With Liz Kendall wading in it's clear as day that these people don't actually respect or want the democratic result at all, but to admit so (even to themselves) would break their whole political ideology.
With Liz Kendall wading in it's clear as day that these people don't actually respect or want the democratic result at all, but to admit so (even to themselves) would break their whole political ideology.
There's a genuine line of thought on the centre left that even "allowing" the vote in the first place was a huge mistake, because obviously the people can't be trusted to take decisions.
Rees-Mogg is right on single market membership. Staying in would effectively reject the result of the referendum. Assuming 'hard Brexit' entails leaving the single market, then hard Brexit it must be. And that's just tough shit.
Well, that's not entirely daft is it? See old Gordon's 5 golden rules or whatever it was. You make it so you never have to actually follow through on your promise of a referendum, unless you want to. I can only assume the ease with which AV was dispatched made everyone a bit overconfident as regards the manifest dangers of 'giving the people their say'.
Ultimately you have, in my view, three major decision points in the trajectory of the EU that fundamentally altered the landscape and where a referendum would at least have given the thing some legitimacy. 1992 and no referendum on Maastricht, 2004 and Blair not imposing the transitional controls on immigration from joining states, and 2007 and Brown ramming Lisbon through without the promised referendum (from the 2005 manifesto) on spurious grounds.
I'd have had much more sympathy with the idea of there being no need for a referendum if the electorate had signed off on any of the above, entailing as they did fundamental changes in the constitutional position and / or likely significant changes in the way that EU membership affected us. But we didn't, so whatever your views on the EU I do think it was entirely fair to have one and put the issue to bed either way. Suggesting we shouldn't have had the referendum, having never had an opportunity to directly sign off anything since 1975, is a bit lol. Still, it's the Lib Dems so it's not like they count.
I'd agree Cameron was over-confident - and he probably never expected to have to actually implement the manifesto pledge - but at least he actually went through and had one. Labour couldn't even do that.
George Osborne reckons that people didn't vote for HARD BREXIT. Why don't you sit this one out, mate?
Osborne must be seething at how things have turned out. I'm sure Vote Leave advocated single market withdrawal, but then THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR so whatever.
It's irrelevant who said what. They have to get rid of free movement, and if that means HARD BREXIT then HARD BREXIT is what we will get.
Well, exactly. To refer again to the exit poll that phonics can't get his head around, 49% was on sovereignty and 33% was on immigration. Both require single market withdrawal, so that's what it'll need to be or you're basically rejecting the result.
Even staying in with some sort of emergency brake on immigration is pointless because it would still necessitate handing over powers to regulate us to the EU.
The reason we're in this position is because Cameron is a complacent twat who assumed he'd win, like he's won everything else in his life, and he ran out of luck. If he thought he'd lose, he wouldn't have let it happen.
https://www.ft.com/content/dd666fb8-...d%2F%2Fproduct
Bang on time.
Fuck them.
I seem to have used up my free articles, but, if it's about the passport business, Peter Lilley (of singing about gypos and single mothers fame) covered all of this the other day.
Oh and just when you think nothing could top "Brexit" for its nauseating pointlessness, "Hard Brexit" comes along.
Still, I suppose it'll give Farage something to do again when we don't actually leave.
As long as it means Brexit, thats all that matters.
I'm now convinced more than ever that we won't actually be leaving.
That phrase was coined to try and make people SEETHING at the result realise it's going to happen and they need to get over themselves.Originally Posted by phonics
That said, there is a certain irony in some people citing the complexity of leaving as a reason not to bother and then demanding to have detailed plans for it when parliament has been in recess. Chuka and his Vote Leave Watch is a right laugh too.
We will. It would be politically impossible not to, although I did read a great story in the Telegraph last week that suggested Eurocrats were hoping to make the whole thing so fiendishly awful that we'd just give up on it. If that happens, we should have no compunction about unilaterally invading Belgium.
I've just had a chance to read this. There's a lot of merit in the idea of simply repealing the European Communities Act of 1972, immediately writing over all existing EU law into UK law (and then binning it off periodically) and announcing that we're going to continue trading freely with the EU unless they unilaterally bung tariffs on.
Meanwhile, in Liverpool:
There's several more days of this to go, too.
Why is anti-semitism so hot in the streets these days? The alt-right can't stop raving about it either, I thought we were past all that since we need all the white-ish people we can get in the West?
Meet socialism, and I don't mean Bernie Sanders wanking on about bunnies socialism, I mean proper hard left danger men.
I read that as white as you could imagine.
'While I still can...'
Do fuck off.
My theory (giving the daughter of a baronet the benefit of the doubt and discounting the most basic idiocy) is that these sort of people think that nation and state are the same thing. If so, that would explain quite a lot.
Visible anti-sensitism was much worse in the UK than it is in the US. At least it was fifteen years ago when I lived there. Among all classes. I was at JP Morgan and got to sit next to Etonians who loved a Jew joke. The day their million pound education taught them that Jew rhymed with new and we got a whole day of "the Jew York times." Which was odd at an American investment bank when you are sitting next to people with names like Goldsteinbergmanwitz. In the US you still got homosexual jokes like at the time but not Jewish ones.
Being visibly Jewish in public was fun too. I wear a kippah maybe three times a year but stopped in the UK because you always got a lot of shit on the street. I got everything from dirty yid to pig fucker and always multiple times. Once, in the Blackfriars tube station I had three kind young men toss coins at my feet since they were worried I would not have return fare before a good chorus of dirty fucking yid followed by getting spat on. That was fun. History has given us worse problems with race but less with anti-semitism. People just don't know because we mostly left or were kicked out.
I'd agree with the following study of Jewish perceptions. It is annoying but not bad in daily life in the UK, but being visibly Jewish would be unbearable. Better than most of the rest of Europe but significantly worse than anywhere in the new world.
http://www.jpr.org.uk/documents/Perc...Jews_in_UK.pdf
Etonian bankers are probably the worst people in the whole country to be fair, including Anjem Choudary.
That survey seems to conclude that perceptions and experiences of anti-semitism tend to relate to Muslims, and to being a bit precious about Israel. Well I am stunned.
It's rough down in that 'the Blackfriars'.
Should have gone back to within the aeroft (Eruv?) of intolerance they were building around that time.
Is that interviewer a man in drag?
It's the lass from Portlandia.
The state of that. It's the walk-off that makes it.
To be fair, that's how I imagined you would look like in real life.
Shouldn't have BOTTLED the Norwich Meet then.
It fascinates me that they think MPs should be accountable to "the movement" rather than "their constituents", as if anyone who didn't vote for them can be safely ignored.
Rachel Reeves stumbling into Powellism by merely thinking logically is seriously lol, as is her shitty explanation that we need to have an 'honest debate' on migration and free movement. We had it. We want less of it.
lol at all the Labour 'moderates' (albeit not the well-known ones) pretending that Jezza gave some sort of transformative speech as a cover for them slunking back into the fold. Twats.
There was a decent point in the Spectator that Wor Jez could have given that speech 20 years ago. The lad probably hasn't changed an opinion since he left university.
Fair play to him for advocating that we should keep open borders. The core vote in the north will fucking love that.
Also, Seamus "The Americans brought it on themselves" Milne is apparently returning to the Guardian as of Friday. Guardianistas everywhere will be blocking to the Morning Star.
Tomorrow's QT panel:
Priti Patel, Rod Liddle, Bonnie Greer, Emily Thornberry and Steven Woolfe.
That panel could have been hand picked by Rod Liddle.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns...ead-1488108898
Heroic scenes from Peter Oborne.
Why's it heroic?
Is Richard Burgon gay? He has to be.
He looks permanently perplexed, as if he can't believe his new profile.
The standard of this panel really is absolutely shit.
That football bit was like the arse end of all political discourse.
Burgon is probably the best here, which says something. I don't agree with much of what he's saying (obviously), but still. Bonnie Greer's hopelessness is only marginally bested by Priti Patel's apparently awful grasp of coherent sentence structure.
There is a big protest planned for the Conservative Party conference on Sunday. If that Nigel Farage poster killed Jo Cox, it's only right that any aggro gets blamed entirely on Owen Jones.
Not available to non-subscribers, it seems. What is it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
