I'm not sure why the government doesn't hold a referendum for its own good. Whatever it negotiates, it is going to cause uproar within its ranks with and it is very likely it will be defeated. If May just says - look I am trying to do a deal and everybody is undermining me from both sides and making it impossible. Reluctantly, I need to have a vote to give me a mandate one way or the other. I think that would be understandable.
Now we know it isn't in the governments interests to have an election, but what would a vote do? Well at the very least it would provide a possibility for there to be something to shut up the agitators. If it was a clear leave, it would kill the remain argument. If it was a clear remain, a few would whinge but nobody could argue that democracy hasn't spoken. May could always say that she tried her best to avoid it but parliament kept throwing in spanners. As long as the vote is clear (and it might not be), but if it is, it would shut everybody up.
And whatever the decision, both parties could move Brexit off the top of their agendas and get on with what they should be getting on with. If we end up with a deal nobody wants or a no deal, the government will ultimately suffer for it so there isn't a logical incentive to keep flogging a dead horse.
What is in it for May?
Well that is interesting but remember both main parties stood on Leave manifestos only last year, when all the current difficulties were already apparent. So they are mandated in a referendum to campaign for Leave, or should it just be a free for all?
Well the PM agrees a deal to leave, which extreme leave supporters in the party threaten to vote against. You would have thought leave supporters would be trying to help the Prime Minister get leave done. Nobody on the leave side told us it would be such a shambles did they? The truth is, some of them got the vote they wanted and then want to push it to an extreme Brexit that there is ample evidence to suggest is not supported by the British people.
I'm not sure why the government doesn't hold a referendum for its own good. Whatever it negotiates, it is going to cause uproar within its ranks with and it is very likely it will be defeated. If May just says - look I am trying to do a deal and everybody is undermining me from both sides and making it impossible. Reluctantly, I need to have a vote to give me a mandate one way or the other. I think that would be understandable.
Now we know it isn't in the governments interests to have an election, but what would a vote do? Well at the very least it would provide a possibility for there to be something to shut up the agitators. If it was a clear leave, it would kill the remain argument. If it was a clear remain, a few would whinge but nobody could argue that democracy hasn't spoken. May could always say that she tried her best to avoid it but parliament kept throwing in spanners. As long as the vote is clear (and it might not be), but if it is, it would shut everybody up.
And whatever the decision, both parties could move Brexit off the top of their agendas and get on with what they should be getting on with. If we end up with a deal nobody wants or a no deal, the government will ultimately suffer for it so there isn't a logical incentive to keep flogging a dead horse.
What is in it for May?
Well that is interesting but remember both main parties stood on Leave manifestos only last year, when all the current difficulties were already apparent. So they are mandated in a referendum to campaign for Leave, or should it just be a free for all?
Well the PM agrees a deal to leave, which extreme leave supporters in the party threaten to vote against. You would have thought leave supporters would be trying to help the Prime Minister get leave done. Nobody on the leave side told us it would be such a shambles did they? The truth is, some of them got the vote they wanted and then want to push it to an extreme Brexit that there is ample evidence to suggest is not supported by the British people.
I am asking how it would work. A three choice referendum is a non starter. If it was May's deal or Remain then millions of people like myself who are against both would be disenfranchised from the start, as our vote would be ruled out despite us winning the last Referendum. Do you think that is either fair or democratic?
The only fair one would be either to continue to accept all the EU rules ( and whatever price we had to pay for giving in to them) or leave completely. It would be an unpredictable political bloodbath either way and would make the divisiveness of the past two years look like a tea party.
The only positive thing that might come out of it, and why I am not totally opposed, is that it might smash the old two party system for good and we might get a proper Party that stood up for national sovereignty out of it.
I'm not sure why the government doesn't hold a referendum for its own good. Whatever it negotiates, it is going to cause uproar within its ranks with and it is very likely it will be defeated. If May just says - look I am trying to do a deal and everybody is undermining me from both sides and making it impossible. Reluctantly, I need to have a vote to give me a mandate one way or the other. I think that would be understandable.
Now we know it isn't in the governments interests to have an election, but what would a vote do? Well at the very least it would provide a possibility for there to be something to shut up the agitators. If it was a clear leave, it would kill the remain argument. If it was a clear remain, a few would whinge but nobody could argue that democracy hasn't spoken. May could always say that she tried her best to avoid it but parliament kept throwing in spanners. As long as the vote is clear (and it might not be), but if it is, it would shut everybody up.
And whatever the decision, both parties could move Brexit off the top of their agendas and get on with what they should be getting on with. If we end up with a deal nobody wants or a no deal, the government will ultimately suffer for it so there isn't a logical incentive to keep flogging a dead horse.
What is in it for May?
Well that is interesting but remember both main parties stood on Leave manifestos only last year, when all the current difficulties were already apparent. So they are mandated in a referendum to campaign for Leave, or should it just be a free for all?
I am no supporter of Corbyn and think he has taken Labour backwards but the idea that everyone who voted Labour supports Brexit or even Corbyn's own stance on it is very simplistic. Clearly people were thinking of things other than as well as Brexit in the last election and its pretty disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Neither Party has a mandate to campaign for Remain, so how would it work?
I'm not sure why the government doesn't hold a referendum for its own good. Whatever it negotiates, it is going to cause uproar within its ranks with and it is very likely it will be defeated. If May just says - look I am trying to do a deal and everybody is undermining me from both sides and making it impossible. Reluctantly, I need to have a vote to give me a mandate one way or the other. I think that would be understandable.
Now we know it isn't in the governments interests to have an election, but what would a vote do? Well at the very least it would provide a possibility for there to be something to shut up the agitators. If it was a clear leave, it would kill the remain argument. If it was a clear remain, a few would whinge but nobody could argue that democracy hasn't spoken. May could always say that she tried her best to avoid it but parliament kept throwing in spanners. As long as the vote is clear (and it might not be), but if it is, it would shut everybody up.
And whatever the decision, both parties could move Brexit off the top of their agendas and get on with what they should be getting on with. If we end up with a deal nobody wants or a no deal, the government will ultimately suffer for it so there isn't a logical incentive to keep flogging a dead horse.
What is in it for May?
Well that is interesting but remember both main parties stood on Leave manifestos only last year, when all the current difficulties were already apparent. So they are mandated in a referendum to campaign for Leave, or should it just be a free for all?
Well the PM agrees a deal to leave, which extreme leave supporters in the party threaten to vote against. You would have thought leave supporters would be trying to help the Prime Minister get leave done. Nobody on the leave side told us it would be such a shambles did they? The truth is, some of them got the vote they wanted and then want to push it to an extreme Brexit that there is ample evidence to suggest is not supported by the British people.
I am asking how it would work. A three choice referendum is a non starter. If it was May's deal or Remain then millions of people like myself who are against both would be disenfranchised from the start, as our vote would be ruled out despite us winning the last Referendum. Do you think that is either fair or democratic?
The only fair one would be either to continue to accept all the EU rules ( and whatever price we had to pay for giving in to them) or leave completely. It would be an unpredictable political bloodbath either way and would make the divisiveness of the past two years look like a tea party.
The only positive thing that might come out of it, and why I am not totally opposed, is that it might smash the old two party system for good and we might get a proper Party that stood up for national sovereignty out of it.
But how can you know that everybody who voted leave wants what you want? If the result has to echo specifically what you want, then you are hardly advocating democracy. It should have been pretty obvious that the government would go and negotiate as good a deal as it could. A deal we were told would be simple to get.
The original vote caused a lot of the problems because it was binary when there are different ways of leaving. Now things are clearer, clearly a dog's dinner, I would suggest the vote should be In or Out then for all voters - if Out wins, do you want a clean break or the government to try to negotiate a deal?
I do understand the frustration there would be giving people a chance to remain but nobody on the 'winning' side told us we would face all the problems we have, and we just have to accept the government as it stands is too weak to get the deal or possibly even no deal done given parliamentary numbers. It would give people the chance to say they wanted to leave and would focus the country in the direction of the vote.
Whilst polls suggest leave and remain are still close, the difference between those wanting a soft negotiated Brexit and those wanting a hard one is significant. Anybody who ignores the evidence of this is a fake democrat.
I look forward to JRM as PM as he has all the qualities needed:
He speaks slowly He wears a double breasted suit He has a large private income and understands hedge funds He doesn't raise his voice He understands Latin He takes good care of his nanny He doesn't have self doubt He gives his children obscure names He has strong religious beliefs
You forgot Eton educated.
sorry, I forgot you're not allowed to be "educated" anymore. Fwiw I know JRM will never be PM because of the way he speaks so its all academic (see what I did there) anyway.
Katie Price for PM !!!
Fully support the idea that Prime Ministers should be educated. What’s not sitting with me comfortably though is the fact that Eton College is one school in the UK and yet it is disproportionately represented in the House of Commons on the front benches and out of a total of 54 Prime Ministers the staggering figure of 19 were educated at Eton.
Now that’s quite some coincidence or something else is working here.
I will also add that I do worry that too many people equate speaking with a plummy accent as being a sign of intelligence. But the British do still like in the main to doff our caps.
John Major was educated in a very real sense. At the time the Tory party seemed to be more egalitarian. Now days it's either posh boys or some real barrow boys.
I look forward to JRM as PM as he has all the qualities needed:
He speaks slowly He wears a double breasted suit He has a large private income and understands hedge funds He doesn't raise his voice He understands Latin He takes good care of his nanny He doesn't have self doubt He gives his children obscure names He has strong religious beliefs
You forgot Eton educated.
sorry, I forgot you're not allowed to be "educated" anymore. Fwiw I know JRM will never be PM because of the way he speaks so its all academic (see what I did there) anyway.
Katie Price for PM !!!
Fully support the idea that Prime Ministers should be educated. What’s not sitting with me comfortably though is the fact that Eton College is one school in the UK and yet it is disproportionately represented in the House of Commons on the front benches and out of a total of 54 Prime Ministers the staggering figure of 19 were educated at Eton.
Now that’s quite some coincidence or something else is working here.
I will also add that I do worry that too many people equate speaking with a plummy accent as being a sign of intelligence. But the British do still like in the main to doff our caps.
Top positions being filled from The best schools seems reasonable to me.
Eton is the most exclusive school, the hardest to get in to, but it is not the best school.
The best school is Westminster School - 150 years since a PM was educated there, and second is St Paul's - 250 years since a PM was educated there!
I look forward to JRM as PM as he has all the qualities needed:
He speaks slowly He wears a double breasted suit He has a large private income and understands hedge funds He doesn't raise his voice He understands Latin He takes good care of his nanny He doesn't have self doubt He gives his children obscure names He has strong religious beliefs
You forgot Eton educated.
sorry, I forgot you're not allowed to be "educated" anymore. Fwiw I know JRM will never be PM because of the way he speaks so its all academic (see what I did there) anyway.
Katie Price for PM !!!
Fully support the idea that Prime Ministers should be educated. What’s not sitting with me comfortably though is the fact that Eton College is one school in the UK and yet it is disproportionately represented in the House of Commons on the front benches and out of a total of 54 Prime Ministers the staggering figure of 19 were educated at Eton.
Now that’s quite some coincidence or something else is working here.
I will also add that I do worry that too many people equate speaking with a plummy accent as being a sign of intelligence. But the British do still like in the main to doff our caps.
Top positions being filled from The best schools seems reasonable to me.
Eton is the most exclusive school, the hardest to get in to, but it is not the best school.
The best school is Westminster School - 150 years since a PM was educated there, and second is St Paul's - 250 years since a PM was educated there!
Good luck Seth Plum, Bournemouth Addick, Red in SE8, Muttley etc. Guess you will be marching instead of watching Charlton v Barnsley1
Well since you've name checked me I will be at neither actually. For reasons that are none of your business.
What's your point btw? That you're more of a 'true' CAFC supporter than me? Is it not possible to be passionate about Charlton and also really concerned about the direction this country is going?
I'm not sure why the government doesn't hold a referendum for its own good. Whatever it negotiates, it is going to cause uproar within its ranks with and it is very likely it will be defeated. If May just says - look I am trying to do a deal and everybody is undermining me from both sides and making it impossible. Reluctantly, I need to have a vote to give me a mandate one way or the other. I think that would be understandable.
Now we know it isn't in the governments interests to have an election, but what would a vote do? Well at the very least it would provide a possibility for there to be something to shut up the agitators. If it was a clear leave, it would kill the remain argument. If it was a clear remain, a few would whinge but nobody could argue that democracy hasn't spoken. May could always say that she tried her best to avoid it but parliament kept throwing in spanners. As long as the vote is clear (and it might not be), but if it is, it would shut everybody up.
And whatever the decision, both parties could move Brexit off the top of their agendas and get on with what they should be getting on with. If we end up with a deal nobody wants or a no deal, the government will ultimately suffer for it so there isn't a logical incentive to keep flogging a dead horse.
What is in it for May?
Well that is interesting but remember both main parties stood on Leave manifestos only last year, when all the current difficulties were already apparent. So they are mandated in a referendum to campaign for Leave, or should it just be a free for all?
Well the PM agrees a deal to leave, which extreme leave supporters in the party threaten to vote against. You would have thought leave supporters would be trying to help the Prime Minister get leave done. Nobody on the leave side told us it would be such a shambles did they? The truth is, some of them got the vote they wanted and then want to push it to an extreme Brexit that there is ample evidence to suggest is not supported by the British people.
I am asking how it would work. A three choice referendum is a non starter. If it was May's deal or Remain then millions of people like myself who are against both would be disenfranchised from the start, as our vote would be ruled out despite us winning the last Referendum. Do you think that is either fair or democratic?
The only fair one would be either to continue to accept all the EU rules ( and whatever price we had to pay for giving in to them) or leave completely. It would be an unpredictable political bloodbath either way and would make the divisiveness of the past two years look like a tea party.
The only positive thing that might come out of it, and why I am not totally opposed, is that it might smash the old two party system for good and we might get a proper Party that stood up for national sovereignty out of it.
Southbank, are you contending that a hard Brexit is the will of the people? All your 52% wanted to cut all ties with Europe despite Bojo, Garage, Davies and Banks all bigging up the Norway option in the run-up? No Brexiteer has changed their mind after this "easiest deal in the world" is going tits up?
There is no way this current debacle or no deal was voted for by many Brexiteers.
The May hard Brexit was rejected in the last election.
There is no way to get a satisfactory outcome for any camp as the original ADVISORY referendum was horribly botched.
Good luck Seth Plum, Bournemouth Addick, Red in SE8, Muttley etc. Guess you will be marching instead of watching Charlton v Barnsley1
Well since you've name checked me I will be at neither actually. For reasons that are none of your business.
What's your point btw? That you're more of a 'true' CAFC supporter than me? Is it not possible to be passionate about Charlton and also really concerned about the direction this country is going?
'Over 1m people marched, urging the government – of which you were a central figure – not to invade Iraq. You ignored them. Why should this government take any notice of 100k Remainers calling for a second referendum?’ Andrew Neill's question to Alistair Campbell, one of the organisers of tomorrow's March.
I'm not sure why the government doesn't hold a referendum for its own good. Whatever it negotiates, it is going to cause uproar within its ranks with and it is very likely it will be defeated. If May just says - look I am trying to do a deal and everybody is undermining me from both sides and making it impossible. Reluctantly, I need to have a vote to give me a mandate one way or the other. I think that would be understandable.
Now we know it isn't in the governments interests to have an election, but what would a vote do? Well at the very least it would provide a possibility for there to be something to shut up the agitators. If it was a clear leave, it would kill the remain argument. If it was a clear remain, a few would whinge but nobody could argue that democracy hasn't spoken. May could always say that she tried her best to avoid it but parliament kept throwing in spanners. As long as the vote is clear (and it might not be), but if it is, it would shut everybody up.
And whatever the decision, both parties could move Brexit off the top of their agendas and get on with what they should be getting on with. If we end up with a deal nobody wants or a no deal, the government will ultimately suffer for it so there isn't a logical incentive to keep flogging a dead horse.
What is in it for May?
Well that is interesting but remember both main parties stood on Leave manifestos only last year, when all the current difficulties were already apparent. So they are mandated in a referendum to campaign for Leave, or should it just be a free for all?
Well the PM agrees a deal to leave, which extreme leave supporters in the party threaten to vote against. You would have thought leave supporters would be trying to help the Prime Minister get leave done. Nobody on the leave side told us it would be such a shambles did they? The truth is, some of them got the vote they wanted and then want to push it to an extreme Brexit that there is ample evidence to suggest is not supported by the British people.
I am asking how it would work. A three choice referendum is a non starter. If it was May's deal or Remain then millions of people like myself who are against both would be disenfranchised from the start, as our vote would be ruled out despite us winning the last Referendum. Do you think that is either fair or democratic?
The only fair one would be either to continue to accept all the EU rules ( and whatever price we had to pay for giving in to them) or leave completely. It would be an unpredictable political bloodbath either way and would make the divisiveness of the past two years look like a tea party.
The only positive thing that might come out of it, and why I am not totally opposed, is that it might smash the old two party system for good and we might get a proper Party that stood up for national sovereignty out of it.
Southbank, are you contending that a hard Brexit is the will of the people? All your 52% wanted to cut all ties with Europe despite Bojo, Garage, Davies and Banks all bigging up the Norway option in the run-up? No Brexiteer has changed their mind after this "easiest deal in the world" is going tits up?
There is no way this current debacle or no deal was voted for by many Brexiteers.
The May hard Brexit was rejected in the last election.
There is no way to get a satisfactory outcome for any camp as the original ADVISORY referendum was horribly botched.
I'm sorry to laugh, but you've just done something I do sometimes, which is to have something you typed auto-corrected into the word "Garage".
I hate it when it happens. Because it often ruins the meaning you're trying to convey. Randomly seeing the word "Garage" in the middle of a phrase is really annoying, if you meant to type something else.
But I can see how it happens. Because the software you're using looks at the letters you're typing and comes up with what it determines you are probably meaning to type, instead of the letters you actually type.
Sometimes, if I type "you're", it changes it to the word "your". Sometimes when I type "ill", it changes it to "I'll". And always, when I type "lying, racist, dissembling, boozed-up charlatan", it changes it to "Garage".
Good luck Seth Plum, Bournemouth Addick, Red in SE8, Muttley etc. Guess you will be marching instead of watching Charlton v Barnsley1
Well since you've name checked me I will be at neither actually. For reasons that are none of your business.
What's your point btw? That you're more of a 'true' CAFC supporter than me? Is it not possible to be passionate about Charlton and also really concerned about the direction this country is going?
'Over 1m people marched, urging the government – of which you were a central figure – not to invade Iraq. You ignored them. Why should this government take any notice of 100k Remainers calling for a second referendum?’ Andrew Neill's question to Alistair Campbell, one of the organisers of tomorrow's March.
Again, what's your point this time? Do you think I'm Alistair Campbell?
I marched in 2003 in the largest anti war march in history. Well over 6 million in Europe joined me, which was nice. But futile.
You marched with Jezza and McDonnell then?
I never saw them. Were they there? Never heard from them at the time either. Remember Tony Benn - proper Labour - and someone I respected despite his difficulties, Charles Kennedy was there though I didn't hear his speech til later.
Remember Cookie make a speech...the only dissenter in the whole Labour cabinet IIRR, .and that vile woman Tosser Jowell tried to disrupt us.
I marched in 2003 in the largest anti war march in history. Well over 6 million in Europe joined me, which was nice. But futile.
You marched with Jezza and McDonnell then?
I never saw them. Were they there? Never heard from them at the time either. Remember Tony Benn - proper Labour - and someone I respected despite his difficulties, Charles Kennedy was there though I didn't hear his speech til later.
Remember Cookie make a speech...the only dissenter in the whole Labour cabinet IIRR, .and that vile woman Tosser Jowell tried to disrupt us.
I marched in 2003 in the largest anti war march in history. Well over 6 million in Europe joined me, which was nice. But futile.
You marched with Jezza and McDonnell then?
I never saw them. Were they there? Never heard from them at the time either. Remember Tony Benn - proper Labour - and someone I respected despite his difficulties, Charles Kennedy was there though I didn't hear his speech til later.
Remember Cookie make a speech...the only dissenter in the whole Labour cabinet IIRR, .and that vile woman Tosser Jowell tried to disrupt us.
I suppose you believed Saint Tony?
Did I fuck, can't abide the man.
Good to hear. What happened to you then?
I told you years ago I am a centrist and the voice of reason on all things.
Look how far back these PM s from Eton go. Not much competition then, and still today they have the top department/top3/5? In the country. The average loaded Eton thicko won't get into a level politics without 5As +4Bs at GCSE in a bad year.
All true but it’s still quite amazing that when David Cameron was PM. George Osborne was Chancellor and both from Eton.
I don’t care what anybody says I won’t not be convinced that somewhere there is quite a significant old boys network ensuring that Eton is always highly represented in government.
Osborne went to St Paul's though. Didn't do PPE at university either, but has a history degree.
Look how far back these PM s from Eton go. Not much competition then, and still today they have the top department/top3/5? In the country. The average loaded Eton thicko won't get into a level politics without 5As +4Bs at GCSE in a bad year.
All true but it’s still quite amazing that when David Cameron was PM. George Osborne was Chancellor and both from Eton.
I don’t care what anybody says I won’t not be convinced that somewhere there is quite a significant old boys network ensuring that Eton is always highly represented in government.
Osborne went to St Paul's though. Didn't do PPE at university either, but has a history degree.
Since when do facts have anything to do with a nice conspiracy though...
I'd suspect partly an old boys network, but I should think Eton and places like it teach aspiration... Look at all our prime ministers etc. No doubt their school is visited by all manner of successful ex pupils and everyone going there (who, let's face it, almost all have very rich families) will see their position in the world at pretty much the top.
The playing field needs levelling somewhat, but raising the standards elsewhere is going to be the best starting point.
Good luck Seth Plum, Bournemouth Addick, Red in SE8, Muttley etc. Guess you will be marching instead of watching Charlton v Barnsley1
Well since you've name checked me I will be at neither actually. For reasons that are none of your business.
What's your point btw? That you're more of a 'true' CAFC supporter than me? Is it not possible to be passionate about Charlton and also really concerned about the direction this country is going?
'Over 1m people marched, urging the government – of which you were a central figure – not to invade Iraq. You ignored them. Why should this government take any notice of 100k Remainers calling for a second referendum?’ Andrew Neill's question to Alistair Campbell, one of the organisers of tomorrow's March.
But you would think it is worthwhile doing it anyway as you have previously stated the importance of democracy.
I can't quite believe that in 2018, in England, on a football forum that some people are doubting the additional influence and leg up you get from having received a top level private education. It is not just in politics you see it everywhere, the BBC for example.
It shouldn't even be a left/right difference of opinion, it is there just as there is a huge advantage to being middle class.
What the argument should be is whether it is right or not. I think it isn't right, others might argue that if you have the money you spend it how you like and get the best for you and your children.
I'm not sure why the government doesn't hold a referendum for its own good. Whatever it negotiates, it is going to cause uproar within its ranks with and it is very likely it will be defeated. If May just says - look I am trying to do a deal and everybody is undermining me from both sides and making it impossible. Reluctantly, I need to have a vote to give me a mandate one way or the other. I think that would be understandable.
Now we know it isn't in the governments interests to have an election, but what would a vote do? Well at the very least it would provide a possibility for there to be something to shut up the agitators. If it was a clear leave, it would kill the remain argument. If it was a clear remain, a few would whinge but nobody could argue that democracy hasn't spoken. May could always say that she tried her best to avoid it but parliament kept throwing in spanners. As long as the vote is clear (and it might not be), but if it is, it would shut everybody up.
And whatever the decision, both parties could move Brexit off the top of their agendas and get on with what they should be getting on with. If we end up with a deal nobody wants or a no deal, the government will ultimately suffer for it so there isn't a logical incentive to keep flogging a dead horse.
What is in it for May?
Well that is interesting but remember both main parties stood on Leave manifestos only last year, when all the current difficulties were already apparent. So they are mandated in a referendum to campaign for Leave, or should it just be a free for all?
Well the PM agrees a deal to leave, which extreme leave supporters in the party threaten to vote against. You would have thought leave supporters would be trying to help the Prime Minister get leave done. Nobody on the leave side told us it would be such a shambles did they? The truth is, some of them got the vote they wanted and then want to push it to an extreme Brexit that there is ample evidence to suggest is not supported by the British people.
I am asking how it would work. A three choice referendum is a non starter. If it was May's deal or Remain then millions of people like myself who are against both would be disenfranchised from the start, as our vote would be ruled out despite us winning the last Referendum. Do you think that is either fair or democratic?
The only fair one would be either to continue to accept all the EU rules ( and whatever price we had to pay for giving in to them) or leave completely. It would be an unpredictable political bloodbath either way and would make the divisiveness of the past two years look like a tea party.
The only positive thing that might come out of it, and why I am not totally opposed, is that it might smash the old two party system for good and we might get a proper Party that stood up for national sovereignty out of it.
Of course a three choice, or more, vote can work - it happens all around the World under PR, and multiple choice questions in schools.
It's a simple matter of setting the right questions, so that they are meaningful.
Your first question is a simple yes/no as to whether you accept the agreement that has been negotiated (remembering that what is being negotiated now is exit, with a political statement of what both sides would work towards in the future). If the answer from the majority is yes, then that's that.
If no, then the counters turn to a second, single transferrable vote, PR question, reflecting a number of possible outcomes, - so that, as the least popular choices are eliminated, the option that most people can live with (even if not their first choice) is the one that is chosen.
Unless you are claiming that the UK electorate are incapable of dealing with basic PR/multiple choice, there's no reason why such a vote could not be implemented perfectly well.
IMHO, as it seems unlikely that there will be much achieved before Christmas, however, the time available, before 9 March is so limited that a further referendum is unlikely without extending Article 50.
I can't quite believe that in 2018, in England, on a football forum that some people are doubting the additional influence and leg up you get from having received a top level private education. It is not just in politics you see it everywhere, the BBC for example.
It shouldn't even be a left/right difference of opinion, it is there just as there is a huge advantage to being middle class.
What the argument should be is whether it is right or not. I think it isn't right, others might argue that if you have the money you spend it how you like and get the best for you and your children.
Is anyone doubting the advantage people get from a private education though?
I certainly see it, I'm just not sure what can be done about it. As McBobbin says, the only option is to raise Standards of public education, something the current Government seem to be trying their best not to do
I can't quite believe that in 2018, in England, on a football forum that some people are doubting the additional influence and leg up you get from having received a top level private education. It is not just in politics you see it everywhere, the BBC for example.
It shouldn't even be a left/right difference of opinion, it is there just as there is a huge advantage to being middle class.
What the argument should be is whether it is right or not. I think it isn't right, others might argue that if you have the money you spend it how you like and get the best for you and your children.
Is anyone doubting the advantage people get from a private education though?
I certainly see it, I'm just not sure what can be done about it. As McBobbin says, the only option is to raise Standards of public education, something the current Government seem to be trying their best not to do
Well a first step might be to fully remove the 'charitable' status of private schools.
I think most people would agree that organisations that exist to allow richer parents to purchase privilege for their children should not be regarded as 'charities'.
I can't quite believe that in 2018, in England, on a football forum that some people are doubting the additional influence and leg up you get from having received a top level private education. It is not just in politics you see it everywhere, the BBC for example.
It shouldn't even be a left/right difference of opinion, it is there just as there is a huge advantage to being middle class.
What the argument should be is whether it is right or not. I think it isn't right, others might argue that if you have the money you spend it how you like and get the best for you and your children.
Is anyone doubting the advantage people get from a private education though?
I certainly see it, I'm just not sure what can be done about it. As McBobbin says, the only option is to raise Standards of public education, something the current Government seem to be trying their best not to do
Well a first step might be to fully remove the 'charitable' status of private schools.
I think most people would agree that organisations that exist to allow richer parents to purchase privilege for their children should not be regarded as 'charities'.
Comments
And apart from pointing this out to you neither do I.
Argue among yourselves from now on.
The only fair one would be either to continue to accept all the EU rules ( and whatever price we had to pay for giving in to them) or leave completely.
It would be an unpredictable political bloodbath either way and would make the divisiveness of the past two years look like a tea party.
The only positive thing that might come out of it, and why I am not totally opposed, is that it might smash the old two party system for good and we might get a proper Party that stood up for national sovereignty out of it.
The original vote caused a lot of the problems because it was binary when there are different ways of leaving. Now things are clearer, clearly a dog's dinner, I would suggest the vote should be In or Out then for all voters - if Out wins, do you want a clean break or the government to try to negotiate a deal?
I do understand the frustration there would be giving people a chance to remain but nobody on the 'winning' side told us we would face all the problems we have, and we just have to accept the government as it stands is too weak to get the deal or possibly even no deal done given parliamentary numbers. It would give people the chance to say they wanted to leave and would focus the country in the direction of the vote.
Whilst polls suggest leave and remain are still close, the difference between those wanting a soft negotiated Brexit and those wanting a hard one is significant. Anybody who ignores the evidence of this is a fake democrat.
What's your point btw? That you're more of a 'true' CAFC supporter than me? Is it not possible to be passionate about Charlton and also really concerned about the direction this country is going?
There is no way this current debacle or no deal was voted for by many Brexiteers.
The May hard Brexit was rejected in the last election.
There is no way to get a satisfactory outcome for any camp as the original ADVISORY referendum was horribly botched.
Andrew Neill's question to Alistair Campbell, one of the organisers of tomorrow's March.
Hypocryte of the lowest order.
Cambridge entitled twat.
I hate it when it happens. Because it often ruins the meaning you're trying to convey. Randomly seeing the word "Garage" in the middle of a phrase is really annoying, if you meant to type something else.
But I can see how it happens. Because the software you're using looks at the letters you're typing and comes up with what it determines you are probably meaning to type, instead of the letters you actually type.
Sometimes, if I type "you're", it changes it to the word "your". Sometimes when I type "ill", it changes it to "I'll". And always, when I type "lying, racist, dissembling, boozed-up charlatan", it changes it to "Garage".
What happened to you then?
The playing field needs levelling somewhat, but raising the standards elsewhere is going to be the best starting point.
It shouldn't even be a left/right difference of opinion, it is there just as there is a huge advantage to being middle class.
What the argument should be is whether it is right or not. I think it isn't right, others might argue that if you have the money you spend it how you like and get the best for you and your children.
It's a simple matter of setting the right questions, so that they are meaningful.
Your first question is a simple yes/no as to whether you accept the agreement that has been negotiated (remembering that what is being negotiated now is exit, with a political statement of what both sides would work towards in the future). If the answer from the majority is yes, then that's that.
If no, then the counters turn to a second, single transferrable vote, PR question, reflecting a number of possible outcomes, - so that, as the least popular choices are eliminated, the option that most people can live with (even if not their first choice) is the one that is chosen.
Unless you are claiming that the UK electorate are incapable of dealing with basic PR/multiple choice, there's no reason why such a vote could not be implemented perfectly well.
IMHO, as it seems unlikely that there will be much achieved before Christmas, however, the time available, before 9 March is so limited that a further referendum is unlikely without extending Article 50.
I certainly see it, I'm just not sure what can be done about it. As McBobbin says, the only option is to raise Standards of public education, something the current Government seem to be trying their best not to do
I think most people would agree that organisations that exist to allow richer parents to purchase privilege for their children should not be regarded as 'charities'.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/03/private-schools-abuse-charity-status-by-giving-discounts-to-richer-families