By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Amber Rudd has quit... on 11:01 - Sep 8 by Guthrum
I don't blame the people who voted for Brexit in the hopes of improving their economic, social and sovreignty conditions. They only wanted to improve their and their families lives, naturally jumping at the hope offered.
I blame the people who presented that as an easily achievable outcome, then did very few of the right things to bring that to pass, before now pushing an option that will benefit very few on the basis of a narrow vote in favour of something which was actually quite different.
Donald Tusk had it right:
I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted #Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.
Amber Rudd has quit... on 12:36 - Sep 8 by tabletopjoe
Still got a sack of that straw left over from last time? I don’t think that and I didn’t say that. One more time for the hard of hearing: if the majority vote of the referendum is ignored, then the demons that rise from this will be the legacy. We’re already starting to see it.
The majority wasn't ignored ...Parliament approved Article 50.
Instead, you've been fecked over by May, Johnson and the ERG because they've utterly failed to sort out how the UK exits. Simple as that.
And those "demons" will be there whether we leave or remain. Appeasing the people who can't recognise reality, let alone deal with it, is what got us into this mess in the first place. And brought them into Number 10.
Pronouns: He/Him
1
Amber Rudd has quit... on 14:04 - Sep 8 with 2222 views
Amber Rudd has quit... on 12:39 - Sep 8 by itfcjoe
Donald Tusk had it right:
I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted #Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.
yes , but to be fair davis did have a fag packet with a plan written on it.
forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows
1
Amber Rudd has quit... on 15:02 - Sep 8 with 2180 views
Amber Rudd has quit... on 12:36 - Sep 8 by tabletopjoe
Still got a sack of that straw left over from last time? I don’t think that and I didn’t say that. One more time for the hard of hearing: if the majority vote of the referendum is ignored, then the demons that rise from this will be the legacy. We’re already starting to see it.
Nice of you to take a dig at those of us with hearing loss, perhaps you could be a little less smug - if you live long enough it will probably happen to you.
Amber Rudd has quit... on 12:36 - Sep 8 by tabletopjoe
Still got a sack of that straw left over from last time? I don’t think that and I didn’t say that. One more time for the hard of hearing: if the majority vote of the referendum is ignored, then the demons that rise from this will be the legacy. We’re already starting to see it.
pardon , can you WRITE A BIT LOUDER please
forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows
0
Amber Rudd has quit... on 15:25 - Sep 8 with 2139 views
Amber Rudd has quit... on 12:39 - Sep 8 by itfcjoe
Donald Tusk had it right:
I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted #Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.
Not everybody thinks Brexit will be the end of the world:
Here is somebody else with some good credentials (far better than Deutsche Bank, which is anything but a badge of honour right now!) that argues the case for Brexit:
Ryan Bourne Head of Public Policy and Director, Paragon Initiative Ryan Bourne is Head of Public Policy at the IEA and Director of The Paragon Initiative. Ryan was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge where he achieved a double-first in Economics at undergraduate level and later an MPhil qualification. Prior to joining the IEA, Ryan worked for a year at the economic consultancy firm Frontier Economics on competition and public policy issues. After leaving Frontier in 2010, Ryan joined the Centre for Policy Studies think tank in Westminster, first as an Economics Researcher and subsequently as Head of Economic Research. There, he was responsible for writing, editing and commissioning economic reports across a broad range of areas, as well as organisation of economic-themed events and roundtables. Ryan appears regularly in the national media, including writing for The Times, the Daily Telegraph, ConservativeHome and Spectator Coffee House, and appearing on broadcast, including BBC News, Newsnight, Sky News, Jeff Randall Live, Reuters and LBC radio. He is currently a weekly columnist for CityAM.
He argues: "A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains. Well-known figures, such as former Bank of England governor Lord (Mervyn) King, have said that our leaving the EU is not primarily an economic question, with the impact of leaving greatly exaggerated."
The difference between Sky News UK and Australia is telling:
4.5k thumbs up for that video (at the time of writing) with just 187 thumbs down so popular opinion is clearly endorsing the views espoused by Peta Credlin. Please also read the video comments.
I realise these views won't be popular on here but I'm just pointing out that there are some dissenting voices that don't necessarily think Brexit will be such a long-term disaster as you might think.
One person I do respect though who thinks Brexit will be a huge disaster is Max Keiser. So I have to confess that does concern me as his forecast predictions have been far better than most down the years.
So there are some bright minds that don't think Brexit is the end of the world arguing it equals short-term pain (as you have in any messy divorce) for long-term gain. I know most of you won't agree with their views but just making the contrarian case. Please don't shoot the messenger!
Not everybody thinks Brexit will be the end of the world:
Here is somebody else with some good credentials (far better than Deutsche Bank, which is anything but a badge of honour right now!) that argues the case for Brexit:
Ryan Bourne Head of Public Policy and Director, Paragon Initiative Ryan Bourne is Head of Public Policy at the IEA and Director of The Paragon Initiative. Ryan was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge where he achieved a double-first in Economics at undergraduate level and later an MPhil qualification. Prior to joining the IEA, Ryan worked for a year at the economic consultancy firm Frontier Economics on competition and public policy issues. After leaving Frontier in 2010, Ryan joined the Centre for Policy Studies think tank in Westminster, first as an Economics Researcher and subsequently as Head of Economic Research. There, he was responsible for writing, editing and commissioning economic reports across a broad range of areas, as well as organisation of economic-themed events and roundtables. Ryan appears regularly in the national media, including writing for The Times, the Daily Telegraph, ConservativeHome and Spectator Coffee House, and appearing on broadcast, including BBC News, Newsnight, Sky News, Jeff Randall Live, Reuters and LBC radio. He is currently a weekly columnist for CityAM.
He argues: "A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains. Well-known figures, such as former Bank of England governor Lord (Mervyn) King, have said that our leaving the EU is not primarily an economic question, with the impact of leaving greatly exaggerated."
The difference between Sky News UK and Australia is telling:
4.5k thumbs up for that video (at the time of writing) with just 187 thumbs down so popular opinion is clearly endorsing the views espoused by Peta Credlin. Please also read the video comments.
I realise these views won't be popular on here but I'm just pointing out that there are some dissenting voices that don't necessarily think Brexit will be such a long-term disaster as you might think.
One person I do respect though who thinks Brexit will be a huge disaster is Max Keiser. So I have to confess that does concern me as his forecast predictions have been far better than most down the years.
So there are some bright minds that don't think Brexit is the end of the world arguing it equals short-term pain (as you have in any messy divorce) for long-term gain. I know most of you won't agree with their views but just making the contrarian case. Please don't shoot the messenger!
[Post edited 8 Sep 2019 15:34]
with all those links you could be the new
forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows
Not everybody thinks Brexit will be the end of the world:
Here is somebody else with some good credentials (far better than Deutsche Bank, which is anything but a badge of honour right now!) that argues the case for Brexit:
Ryan Bourne Head of Public Policy and Director, Paragon Initiative Ryan Bourne is Head of Public Policy at the IEA and Director of The Paragon Initiative. Ryan was educated at Magdalene College, Cambridge where he achieved a double-first in Economics at undergraduate level and later an MPhil qualification. Prior to joining the IEA, Ryan worked for a year at the economic consultancy firm Frontier Economics on competition and public policy issues. After leaving Frontier in 2010, Ryan joined the Centre for Policy Studies think tank in Westminster, first as an Economics Researcher and subsequently as Head of Economic Research. There, he was responsible for writing, editing and commissioning economic reports across a broad range of areas, as well as organisation of economic-themed events and roundtables. Ryan appears regularly in the national media, including writing for The Times, the Daily Telegraph, ConservativeHome and Spectator Coffee House, and appearing on broadcast, including BBC News, Newsnight, Sky News, Jeff Randall Live, Reuters and LBC radio. He is currently a weekly columnist for CityAM.
He argues: "A final myth, that the mere existence of our group should debunk, is that there are no economists or economic studies favouring Brexit. Many important studies, from the mayor of London’s economics team, Capital Economics, Open Europe, the Centre for Economics and Business Research and the IEA, have suggested that there would be no long-term material losses from Brexit, and in some cases gains. Well-known figures, such as former Bank of England governor Lord (Mervyn) King, have said that our leaving the EU is not primarily an economic question, with the impact of leaving greatly exaggerated."
The difference between Sky News UK and Australia is telling:
4.5k thumbs up for that video (at the time of writing) with just 187 thumbs down so popular opinion is clearly endorsing the views espoused by Peta Credlin. Please also read the video comments.
I realise these views won't be popular on here but I'm just pointing out that there are some dissenting voices that don't necessarily think Brexit will be such a long-term disaster as you might think.
One person I do respect though who thinks Brexit will be a huge disaster is Max Keiser. So I have to confess that does concern me as his forecast predictions have been far better than most down the years.
So there are some bright minds that don't think Brexit is the end of the world arguing it equals short-term pain (as you have in any messy divorce) for long-term gain. I know most of you won't agree with their views but just making the contrarian case. Please don't shoot the messenger!
[Post edited 8 Sep 2019 15:34]
I'm not sure I'd trust a lackey from the IEA to give in unbiased view.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Amber Rudd has quit... on 15:44 - Sep 8 by SpruceMoose
I'm not sure I'd trust a lackey from the IEA to give in unbiased view.
I'm sure his view is biased. Trying to find a truly independent source is easier said than done. I was just looking to express a different (or you could simply say unpopular) opinion as I think the Brexit debate has become far too entrenched. Tying to penetrate the groupthink from both sides of the bitter divide is a lot easier said than done though. Unless both sides are prepared to concede some ground then it's going to take years to stitch the country back together again.
As it says in the first link I posted: "The public were told by both sides their decision was the most important in our times. They would be furious to discover it solved nothing. Not much of a victory for democracy. But then it takes a referendum to show the system we have is pretty threadbare."
Amber Rudd has quit... on 16:02 - Sep 8 by midastouch
I'm sure his view is biased. Trying to find a truly independent source is easier said than done. I was just looking to express a different (or you could simply say unpopular) opinion as I think the Brexit debate has become far too entrenched. Tying to penetrate the groupthink from both sides of the bitter divide is a lot easier said than done though. Unless both sides are prepared to concede some ground then it's going to take years to stitch the country back together again.
As it says in the first link I posted: "The public were told by both sides their decision was the most important in our times. They would be furious to discover it solved nothing. Not much of a victory for democracy. But then it takes a referendum to show the system we have is pretty threadbare."
Two things:
I clicked on the first link in your original post - it was over an hour long (and started with mood music which is a bit of an incoming bullsh1t alert sometimes) so, with a lot of other demands on my retired do nothing time I decided not to listen to it. Any chance of summing those links up in a paragraph or two?
Agree on the difficulties with finding dispassionate and balanced views, with how groupthink is obscuring any decisive findings and the likelihood of no resolution to divisions in our state whichever way Brexit ends; but even if we all agree that our system is threadbare where do we go from here?
Amber Rudd has quit... on 16:02 - Sep 8 by midastouch
I'm sure his view is biased. Trying to find a truly independent source is easier said than done. I was just looking to express a different (or you could simply say unpopular) opinion as I think the Brexit debate has become far too entrenched. Tying to penetrate the groupthink from both sides of the bitter divide is a lot easier said than done though. Unless both sides are prepared to concede some ground then it's going to take years to stitch the country back together again.
As it says in the first link I posted: "The public were told by both sides their decision was the most important in our times. They would be furious to discover it solved nothing. Not much of a victory for democracy. But then it takes a referendum to show the system we have is pretty threadbare."
I don't think there are any truly independent, unbiased sources. The observer effect always exists in emotive issues like this.
Against the fact that long-term damage - even of No Deal - might be limited should be set the short term pain (especially given the patchy preparation) and the risk of inspiring trouble in Northern Ireland (there are plenty lurking in the wings, awaiting their chance to incite).
Amber Rudd has quit... on 16:02 - Sep 8 by midastouch
I'm sure his view is biased. Trying to find a truly independent source is easier said than done. I was just looking to express a different (or you could simply say unpopular) opinion as I think the Brexit debate has become far too entrenched. Tying to penetrate the groupthink from both sides of the bitter divide is a lot easier said than done though. Unless both sides are prepared to concede some ground then it's going to take years to stitch the country back together again.
As it says in the first link I posted: "The public were told by both sides their decision was the most important in our times. They would be furious to discover it solved nothing. Not much of a victory for democracy. But then it takes a referendum to show the system we have is pretty threadbare."
Tryouts no to find a single truly independent source, is not an optimal approach. It also has a degree of confirmation bias.
What you could do is use a wisdom of crowd type logic.
E.g. look at all forecasts, and then take an average of those.
The cost of being in the EU is about 0.4% of GDP.
Unless an average across all predictions is better than a cost of 0.4%, then I don’t think you have an argument that leaving the EU is likely to better for the UK.
"So there are some bright minds that don't think Brexit is the end of the world arguing it equals short-term pain (as you have in any messy divorce) for long-term gain. I know most of you won't agree with their views but just making the contrarian case. Please don't shoot the messenger!"
Of course Brexit wouldn't be the end of the world. Trade will always happen in one form or another, but it may be the unnecessary accelerated end, or further extreme hardship, for people at the bottom of the pile.
It's not looking at the human cost consequences of this shambles that particularly irk me. "Short term pain" = people's lives.
To sacrifice short term, for long term gain is a big decision which actually means "I am OK with people suffering now because I believe their lives WILL be better later" (By suffering - It also means accepting that could mean untimely death and extreme poverty)
Given the total lack of vision and plan so far, there is little to substantiate that the future WILL be better for those at the margin of society or even just the average household.
It's is unacceptable to me to gamble on the future of peoples welfare based upon nothing more than "It MIGHT be better".
In life, sometimes you do have to take chances, but unless you are totally reckless buffoon/chancer, you tend to make calculated decisions based on probable positive outcome and build safeguards and contingencies in the planning of your new path....
I see none of this in Brexit.
7
Amber Rudd has quit... on 18:39 - Sep 8 with 1928 views
Amber Rudd has quit... on 16:29 - Sep 8 by WeWereZombies
Two things:
I clicked on the first link in your original post - it was over an hour long (and started with mood music which is a bit of an incoming bullsh1t alert sometimes) so, with a lot of other demands on my retired do nothing time I decided not to listen to it. Any chance of summing those links up in a paragraph or two?
Agree on the difficulties with finding dispassionate and balanced views, with how groupthink is obscuring any decisive findings and the likelihood of no resolution to divisions in our state whichever way Brexit ends; but even if we all agree that our system is threadbare where do we go from here?
Hi there, apologies if the link didn't come up properly your end. The first link was this one. http://omfif.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/j/4D6910968DF201FA/174A59AC81F3795E942A2DF0 It was written just ahead of the Referendum and I thought it was a very accurate analysis with the clear advantage of hindsight. It was written by somebody called Brian Reading who was an Economic Adviser to Prime Minister Edward Heath and is a Member of the OMFIF Advisory Board. I found that link originally via a Tweet from Jim Rickards. Sorry it's long but because you've had trouble opening it your end (not sure what all the mood music was about) I'll just copy and paste it here, here goes: ****** Leave does not guarantee leave
Referendum shows limits of British democracy
By Brian Reading in London
If the Brexiteers win the 23 June referendum, we still won’t know the next day whether the UK will leave the European Union. The 2015 Referendum Act does not bind the government to the outcome. Parliament is sovereign, not the administration.
Even if the government accepts the result, it still has to get the necessary legislation through both houses of parliament. As the then Labour government advised of the 1975 referendum on whether to stay in the Common Market, 'The British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1 1973.'
If the result in three weeks is a landslide on a high turnout, the government could perhaps push exit through parliament. But such an outcome is unlikely. Following a marginal victory on a low turnout, Prime Minister David Cameron could not get a Leave Act through, and probably wouldn’t try.
The referendum issue has driven a wedge between MPs and voters — revealing Britain’s own democratic deficit.
Opinion polls have Remain and Leave running neck-and-neck, at a little more than 40% each of the popular vote. Don’t knows are 15% to 20%. But most MPs do not reflect this grass roots opinion. The 650 members are split 70% Remain, 20% Leave and 10% unknown.
This shows some democratic shortcomings behind the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system. At the 2015 general election the Scottish National party with 4.7% of the vote won 56 seats. The Liberal Democrats got 7.9% of the vote and eight seats. The UK Independence party collected 12.4% of the vote and one seat.
The referendum is a single constituency first-past-the post system. In 2015 SNP and Lib Dems’ combined votes were 3.9m, while UKIP got 3.6m votes. If all SNP and Lib Dem supporters vote Remain, and all UKIP supporters vote Leave, Remain gets only 300,000 more votes than Leave. But the corresponding MPs from these three parties are 64 to one against 'Brexit'.
Tory MPs are split 50% Remain, 40% Leave and 10% unknown. Party members seem to be split 40% Remain and 60% Leave. The disparity between the MPs and the party membership is greater higher up the party hierarchy. The Cabinet is split between 23 who wish to remain against seven Leavers. Career prospects, patronage and bets on a Remain victory all accentuate the cleavage with the grass roots.
The Labour wedge between party and people is in some ways still greater. Remain is supported by 215 MPs and Leave by seven, with 10 unknown. Yet Labour voters seem split 70% Remain to 30% for Brexit.
A simple calculation supports the poll findings of a close race. If each party’s 2015 votes are allocated according to their Remain/Leave shares, the result will be 49.5% for Remain against 50.5% for Leave. Compiling MPs' known preferences reveals a quite different result: 453 for Remain and 147 for Leave, with 50 unknown.
In the event of a pro-Brexit vote on 23 June, Cameron’s game plan must be, on the plausible assumption that his prime ministership survives, to pay lip-service to the result and start negotiating divorce terms without seeking parliamentary approval for a UK departure.
To do otherwise would split the Tories and lose the parliamentary vote. Negotiations could take two years or more. They would probably be onerous. The 2016 referendum result would be deemed invalid because the public did not and could not know the consequences.
Another referendum would be called. Elite casualties, as at Agincourt 600 years ago, would litter the bloody field. Leave would win the referendum battle but not the fifty years European war.
The public were told by both sides their decision was the most important in our times. They would be furious to discover it solved nothing. Not much of a victory for democracy. But then it takes a referendum to show the system we have is pretty threadbare. ******
Amber Rudd has quit... on 16:49 - Sep 8 by Texaco73
"So there are some bright minds that don't think Brexit is the end of the world arguing it equals short-term pain (as you have in any messy divorce) for long-term gain. I know most of you won't agree with their views but just making the contrarian case. Please don't shoot the messenger!"
Of course Brexit wouldn't be the end of the world. Trade will always happen in one form or another, but it may be the unnecessary accelerated end, or further extreme hardship, for people at the bottom of the pile.
It's not looking at the human cost consequences of this shambles that particularly irk me. "Short term pain" = people's lives.
To sacrifice short term, for long term gain is a big decision which actually means "I am OK with people suffering now because I believe their lives WILL be better later" (By suffering - It also means accepting that could mean untimely death and extreme poverty)
Given the total lack of vision and plan so far, there is little to substantiate that the future WILL be better for those at the margin of society or even just the average household.
It's is unacceptable to me to gamble on the future of peoples welfare based upon nothing more than "It MIGHT be better".
In life, sometimes you do have to take chances, but unless you are totally reckless buffoon/chancer, you tend to make calculated decisions based on probable positive outcome and build safeguards and contingencies in the planning of your new path....
I see none of this in Brexit.
I actually thought more people would have weighed up the referendum in the terms you state as in "better to be safe than sorry". I think one of the big reasons the Remain vote didn't win is some of the people that fronted their campaign (and the TV debates), such as Amber Rudd, didn't do a particularly good job of getting their message across. She wouldn't of been the choice for me to front key TV debates. She might not even make it through the next election as she's in a marginal constituency I believe. I've watched her many times on Question Time and while she's won a little more favour over her Brexit Stance over the last 2 or 3 years, before Brexit played out I don't think I had ever heard her get a single clap as a panel member from a Question Time audience. She just doesn't seem to communicate that well and engage with the public in a way that wins people over. Personally I think she was a poor choice for the Remain campaign to have chosen to front some of the TV debates etc. I definitely wouldn't of chosen Rudd to have had such a prominent campaign position during the run up to the referendum.
Amber Rudd has quit... on 18:39 - Sep 8 by midastouch
Hi there, apologies if the link didn't come up properly your end. The first link was this one. http://omfif.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/j/4D6910968DF201FA/174A59AC81F3795E942A2DF0 It was written just ahead of the Referendum and I thought it was a very accurate analysis with the clear advantage of hindsight. It was written by somebody called Brian Reading who was an Economic Adviser to Prime Minister Edward Heath and is a Member of the OMFIF Advisory Board. I found that link originally via a Tweet from Jim Rickards. Sorry it's long but because you've had trouble opening it your end (not sure what all the mood music was about) I'll just copy and paste it here, here goes: ****** Leave does not guarantee leave
Referendum shows limits of British democracy
By Brian Reading in London
If the Brexiteers win the 23 June referendum, we still won’t know the next day whether the UK will leave the European Union. The 2015 Referendum Act does not bind the government to the outcome. Parliament is sovereign, not the administration.
Even if the government accepts the result, it still has to get the necessary legislation through both houses of parliament. As the then Labour government advised of the 1975 referendum on whether to stay in the Common Market, 'The British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1 1973.'
If the result in three weeks is a landslide on a high turnout, the government could perhaps push exit through parliament. But such an outcome is unlikely. Following a marginal victory on a low turnout, Prime Minister David Cameron could not get a Leave Act through, and probably wouldn’t try.
The referendum issue has driven a wedge between MPs and voters — revealing Britain’s own democratic deficit.
Opinion polls have Remain and Leave running neck-and-neck, at a little more than 40% each of the popular vote. Don’t knows are 15% to 20%. But most MPs do not reflect this grass roots opinion. The 650 members are split 70% Remain, 20% Leave and 10% unknown.
This shows some democratic shortcomings behind the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system. At the 2015 general election the Scottish National party with 4.7% of the vote won 56 seats. The Liberal Democrats got 7.9% of the vote and eight seats. The UK Independence party collected 12.4% of the vote and one seat.
The referendum is a single constituency first-past-the post system. In 2015 SNP and Lib Dems’ combined votes were 3.9m, while UKIP got 3.6m votes. If all SNP and Lib Dem supporters vote Remain, and all UKIP supporters vote Leave, Remain gets only 300,000 more votes than Leave. But the corresponding MPs from these three parties are 64 to one against 'Brexit'.
Tory MPs are split 50% Remain, 40% Leave and 10% unknown. Party members seem to be split 40% Remain and 60% Leave. The disparity between the MPs and the party membership is greater higher up the party hierarchy. The Cabinet is split between 23 who wish to remain against seven Leavers. Career prospects, patronage and bets on a Remain victory all accentuate the cleavage with the grass roots.
The Labour wedge between party and people is in some ways still greater. Remain is supported by 215 MPs and Leave by seven, with 10 unknown. Yet Labour voters seem split 70% Remain to 30% for Brexit.
A simple calculation supports the poll findings of a close race. If each party’s 2015 votes are allocated according to their Remain/Leave shares, the result will be 49.5% for Remain against 50.5% for Leave. Compiling MPs' known preferences reveals a quite different result: 453 for Remain and 147 for Leave, with 50 unknown.
In the event of a pro-Brexit vote on 23 June, Cameron’s game plan must be, on the plausible assumption that his prime ministership survives, to pay lip-service to the result and start negotiating divorce terms without seeking parliamentary approval for a UK departure.
To do otherwise would split the Tories and lose the parliamentary vote. Negotiations could take two years or more. They would probably be onerous. The 2016 referendum result would be deemed invalid because the public did not and could not know the consequences.
Another referendum would be called. Elite casualties, as at Agincourt 600 years ago, would litter the bloody field. Leave would win the referendum battle but not the fifty years European war.
The public were told by both sides their decision was the most important in our times. They would be furious to discover it solved nothing. Not much of a victory for democracy. But then it takes a referendum to show the system we have is pretty threadbare. ******
Sorry but what I was trying to say was post less stuff - I try and keep up with all the posts in important threads but an hour of audio is, I feel, too much to ask. So sorry again for needlessly doing the cut and paste.
And seeing as you posted it I had to read it. Quite revealing, you seem to have found the one commentator who had an inkling of what was likely to happen.
One thought comes out of this. It seems that back then the closer people were to the coal face of politics the more likely they were to support staying in the European Union and you could say this is also reflected in the electorate. The closer you are to pursuing overseas sales or arranging educational or scientific programmes the more likely you were to vote to remain, if this was not an everyday concern you were more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion?
I wonder if we lived in a less centralised bureaucracy would the result have been different?
Amber Rudd has quit... on 19:17 - Sep 8 by WeWereZombies
Sorry but what I was trying to say was post less stuff - I try and keep up with all the posts in important threads but an hour of audio is, I feel, too much to ask. So sorry again for needlessly doing the cut and paste.
And seeing as you posted it I had to read it. Quite revealing, you seem to have found the one commentator who had an inkling of what was likely to happen.
One thought comes out of this. It seems that back then the closer people were to the coal face of politics the more likely they were to support staying in the European Union and you could say this is also reflected in the electorate. The closer you are to pursuing overseas sales or arranging educational or scientific programmes the more likely you were to vote to remain, if this was not an everyday concern you were more likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion?
I wonder if we lived in a less centralised bureaucracy would the result have been different?
Yes he had a very good stab at how it would all play out, aside from Cameron doing a runner! And some good points cheers. My first message above was only going to share the Mervyn King link but for some reason I got rather carried away! And I also said after in a subsequent post on this thread about how bitter and divided we've become as a nation as a sad consequence of the Brexit vote. Well this short video sums that up perfectly
Mark Francois: “A slur on 17.4m people...you should apologise on national TV....outrageous thing to sayâ€
just look at the stare at the end between the two guests. It would of been better suited to the start of a boxing match rather than a midday TV studio political debate! However are we all meant to come together and move beyond all the animosity? I'm not expecting an answer and I'll confess that question is well beyond my pay grade and limited intellect. It's going to take a very special leader indeed to be able to clean up the mess left behind from the likes of, Cameron, May and Johnson.
Amber Rudd has quit... on 19:30 - Sep 8 by midastouch
Yes he had a very good stab at how it would all play out, aside from Cameron doing a runner! And some good points cheers. My first message above was only going to share the Mervyn King link but for some reason I got rather carried away! And I also said after in a subsequent post on this thread about how bitter and divided we've become as a nation as a sad consequence of the Brexit vote. Well this short video sums that up perfectly
Mark Francois: “A slur on 17.4m people...you should apologise on national TV....outrageous thing to sayâ€
just look at the stare at the end between the two guests. It would of been better suited to the start of a boxing match rather than a midday TV studio political debate! However are we all meant to come together and move beyond all the animosity? I'm not expecting an answer and I'll confess that question is well beyond my pay grade and limited intellect. It's going to take a very special leader indeed to be able to clean up the mess left behind from the likes of, Cameron, May and Johnson.
Francois is really quite stupid and seemingly unable to understand a somewhat nuanced, but not difficult sentence.
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett)
Francois is really quite stupid and seemingly unable to understand a somewhat nuanced, but not difficult sentence.
I'm not sure who's more unpopular right now out of Cummings or Francois! Probably Cummings but Francois is doing his best to close the gap! Cummings is an odd fellow. He was even despised by a lot of people on his own side during the referendum campaign. I recall reading that during the campaign the likes of Bernard Jenkin MP tried to remove him (see here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-vote-leave-board-me and the so-called Bad Boys of Brexit (Farage, Banks, Tice and Wigmore) also tried to oust him as they felt he was doing more harm than good for their campaign efforts. So seems like he's not very popular with many people apart from Boris!
Amber Rudd has quit... on 18:39 - Sep 8 by midastouch
Hi there, apologies if the link didn't come up properly your end. The first link was this one. http://omfif.cmail20.com/t/ViewEmail/j/4D6910968DF201FA/174A59AC81F3795E942A2DF0 It was written just ahead of the Referendum and I thought it was a very accurate analysis with the clear advantage of hindsight. It was written by somebody called Brian Reading who was an Economic Adviser to Prime Minister Edward Heath and is a Member of the OMFIF Advisory Board. I found that link originally via a Tweet from Jim Rickards. Sorry it's long but because you've had trouble opening it your end (not sure what all the mood music was about) I'll just copy and paste it here, here goes: ****** Leave does not guarantee leave
Referendum shows limits of British democracy
By Brian Reading in London
If the Brexiteers win the 23 June referendum, we still won’t know the next day whether the UK will leave the European Union. The 2015 Referendum Act does not bind the government to the outcome. Parliament is sovereign, not the administration.
Even if the government accepts the result, it still has to get the necessary legislation through both houses of parliament. As the then Labour government advised of the 1975 referendum on whether to stay in the Common Market, 'The British parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1 1973.'
If the result in three weeks is a landslide on a high turnout, the government could perhaps push exit through parliament. But such an outcome is unlikely. Following a marginal victory on a low turnout, Prime Minister David Cameron could not get a Leave Act through, and probably wouldn’t try.
The referendum issue has driven a wedge between MPs and voters — revealing Britain’s own democratic deficit.
Opinion polls have Remain and Leave running neck-and-neck, at a little more than 40% each of the popular vote. Don’t knows are 15% to 20%. But most MPs do not reflect this grass roots opinion. The 650 members are split 70% Remain, 20% Leave and 10% unknown.
This shows some democratic shortcomings behind the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system. At the 2015 general election the Scottish National party with 4.7% of the vote won 56 seats. The Liberal Democrats got 7.9% of the vote and eight seats. The UK Independence party collected 12.4% of the vote and one seat.
The referendum is a single constituency first-past-the post system. In 2015 SNP and Lib Dems’ combined votes were 3.9m, while UKIP got 3.6m votes. If all SNP and Lib Dem supporters vote Remain, and all UKIP supporters vote Leave, Remain gets only 300,000 more votes than Leave. But the corresponding MPs from these three parties are 64 to one against 'Brexit'.
Tory MPs are split 50% Remain, 40% Leave and 10% unknown. Party members seem to be split 40% Remain and 60% Leave. The disparity between the MPs and the party membership is greater higher up the party hierarchy. The Cabinet is split between 23 who wish to remain against seven Leavers. Career prospects, patronage and bets on a Remain victory all accentuate the cleavage with the grass roots.
The Labour wedge between party and people is in some ways still greater. Remain is supported by 215 MPs and Leave by seven, with 10 unknown. Yet Labour voters seem split 70% Remain to 30% for Brexit.
A simple calculation supports the poll findings of a close race. If each party’s 2015 votes are allocated according to their Remain/Leave shares, the result will be 49.5% for Remain against 50.5% for Leave. Compiling MPs' known preferences reveals a quite different result: 453 for Remain and 147 for Leave, with 50 unknown.
In the event of a pro-Brexit vote on 23 June, Cameron’s game plan must be, on the plausible assumption that his prime ministership survives, to pay lip-service to the result and start negotiating divorce terms without seeking parliamentary approval for a UK departure.
To do otherwise would split the Tories and lose the parliamentary vote. Negotiations could take two years or more. They would probably be onerous. The 2016 referendum result would be deemed invalid because the public did not and could not know the consequences.
Another referendum would be called. Elite casualties, as at Agincourt 600 years ago, would litter the bloody field. Leave would win the referendum battle but not the fifty years European war.
The public were told by both sides their decision was the most important in our times. They would be furious to discover it solved nothing. Not much of a victory for democracy. But then it takes a referendum to show the system we have is pretty threadbare. ******
That was a pretty much spot on assessment for its time.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
