A very good piece in the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commen...MP=share_btn_tw

 

And little has changed. The only two regions of the UK that have recovered after the 2008 crash are London and the south-east. So, during the referendum campaign, to raise the economy as a reason for staying in Europe was always likely to fall on deaf ears – and it did. Yet since 2016, remarkably, most remainers seem to feel that if they keep repeating this message, somehow people will change their minds. It won’t work. Nor will that other continuously repeated phrase: “You were lied to.” As if leave voters are so gullible they’d believe anything politicians tell them: in fact, they voted Brexit because they totally distrusted politicians. All these remainer arguments do is make people feel their protest vote is being ignored, and that establishment voices just want things to carry on as before.

A very good piece in the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commen...MP=share_btn_tw

 

The stupidity of voting for a deal that will make poor people even poorer and allow rich Tories to exploit them even more is a self-defeating throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it wasnt the EU that created the problem in the first place - it was the British governments of the last 30 years and their lax legislation and blinkered chasing-moneypots at all expense as long as cash was rolling in to make it appear affluent.

 

That is what needs explaining, not blaming the EU for all our ills, when it was responsible for the larger part of our wealth-creation over the last half-century. I'd also highlight that the rich tosspots stand to be highly exposed if we stay in the EU and they have to make public all their tax-dodging stuffed offshore stashes thanks to EU incoming legislation later this year - that's what they are most frightened of and non-rich people need to understand that clearly.

 

Communal mutual moaning about the way things are is pointless unless you have something set up to change things for the better - which is going to be impossible if the economy collapses. So you have to keep on trying to get the message across because it's the right thing to do in the long run.

The stupidity of voting for a deal that will make poor people even poorer and allow rich Tories to exploit them even more is a self-defeating throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it wasnt the EU that created the problem in the first place - it was the British governments of the last 30 years and their lax legislation and blinkered chasing-moneypots at all expense as long as cash was rolling in to make it appear affluent.

 

That is what needs explaining, not blaming the EU for all our ills, when it was responsible for the larger part of our wealth-creation over the last half-century. I'd also highlight that the rich tosspots stand to be highly exposed if we stay in the EU and they have to make public all their tax-dodging stuffed offshore stashes thanks to EU incoming legislation later this year - that's what they are most frightened of and non-rich people need to understand that clearly.

 

Communal mutual moaning about the way things are is pointless unless you have something set up to change things for the better - which is going to be impossible if the economy collapses. So you have to keep on trying to get the message across because it's the right thing to do in the long run.

David Lammy made the same point very ell in a Commons speech this week. He was very clear that people had legitimate grievances but that the blame should lie with Westminster, not Brussels. I still worry that there are going to be a lot of very angry people when they realise that leaving the EU will have done precisely nothing to address their grievances. Indeed, they are the very people likely to suffer most from leaving.

Leaving aside all the political & economic issues, why do many people demanding another referendum call it a 'Peoples Vote'? Who on earth do they *think* voted in the 2016 referendum? :rolleyes:

Russian money buying ads that broke campaigning rules voted in the referendum.

 

There are numerous reasons why it might be called a people’s vote. Government has done such a bad job of negotiated that it feels out of control of the people, it would serve to confirm that the people truly do wish to leave under the terms that have now been presented, the amalgamation of Leave wishes making that unclear in 2016. It would make it a chance to run the vote under a cleaner, less toxic campaign ideally less open to vote manipulation. And it gels well as a promotional tactic to get past the infuriating ‘will of the people’ slogan that government has relied on by bringing together the will of all the people, which will only truly be correct on voting day with all their opinions taken into account.

 

Essentially, a catchy name that takes power away from representatives who have failed us.

Russian money buying ads that broke campaigning rules voted in the referendum.

 

I doubt many people actually care about that, and even if they'd known about it at the time, it's unlikely to have affected their vote.

 

Besides, look how much money the gov't spent on their pro-EU leaflet, the cost of which was only excluded from the campaign total on a technicality.

 

I doubt many people actually care about that, and even if they'd known about it at the time, it's unlikely to have affected their vote.

 

Besides, look how much money the gov't spent on their pro-EU leaflet, the cost of which was only excluded from the campaign total on a technicality.

A technicality being a euphemism for “the law”.

 

I avoid using the term “People’s Vote”, but Iz gave a very good summary of why it is being used. It is certainly a better phrase than “second referendum”.

An excellent (and fairly short) speech by my MP in the debate in the deal.

 

http://bit.ly/2THRQwt

Leaving aside all the political & economic issues, why do many people demanding another referendum call it a 'Peoples Vote'? Who on earth do they *think* voted in the 2016 referendum? :rolleyes:

 

The first one was a referendum on the general idea of leaving the EU, with nothing specific and nothing having to be prescribed either by the voter or the government afterwards.

 

The second one would be a specific yes/no on a specific deal that almost everyone seems to hate. It's very simple and very very clear. The people are voting exactly for or against the deal, not some airy fairy Norway option, Cherry-picking impossibility, Canada Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus or any other nonsense that was promised and not delivered. It's all in black and white for everyone to read and the people would be giving the clear instruction to Parliament to accept or reject it.

 

So, a People's Vote. Not a referendum that Tories can choose to deliver any old bollocks that they can cough up in desperation. She says it's the best deal we can get. So let the People decide whether or not it was what was promised and when they can go for it or not.

 

For what it's worth, it may prove more popular amongst the electorate than parliament......but there's only one way to find out for sure....

David Lammy made the same point very ell in a Commons speech this week. He was very clear that people had legitimate grievances but that the blame should lie with Westminster, not Brussels. I still worry that there are going to be a lot of very angry people when they realise that leaving the EU will have done precisely nothing to address their grievances. Indeed, they are the very people likely to suffer most from leaving.

 

David Lammy is a gem, and much-hated by the Momentum followers I speak to, who try and trash his decency and common sense by calling him a publicity-seeker - you know, like publicising the Government kicking British citizens out of the country and sending them off to the caribbean just so he can get some publicity for himself. Corbyn, OTOH, did nothing. Said nothing. It's only his job. I'll just say I firmly put the record straight cos I can't stand hypocrisy.....

A technicality being a euphemism for “the law”.

 

I'm sure I'm not alone among Leavers in drawing no distinction in campaign spending before and after a totally arbitrary date.

 

The first one was a referendum on the general idea of leaving the EU, with nothing specific and nothing having to be prescribed either by the voter or the government afterwards.

 

The second one would be a specific yes/no on a specific deal that almost everyone seems to hate. It's very simple and very very clear. The people are voting exactly for or against the deal, not some airy fairy Norway option, Cherry-picking impossibility, Canada Plus Plus Plus Plus Plus or any other nonsense that was promised and not delivered. It's all in black and white for everyone to read and the people would be giving the clear instruction to Parliament to accept or reject it.

 

But what this follow-up vote wouldl not determine, is whether voters have actually changed their minds over leaving

In 1997 the new Labour government held advisory referendums on a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly. There was a large majority for a Scottish Parliament, but only a very narrow majority in favour of the Welsh assembly. After the referendums, Theresa May ignored the Welsh result and voted against setting up the assembly. Furthermore, in 2005 she stood on a manifesto promising another referendum in Wales to determine whether they wished to scrap the assembly. What was that about respecting democracy? It is also worth noting that both sides up in the 1997 Welsh referendum obeyed the law.

I'm sure I'm not alone among Leavers in drawing no distinction in campaign spending before and after a totally arbitrary date.

But what this follow-up vote wouldl not determine, is whether voters have actually changed their minds over leaving

But the law does draw a distinction. Do you want to make all government advertising count as part of the governing party’s spending in the subsequent election?

But the law does draw a distinction. Do you want to make all government advertising count as part of the governing party’s spending in the subsequent election?

 

What I don't want is for the gov't to play the system in order to circumvent the spirit of the law - the Remain camp would have been screaming blue murder if Leave had spent £9.5m of taxpayers money on a leaflet, just before the official date for expenses!

Edited January 14, 20197 yr by vidcapper

The value of all those tabloid front pages comes to a lot more than £9.5m. They also continued throughout the campaign without having to be declared as an expense.

Also the Welsh Assembly also obviously has a lot less devolved powers than Scotland, becuase they actually considered all those who didn’t want an Assembly because of the close result.

 

But obviously 48% is too insignificant a percentage

The value of all those tabloid front pages comes to a lot more than £9.5m. They also continued throughout the campaign without having to be declared as an expense.

 

I assume you are being somewhat ironic here. :teresa:

In 1997 the new Labour government held advisory referendums on a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly. There was a large majority for a Scottish Parliament, but only a very narrow majority in favour of the Welsh assembly. After the referendums, Theresa May ignored the Welsh result and voted against setting up the assembly. Furthermore, in 2005 she stood on a manifesto promising another referendum in Wales to determine whether they wished to scrap the assembly. What was that about respecting democracy? It is also worth noting that both sides up in the 1997 Welsh referendum obeyed the law.

And there's more. May also voted against setting up the Scottish parlaiment, despite a 74% vote in favour in the referendum.

My guess for tomorrow's vote. Discounting abstainers and the possibility of amendments no longer making it a straight vote on the government's deal.

Against WA

Conservative rebels: 98

DUP: 10

Labour: 246

Others: 57

 

For WA

Conservatives: 219

Labour rebels: 8

(Ex-)LD rebel: 1

Ind: 3

 

411 against vs 231 for

And there's more. May also voted against setting up the Scottish parlaiment, despite a 74% vote in favour in the referendum.

May is acting as if Scotland voted no to having a parliament at all in 2014