OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

I apologise for putting words in your mouth, I’ll still go for ill-informed not confused though.

Apology accepted. Although I’m not sure you were ‘putting words in my mouth’. Rather you were changing the whole meaning of what I was saying in order to add credence to your view of Remainers.
My view is that the whole electorate - aka ‘the people’ - are confused as a result of being hopelessly and deliberately ill informed at the time of the original Referendum.
There are doubtless reasons in favour of voting Leave...not the least of which are concerns about the absence of democracy within the EU.
Equally, a significant proportion - not by any means all - of those who voted Leave did so for more dubious, ill founded and ill informed reasons, a view which is only strengthened by talk of rioting in the streets if Brexit is cancelled and the intimidation and violence aimed at the likes of Anna Soubry, Gina Miller and Jo Cox. The people responsible for such actions may not have been typical Leavers but they were, without any shadow of doubt...Brexiteers.
Likewise I suspect there to be some nonsense spoken by Remainers, although obviously, imo, not as much.
That is why, together with the absolute failure of all but a small minority of MP’s to set a good example and offer genuine clarification, I say the electorate is confused.
We would also do well to recognise that the electorate contains a sizeable number of people who haven’t a clue as far as anything beyond basic numeracy and literacy is concerned. We are all too often a nation that never reads the small print and fails to understand the basics of basic domestic financial planning, APR and interest rates etc...so how the hell was an informed decision ever to be reached over anything as complex as the economic implications of EU membership?
I imagine you’ll now accuse me of being patronising but it’s true. The electorate was never a fit and proper body to reach a decision on what was asked...and then it was lied to!
Now we are in the absurd position where it is beginning to look as if the only way out of this mess is to have a second referendum.
The only thing that has improved is that people are genuinely, I believe, now more aware of the implications and consequences that leaving the EU is likely to have.
With that in mind a second referendum, though far from satisfactory, is, imo, a greater exercise in democracy rather than the challenge to the democratic process that Adi seems to imply.

[Geoff Parkstone]

RA "We would also do well to recognise that the electorate contains a sizeable number of people who haven’t a clue as far as anything beyond basic numeracy"

Whereas the parliamentarians who many believe are more capable decision makers have a wonderful line in numeracy, Miss Abbott?

RA "a greater exercise in democracy rather than the challenge to the democratic process that Adi seems to imply."

I was listening to radio 4 on Sunday when they were debating whether this is a constitutional crisis as well as a brexit crisis. Bercow's unilateral bending of long standing parliamentary rules to enable the Grieve amendment may have been a pragmatic solution to help speed the process, but its long term consequences are more worrying.

The disconnect between the for and against Brexit individuals and the traditional Tory v Labour core vote presents a huge challenge to or current parliamentary system on both sides of the house. The two party system (briefly 3 on a couple of occasions) and "first past the post" is severely compromised by the non alignment of Brexit views and party views. If you think people are confused on a referendum vote, how will they be able to evaluate the election which the opportunistic Corbyn is chasing?

Tories, traditionally Remainers, standing on an enforced Brexit vote. Labour, traditionally anti EU standing on a ticket to prevent Brexit after the May deal is rejected? The misalignment between the issues and party politics will never be so stressed, and an election would be no way to solve a single issue such as this one: it should be sorted by parliamentary consensus, not even more divisiveness.

If ever there was a call for an STV or proportional representation, this must be it. Or better yet the abandonment of the party system in order that a cross party faction, be it remain or Brexit, can take up the reins with a clear mandate. Our parliamentary system relies on a fusion of executive, legislative and judicuary powers to create an unwritten constitution - unlike for example in the USA where legislative and executive are expressly separated. Toss into this the new necessity of a 4th dimension - the plebiscite - and we are well ****ed. Yes a constitutional crisis to add on to everything else

[ramAnag]

RA "We would also do well to recognise that the electorate contains a sizeable number of people who haven’t a clue as far as anything beyond basic numeracy"

Whereas the parliamentarians who many believe are more capable decision makers have a wonderful line in numeracy, Miss Abbott?

RA "a greater exercise in democracy rather than the challenge to the democratic process that Adi seems to imply."

I was listening to radio 4 on Sunday when they were debating whether this is a constitutional crisis as well as a brexit crisis. Bercow's unilateral bending of long standing parliamentary rules to enable the Grieve amendment may have been a pragmatic solution to help speed the process, but its long term consequences are more worrying.

The disconnect between the for and against Brexit individuals and the traditional Tory v Labour core vote presents a huge challenge to or current parliamentary system on both sides of the house. The two party system (briefly 3 on a couple of occasions) and "first past the post" is severely compromised by the non alignment of Brexit views and party views. If you think people are confused on a referendum vote, how will they be able to evaluate the election which the opportunistic Corbyn is chasing?

Tories, traditionally Remainers, standing on an enforced Brexit vote. Labour, traditionally anti EU standing on a ticket to prevent Brexit after the May deal is rejected? The misalignment between the issues and party politics will never be so stressed, and an election would be no way to solve a single issue such as this one: it should be sorted by parliamentary consensus, not even more divisiveness.

If ever there was a call for an STV or proportional representation, this must be it. Or better yet the abandonment of the party system in order that a cross party faction, be it remain or Brexit, can take up the reins with a clear mandate. Our parliamentary system relies on a fusion of executive, legislative and judicuary powers to create an unwritten constitution - unlike for example in the USA where legislative and executive are expressly separated. Toss into this the new necessity of a 4th dimension - the plebiscite - and we are well ****ed. Yes a constitutional crisis to add on to everything else

My interpretation of the current situation/crisis has never involved defending the politicians involved, GP and I’m neither a fan of, nor a huge critic of either Abbott or Corbyn...they are what they are...well intentioned but bang average Parliamentarians, imo.

Like you, I see absolutely no point in another General Election because Labour are almost as divided as the Tories...just slightly less likely to start stabbing one another in the back...a fate which might benefit us all if the likes of Johnson, JRB, IDS, Gove and that ‘reptile’ from North Leicestershire (Bridgen) were to indulge.

Wouldn’t disagree with most of your other comments about the need for cross party unity, but how do you get a starting point because - and yes I know I’m repeating myself, but the point remains unanswered - the advisory views of just over one third of the people formed on the basis of misinformation and broken rules is no sort of foundation upon which to base our nation’s future.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'm not sure I would ascribe such good intentions to Corbyn who still appears to be trying to make political advantage out of national chaos, so as to try to seize power. The country does not need that. I don't think he needs to do this, as its been plain to see for 2 years now that any leader who puts brexit or remain into effect will lose the next election, as a result of non aligned splintering of their own party.

Does Corbyn really want to be the leader of the party that puts the EU decision into place? Much better to let May finish the job she started, then she can lose the inevitable election that will follow, as he can talk up "how he would have done it better" without ever having had to try to prove it (and fail). Its a total poisoned chalice. But maybe he is putting his personal ambitions to PM-hood ahead of national interest: he is denying it enough, so he must be!

You are repeating yourself about the alleged limitations of the plebiscite to determine out fate, but if this can effectively pull down the two party state and bring about some sort of consensus based decision making, as opposed to confrontational based decision making, then I for one will think it may al have been worth it. Yes even leaving the EU, if we can get a more balanced national decision making process out of it as opposed to "he said A, so I must say B out of principal" decision making. there is an opportunity here, but I dont suppose the politicians have the balls to grasp it - after all its a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas

PS The Rams are in the playoff final!

[ramAnag]

I'm not sure I would ascribe such good intentions to Corbyn who still appears to be trying to make political advantage out of national chaos, so as to try to seize power. The country does not need that. I don't think he needs to do this, as its been plain to see for 2 years now that any leader who puts brexit or remain into effect will lose the next election, as a result of non aligned splintering of their own party.

Does Corbyn really want to be the leader of the party that puts the EU decision into place? Much better to let May finish the job she started, then she can lose the inevitable election that will follow, as he can talk up "how he would have done it better" without ever having had to try to prove it (and fail). Its a total poisoned chalice. But maybe he is putting his personal ambitions to PM-hood ahead of national interest: he is denying it enough, so he must be!

You are repeating yourself about the alleged limitations of the plebiscite to determine out fate, but if this can effectively pull down the two party state and bring about some sort of consensus based decision making, as opposed to confrontational based decision making, then I for one will think it may al have been worth it. Yes even leaving the EU, if we can get a more balanced national decision making process out of it as opposed to "he said A, so I must say B out of principal" decision making. there is an opportunity here, but I dont suppose the politicians have the balls to grasp it - after all its a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas

PS The Rams are in the playoff final!

Little argument from me with the first two paragraphs. I think Corbyn is a decent man, a decent MP and a lousy leader.

Nothing wrong with repeating yourself...if you’re right.

P.S. Que?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Little argument from me with the first two paragraphs. I think Corbyn is a decent man, a decent MP and a lousy leader.

Nothing wrong with repeating yourself...if you’re right.

P.S. Que?

Beat the Cowboys at the weekend and now head to New Orleans

[Pacaman]

I blame Bielsa!!

[Geoff Parkstone]

So today's the day.

Will we see the emergence of The Defamation of Strickland Banks before the day is out....

[ramAnag]

So today's the day.

Will we see the emergence of The Defamation of Strickland Banks before the day is out....

Not before next Monday apparently. Suspect all we might hear today are the sounds of a can being kicked further down the road and thousands of business people pulling their hair out.

[MadAmster]

I blame Bielsa!!

Bielsa bub has a devil put aside for me........

[MadAmster]

Here is the latest news on the Brexit debate. It seems a Tory whip has resigned because "the deal leaves the UK perpetually constrained by the EU". As I have written before, the deal has the UK in whilst being out. IN freedom of movement, IN a Customs Union and those are two things Mayhem has spent the past 2 years telling us woldn't happen but now it seems that it is the best deal possible.

In out, in out, shake it all about Theresa.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/tory-whip-resigns-ahead-of-brexit-vote-warning-deal-leaves-uk-perpetually-constrained-by-eu/14/01/?fbclid=IwAR3X0qW-uN7rYD2jbl8FTYr_WQHgzo41toEsJuH7Urx_B8HvkUQ_IeI2-RA

[Manofpride]

No deal is better than a bad deal and a bad deal is what we have. Lets just leave and get on with it. I don't agree with another vote as it could end up being the best of 3, unless Brexiteers won again then the remainers would want the best of 5!

[ramAnag]

No deal is better than a bad deal and a bad deal is what we have. Lets just leave and get on with it. I don't agree with another vote as it could end up being the best of 3, unless Brexiteers won again then the remainers would want the best of 5!

‘I don’t agree with another vote’. Really? You amaze me. Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with you thinking you might lose could it?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I never thought I'd say it, but the DUP guy interviewed on BBC2 just now talked an awful lot of sense post vote

[Andy_Faber]

‘I don’t agree with another vote’. Really? You amaze me. Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with you thinking you might lose could it?

That sums up the whole sorry mess. It (the referendum) should never have been couched in terms of win or lose...