The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[NurembergVillan]

More here.

Surely we need to press Pause on this Brexit snuff movie whilst all this is going on.

The whole thing **** stinks.

[blandy]

55 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Surely we need to press Pause on this Brexit snuff movie whilst all this is going on.

It's a bit odd that various anti- leave politicians haven't been making more of that idea. I know the useless Catweazle's been hiding in his shed, but people like the tory rebel ones and the Labour rebel ones should surely have been making more noise about the corruption of the referendum, the illegality (as determined by the Electoral Commission) and all that.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's a bit odd that various anti- leave politicians haven't been making more of that idea. I know the useless Catweazle's been hiding in his shed, but people like the tory rebel ones and the Labour rebel ones should surely have been making more noise about the corruption of the referendum, the illegality (as determined by the Electoral Commission) and all that.

See post in one of the US Politics topics about missing the open goal opportunity because you're too busy screaming for the free kick you shouldn't have had.

Politicians do it all the time

[Xann]

1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said:

The whole thing **** stinks.

The foul stench of traitors, tax evaders and stupidity.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

See post in one of the US Politics topics about missing the open goal opportunity because you're too busy screaming for the free kick you shouldn't have had.

Politicians do it all the time

Yeah. They do. SOme of them are proper dumb.

But when I said it was a bit odd, I was wondering if they aren't, perhaps, actually waiting for the exact moment to play the card, here. Because not all of them (the rebels) are stupid. Overly trusting, perhaps, but not actually stupid. I wonder if they aren't waiting until the point of actual imminent (I mean really imminent) catastropork before pulling the chord, so to speak? Or even if T.May isn't doing the same?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Yeah. They do. SOme of them are proper dumb.

But when I said it was a bit odd, I was wondering if they aren't, perhaps, actually waiting for the exact moment to play the card, here. Because not all of them (the rebels) are stupid. Overly trusting, perhaps, but not actually stupid. I wonder if they aren't waiting until the point of actual imminent (I mean really imminent) catastropork before pulling the chord, so to speak? Or even if T.May isn't doing the same?

It's possible certainly and you're right Domonic Grieve isn't dumb for sure

[HanoiVillan]

No chance will anything ever come of it. None whatsoever. 

EDIT: when I say 'come of it', I'm meaning here about 'pausing Brexit' or some such. I can quite believe Arron Banks might get fined or something. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by HanoiVillan

[Chindie]

Liked, but disagree about Banks. I bet nothing comes of it. I've no doubt at all Banks wasn't playing by the rules but I bet he gets away with it.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Domonic Grieve

Sp?

Surely you mean Demonic?

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

Sp?

Surely you mean Demonic?

I think you have him confused with a certain Mr Raab

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

But when I said it was a bit odd, I was wondering if they aren't, perhaps, actually waiting for the exact moment to play the card, here.

Well, yes.  Europhiles mostly can't see why Brexit isn't simply being opposed, and are working themselves up into a righteous state of pique about being let down, but it would be a very risky thing for (especially) Labour simply to do that, and would alienate a large part of the base.

The better position is one that says "we went with the vote, despite it being purely advisory and a very narrow majority, but in view of what has gradually become known about the terms on offer/the unsuitability of the alternatives/the previously unknown costs/ the unfeasibility of entering trade deals on adequate terms and reasonably quickly/ the impending crisis and shortages and the consequent impact on people/ the lies and criminality we now see revealed...etc...we now take the view that a pause/ further referendum/ withdrawal of Article 50 is required".

This position can't simply be created by political will, or "leadership", or saying things with conviction and in a loud voice.  It has to emerge over time, and become apparent to enough people to make it sustainable.

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, peterms said:

Well, yes.  Europhiles mostly can't see why Brexit isn't simply being opposed, and are working themselves up into a righteous state of pique about being let down, but it would be a very risky thing for (especially) Labour simply to do that, and would alienate a large part of the base.

The better position is one that says "we went with the vote, despite it being purely advisory and a very narrow majority, but in view of what has gradually become known about the terms on offer/the unsuitability of the alternatives/the previously unknown costs/ the unfeasibility of entering trade deals on adequate terms and reasonably quickly/ the impending crisis and shortages and the consequent impact on people/ the lies and criminality we now see revealed...etc...we now take the view that a pause/ further referendum/ withdrawal of Article 50 is required".

This position can't simply be created by political will, or "leadership", or saying things with conviction and in a loud voice.  It has to emerge over time, and become apparent to enough people to make it sustainable.

Well, yes. I read it differently. Firstly there's something like 70% of Labour members are anti Brexit, and what with all this call for the party to be more democratic and represent the membership, there's a very strong argument that they have double standards.

Secondly, these naughty Leave campaign people in both Leave campaign groups - there's a huge connection with the likes of Johnson, Gove, Mogg etc  - top tory ministers implicated in [consults lawyers] "matters that have been or may be found to be illegal" - that's an absolute gift horse for a Labour leadership.

So for Labour (or anyone else) there's an open goal here.

Foreign interference, Campaign illegality, now investigations by the organised crime investigators into Aaron Banks, there's Cambridge analytica... There's the clusterpork state of the negotiations, the Gov't papers on the impact of Brexit on trade, jobs, prosperity, NHS, medicine, Science etc etc. There's the narrow result of the advisory referendum. There's the parliamentary maths (most MPs against brexit, and massively against hard brexit). There's the lies and dishonesty. and so on and so on.

Leadership would be coming out of your potting shed and actually connecting these things, making a coherent argument for impropriety and illegality having occurred and connecting it to the odious numpties of the Leave campaigns. Pointing out their hypocrisy, too - the Mogg hedge funds moving to Ireland etc.

Catweazle the incompetent should be shouting this lot from the rooftops, not hiding in his **** potting shed. Labour's position on Brexit is as messed up as the Tories. And this is not an anti leave argument. They could credibly and coherently make a leave argument, and still point out all of the above, if the argument about upsetting people or whatever is real.

[snowychap]

58 minutes ago, peterms said:

It has to emerge over time

It has less than 5 months to poke its head out of the hole.

Edited November 1, 2018 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

There will eventually be a promise from some committee somewhere that we have 'learned lessons' from the brexit referendum and that 'steps have already been taken' to prevent similar future criminal rigging of quite important votes.

It's difficult to see how this could have been handled much worse, from start to slow bleeding death finish.

Blair and Cameron. They'll be someone's history lesson eventually. How the awful standard of our democratic leaders caused such an upsurge in islamic terror and right wing extremism.

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It has less than 5 months to poke its head out of the hole.

If other countries would prefer not to see us leave, there may well be movement on the timescales, if they believe there is genuine reconsideration and it's not just more playing for time.  But yes, time is short.

[snowychap]

Just now, peterms said:

If other countries would prefer not to see us leave, there may well be movement on the timescales, if they believe there is genuine reconsideration and it's not just more playing for time.  But yes, time is short.

If and if and if and if then there may well be.

No one seriously would base a political tactic on those flimsy bases.

It, a delay, may come to pass but it's as sensible as me basing my next week's budget on a positive outcome of my football bet this weekend.

 

 

[peterms]

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, yes. I read it differently. Firstly there's something like 70% of Labour members are anti Brexit, and what with all this call for the party to be more democratic and represent the membership, there's a very strong argument that they have double standards.

But as you know, the views of the membership and those of the voters are not too well aligned on this, so there's a need to try to bring people along while alienating as few as possible.  That's pretty hard, and can't be done by issuing a line and expecting people to fall in behind it.

26 minutes ago, blandy said:

Secondly, these naughty Leave campaign people in both Leave campaign groups - there's a huge connection with the likes of Johnson, Gove, Mogg etc  - top tory ministers implicated in [consults lawyers] "matters that have been or may be found to be illegal" - that's an absolute gift horse for a Labour leadership.

Yes, all good stuff, and should be used as much as possible.  The media have a role to play in this as well of course; a pretty large one.

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

Foreign interference, Campaign illegality, now investigations by the organised crime investigators into Aaron Banks, there's Cambridge analytica... There's the clusterpork state of the negotiations, the Gov't papers on the impact of Brexit on trade, jobs, prosperity, NHS, medicine, Science etc etc. There's the narrow result of the advisory referendum. There's the parliamentary maths (most MPs against brexit, and massively against hard brexit). There's the lies and dishonesty. and so on and so on.

Leadership would be coming out of your potting shed and actually connecting these things, making a coherent argument for impropriety and illegality having occurred and connecting it to the odious numpties of the Leave campaigns. Pointing out their hypocrisy, too - the Mogg hedge funds moving to Ireland etc.

You approach it very much on a rational basis.  Those arguments are much less convincing to some leavers, especially the ones who feel abandoned and about whom we've heard over the last couple of years.  You can't just set out a rational case and expect people to buy it.  For those for whom the vote was based on emotion, or gut feeling, or alienation, or distrust, or feeling that people other than them benefit from EU membership, more than that is needed.  Maybe that's developing an understanding that they were lied to, or seeing the likely consequences explained in more detail and in a way that they can accept isn't just spin and propaganda.  Asking people to accept they were wrong on something they felt strongly about is hard, and it takes time, and needs a gradual buildup of information and evidence in a form they can accept.  It also needs an acceptable story about why they were wrong, which is where the vocal reaction of the remainers that these people were just stupid was very counterproductive.  A story about having been lied to is much more likely to be effective, but it needs demonstrating, not just asserting.

[peterms]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

No one seriously would base a political tactic on those flimsy bases.

They do, all the time.

[snowychap]

18 minutes ago, peterms said:

They do, all the time.

What rubbish.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by snowychap

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

What rubbish.

 

Take for example Cameron's decision to hold the referendum, and May's decision to call an election.  I'd say, with hindsight, the basis for these momentous decisions looks - well, flimsy seems an inadequate description.