were to believe that the only rational political decisions were ones in your economic self-interest, and financially based.
  • glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    Well it makes a change from them doing what they want when it is opposed by most of the public.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I note Jeremy Hunt has published a few tweets over the last 24 hours.

    All well within his brief, but all quietly and competently clocking achievements, and looking forward.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    The wrong decision according to who?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,484
    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    I don't think she has changed her mind.

    I suspect that might be the problem.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345

    brendan16 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Does a 72 year old ivory tower academic - no matter how talented - who lists his pleasures as fine wine and golf necessarily get why many Brits voted leave. He doesn't really mix in their world does he or face the harsh realities of life they do.

    What may be irrational to him may be perfectly rational to others.
    I am not sure this is meant in a bad way to be honest, however much Scott might be wishing it could. Thaler has spent his career showing that people do not behave rationally when it comes to their own economics and he has not done so in a judgemental way. He accepts that, even when the choices are obvious to some, people are not inclined to go with the most financially beneficial decisions.

    This is what the Remain side failed to understand prior to Brexit and the Remoaners are failing to understand afterwards. For many people, perhaps most, there are things in life that are more important than simple monetary balance sheets.
    Money is not everything.

    I would not wish to live in a society like Brunei, despite it being twice as rich as my own.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,069
    It would've been better to ask TM if she thinks Brexit is in the best interests of the country.
  • Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I note Jeremy Hunt has published a few tweets over the last 24 hours.

    All well within his brief, but all quietly and competently clocking achievements, and looking forward.

    Ahem.

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    By the way, democracy/populism is clearly another of those irregular verbs so beloved by Yes Prime Minister.

    Democracy: MPs voting for popular policies I agree with
    Populism: MPs voting for popular policies I don't agree with.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345

    Pulpstar said:

    Pong said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deliveroo-workers-rights-uber

    This is astonishing. By stripping away normal employment rights from some of the lowest paid workers in the economy, Deliveroo recon they've managed to cut £1 off the cost of every delivery.

    Parcel delivery firm Hermes, which was found in a Guardian investigation to be paying some of its couriers below the “national living wage”, said it would cost £58.8m annually to employ its 15,000 staff, including £32m in national insurance contributions.

    Forget the low pay argument, this is rancid stuff - We'd love to skip national insurance at my business too. Our parent co could take it in dividend, it could be distributed as annual staff profit share, kept in the reserves or given as a pay rise to the employees.

    These "gig" companies should pay their dues.
    You can see why some people voted for Corbyn.

    Too much of big business has disgraced itself.
    That is exactly why lots of people voted for Corbyn.

    Not because of an ideological commitment to socialism, but because so much of the corporate sector has behaved appallingly.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 4,896

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    By the way, democracy/populism is clearly another of those irregular verbs so beloved by Yes Prime Minister.

    Democracy: MPs voting for popular policies I agree with
    Populism: MPs voting for popular policies I don't agree with.


    I support democracy.

    You support populism.

    They are being charged with acts against the constitution...

  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,069

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
  • Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.

    Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.

    Well in this case, yes, but only because Parliament agreed to be bound by it. They could just as easily have said 'have a referendum and we'll consider the outcome'. That too would have been democratic, and also a damn sight more sensible.

    What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.

    Option 1Out:
    has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense).
    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819

    What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.

    like
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    No we wouldn't. That would make it worse and be even less Democratic. Giving more power to the parties is simply reinforcing everything that is wrong with our Parliamentary system. MPs are supposed to represent their constituents first and last. They do not because the party has too much control over them.

    That is why referendums are necessary so the people actually get a voice against the elite.

    By the way, I assume you will tell Switzerland their system of democracy is a disaster. Be sure to point out why they are so much worse off than we are since apparently you think that to be the case.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    By the way, democracy/populism is clearly another of those irregular verbs so beloved by Yes Prime Minister.

    Democracy: MPs voting for popular policies I agree with
    Populism: MPs voting for popular policies I don't agree with.


    I support democracy.

    You support populism.

    They are being charged with acts against the constitution...

    A nice Spanish twist to the idea. Very good :)
  • Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
    That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345
    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
  • @JenWilliamsMEN:Emailed a contact at a homeless charity today about Universal Credit. Probably the bluntest assessment yet

    image
    image
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    The delicious irony is that the tory pb pin up boy Cameron was the one who arrogantly called the referendum.

    The historians on here will no doubt point out a greater political misjudgement but none springs to mind. I can't see some on here ever recovering.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.

    Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.

    Well in this case, yes, but only because Parliament agreed to be bound by it. They could just as easily have said 'have a referendum and we'll consider the outcome'. That too would have been democratic, and also a damn sight more sensible.

    What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.
    It is more representative than a party manifesto. Only a lunatic could support all of a party manifesto. They should be limited to 8 pages. One of the most shitty developments in politics of the last 50 years is the growth of the idiotic meme that the manifesto is inviolable.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,069
    philiph said:

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.

    Option 1Out:
    has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense).
    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
    The practical consequences are rather more significant than the "emotional attachment".
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.

    Once the referendum was given it has to be respected, or democracy fails.

    Well in this case, yes, but only because Parliament agreed to be bound by it. They could just as easily have said 'have a referendum and we'll consider the outcome'. That too would have been democratic, and also a damn sight more sensible.

    What perplexes me is the number of people who think that a referendum is somehow synonymous with democracy, or even some extremely pure form of it. It's nothing of the sort, and even in its more appropriate uses it is still government by populism, which is of course highly flawed, as Brexit itself well illustrates.
    As I said your view of populism is clearly any democratic decision taken with the support of the people that you disagree with. I am not sure we should betaking lessons from you on democracy if that is the case.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678

    The historians on here will no doubt point out a greater political misjudgement but none springs to mind. I can't see some on here ever recovering.

    You do realise that the proposition that was defeated in the referendum was 'we'll be exempt from ever closer union and never join the Euro'? Nevermind - you'll get over it.
  • Parliament voted by a large majority to give the people the decision on staying in the EU or leaving it, and the Government said it would abide by the decision. The people duly decided. It was a splendid example of democracy in action.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853
    philiph said:

    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    So many things Remainers called scaremongering before the vote are now being openly talked about within the EU. If you were against the ever closer union bit the last few months should have stiffened your resolve.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
    That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
    It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.

    It seems you like democracy on your terms.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 1,094

    If you speak Spanish the speech I link to in this Tweet is well worth listening to. It's Ines Arrimadas, the leader of Ciudadanos in Catalonia, calling out the nationalism of the Junts Pel Si coalition; and, in particular, the leader of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, for his views on Catalan blood not being the same as Spanish blood (bearing in mind how many people of Spanish immigrant descent live in Catalonia). "The most rancid kind of nationalism," she calls it. Shivers down the spine stuff.

    A really impressive speech from a member of a regional parliament. A few like her would knock Holyrood into shape.
  • Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
    Top post Sean.
  • Dadge said:

    It would've been better to ask TM if she thinks Brexit is in the best interests of the country.

    I should think she almost certainly does not think it is in the best interests of the country, but the referendum was framed in such a way that it doesn't matter. We leave, whatever, is what it said, and that's what we have to do.

    Whether it was sensible for a Government to tie itself to such a stark commitment is another matter, but tied to it we are, and trying to reverse out now is unlikely to do any good, even if it were possible.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    The historians on here will no doubt point out a greater political misjudgement but none springs to mind. I can't see some on here ever recovering.

    You do realise that the proposition that was defeated in the referendum was 'we'll be exempt from ever closer union and never join the Euro'? Nevermind - you'll get over it.
    Its been a few hours since I told you to f**k off, I have zero interest in anything you say, please stop tugging at my shirt tails like a child.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,242
    RoyalBlue said:

    If you speak Spanish the speech I link to in this Tweet is well worth listening to. It's Ines Arrimadas, the leader of Ciudadanos in Catalonia, calling out the nationalism of the Junts Pel Si coalition; and, in particular, the leader of ERC, Oriol Junqueras, for his views on Catalan blood not being the same as Spanish blood (bearing in mind how many people of Spanish immigrant descent live in Catalonia). "The most rancid kind of nationalism," she calls it. Shivers down the spine stuff.

    I just got to the 'mas rancio' part. She is splendid.
    Viva Cataluña. Viva el Rey. Viva España!
    Not quite, Mr Blue. She did not say Viva el Rey.... She did say Viva la Uniòn Europea. and Catalonia and Spain were both there as well.

    I am glad you liked it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    The historians on here will no doubt point out a greater political misjudgement but none springs to mind. I can't see some on here ever recovering.

    You do realise that the proposition that was defeated in the referendum was 'we'll be exempt from ever closer union and never join the Euro'? Nevermind - you'll get over it.
    No it wasn't. It was a dodgy promise written on the back of a packet of fags which had no chance of being binding. It was the EU equivalent of 'I promise I won't come in your mouth'.
  • Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
    That's my plan for when I become the country's first directly elected Dictator.

    My first term would be for 12 to 15 years, and elections every 10 years thereafter.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,069
    Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
    The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    philiph said:

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.

    Option 1Out:
    has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense).
    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
    Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
  • Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
    That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
    It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.

    It seems you like democracy on your terms.
    No, I wouldn't. And no, I don't.
  • glwglw Posts: 3,853

    The historians on here will no doubt point out a greater political misjudgement but none springs to mind. I can't see some on here ever recovering.

    You do realise that the proposition that was defeated in the referendum was 'we'll be exempt from ever closer union and never join the Euro'? Nevermind - you'll get over it.
    No it wasn't. It was a dodgy promise written on the back of a packet of fags which had no chance of being binding. It was the EU equivalent of 'I promise I won't come in your mouth'.
    It's also ludicrous to think that the EU can continue integration until it becomes effectively a nation state and that the UK can simply hang on like some sort of barnacle. Where the EU goes we'd go, and have very little say in the matter. Which is why we are leaving.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Dadge said:

    Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
    The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
    By which you mean letting the unwashed masses have any say over the running of the country.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    Charles said:

    philiph said:

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.

    Option 1Out:
    has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense).
    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
    Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
    That would be anything but optimal. As you yourself have pointed out, it would relegate us to the second division outside the Eurozone. We need to join the Euro and face up to the reality that our firm national interest is in being at the core of the EU. There is no alternative.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345
    Dadge said:

    Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
    The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
    Run that by me again.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Under PR in 2015 UKIP would have had 70 odd MPs, now that would have set the cat among the pigeons.
    That would have been a lot healthier though because it would have given representation to the UKIP agenda, which a lot of people liked. It would also have given the electorate a chance to see just how awful UKIP were once they actually got into Parliament. That too would have been very healthy.
    It would have met with my approval, please consider there wouldn't have been a GE in 2017 and those kippers would still be there. And you'd be flinging your arms around and calling for FPTP.

    It seems you like democracy on your terms.
    No, I wouldn't. And no, I don't.
    I'm sure you'd agree that with dozens of UKIP MPs the Brexit process would be much further down the line.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,514
    Charles said:

    philiph said:

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.

    Option 1Out:
    has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense).
    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
    Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
    Which rather perversely may well be the legacy the UK leaves the EU for a selection recalcitrant states, as it will be the only way to prevent further departures.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    Charles said:

    philiph said:

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.

    Option 1Out:
    has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense).
    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
    Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
    That would be anything but optimal. As you yourself have pointed out, it would relegate us to the second division outside the Eurozone. We need to join the Euro and face up to the reality that our firm national interest is in being at the core of the EU. There is no alternative.
    You are in for a shock my friend when it finally dawns on you that there is indeed a very good alternative and we have already taken it.
  • Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:

    Sean_F said:

    Dadge said:

    Elliot said:

    Chris_A said:

    I don't want a 2nd referendum, rather I want our MPs to grow some balls and do what we sent them to Parliament for and act in the national interest and put a stop to this madness. And if that causes apoplexy in the Brexiteers then tough.

    More important than either Remaining or Leaving is democracy. For Brexit, despite all the bluster, the economic difference is going to be at most a few percentage points one way or the other. Democracy makes a much bigger difference, and we risk people's faith in it at our peril.
    You seem to think democracy and populism are synonymous. That's nonsense. Parliamentary democracy is about elected representatives running the country in what they consider is the best interest of the general population, exactly as Chris indicated.

    There is a place for referendums in democracy, but they do not supplant it.
    I would suggest that at the very minimum matters of fundamental constitutional significance such as how we are governed are the very things referendums should be used for.

    Actually given the way MPs act in the interests of their party and themselves these days rather than in the interests of their constituents I would like to see us move much more to a Swiss model where far more things are decided directly by referendums. If MPs will not represent us properly - and they never will as long as the whips are there telling them how to vote - then they have no further useful purpose.
    If Brexit has done anything, it's shown us that government by referendum is a recipe for disaster.

    If we had proportional representation we'd mostly remove the problem of people being represented by the wrong MPs.
    Perhaps it would be best to get rid of elections. The people could then be prevented from making wrong decisions.
    The reason we have elections is precisely to reduce the likelihood of the demos (or anyone else) making wrong decisions.
    Run that by me again.
    I think it is what Mrs Thatcher said about why she wasn't keen on referendums, they become an opportunity to kick an unpopular government.

    I mean how many people ignored the merits of AV just to give Clegg a kicking.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345

    Charles said:

    philiph said:

    glw said:

    She risks here looking like she still would vote Remain and she is reluctantly implementing what she secretly thinks is the wrong decision.

    Nobody else has changed their mind since the vote, so why would May have done so?
    Reluctantly implementing the wrong decision is exactly what a majority of MPs are currently engaged in. Can't be fun.
    In my opinion the choice at the referendum only offered two wrong options.

    Option 1Out:
    has a lot of disadvantages. In the long term it could work out. As Scott is misremembering, Remain were postulating that GDP may be or 2% down in 30 years (or some such nonsense).
    Option 2 Stay:
    has a lot of disadvantages. An outsider fighting every battle, not really in, out of the Euro and central project. Potentially greater marginalisation as the hmanisation goes ahead. A truly awful position. In addition the EU would become less democratic, as the demos is too fractured and disparate to be governed democratically.

    The choice was to vote for the least wrong option. Neither are worth an emotional attachment and the fanaticism that is displayed as both are fundamentally flawed.
    Unfortunately the optimal option - a two speed Europe - is something the UK has been seeking for 20 years and simply wasn't available
    That would be anything but optimal. As you yourself have pointed out, it would relegate us to the second division outside the Eurozone. We need to join the Euro and face up to the reality that our firm national interest is in being at the core of the EU. There is no alternative.
    There is always an alternative. You may believe that GDP per head may be slightly less if we don't follow your advice, but there are worse fates.
This discussion has been closed.