Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: JP on December 02, 2016, 08:59:39 AM
-
What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......
Against a majority of 3.78% for Brexit she is happy to take her majority of 4.53% as a massive vote of confidence.
-
Surely it is the swing to the Lib dems that is of more significance rather than the majority in this case?
(btw I'm not a Lib Dem supporter but I'm failing to see why you posted this rather sour sounding post :-\ )
-
What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......
Against a majority of 3.78% for Brexit she is happy to take her majority of 4.53% as a massive vote of confidence.
There will be an opportunity for the electors of Richmond to kick her out in a democratic vote in just over 3 years (at the most) if they don't like what she has done compared to what she campaigned for.
Is there the same opportunity for brexit? Well only if we are given a second referendum on the actual brexit deal.
-
Sour sounding?
I just find the rhetoric of politicians more irritating than I used to, plus she will vote against triggering Article 50 for starting Brexit. Oh no, oh dear no respect for the people who have spoken, unless it is the result of the by-election then that's fine, you need to respect that one.
-
Sour sounding?
I just find the rhetoric of politicians more irritating than I used to, plus she will vote against triggering Article 50 for starting Brexit. Oh no, oh dear no respect for the people who have spoken, unless it is the result of the by-election then that's fine, you need to respect that one.
She has a democratic mandate to vote against Article 50 - she has been voted in by the electorate in Richmond more recently than the referendum on a platform of opposing brexit. And by the way the people of her constituency themselves voted in favour of remaining. I struggle to see how her voting against triggering article 50 fails to respect the people - quite the reverse, if she didn't vote against article 50 she wouldn't be respecting the people who elected here yesterday or the views of her constituents in the referendum.
Stop being so anti-democtratic. And also recognise that this by election is a significant blow to May and the three brexiters. It will markedly bolster those that take the sensible view that parliament must have a significant say on the process and the deal and that the government must outline its main objectives for a deal - 'having your cake and eat it' handwritten on a piece of paper by an aide doesn't constitute a strategy.
-
unless it is the result of the by-election then that's fine, you need to respect that one.
A Parliamentary by-election is a binding vote - whoever wins becomes the MP - the by-election vote isn't to provide advice to another body who take a decision.
That is entirely different to the advisory referendum in June, the purpose of which was to provide a view of the public's position on a matter which was then for Parliament to decide how to proceed. Parliament could have made the EU referendum vote binding, as they have done in other referendums, they didn't. Those who prior to the referendum kept going on about the sovereignty of the UK parliament seem to have completely forgotten that now.
-
What about the people who did not vote for her, a sizeable number I might add as her majority was not great.
These people clearly do not support her stance on not voting for not triggering article 50 - do they not count?
-
Maybe I should have called this the irony thread.
-
What about the people who did not vote for her, a sizeable number I might add as her majority was not great.
These people clearly do not support her stance on not voting for not triggering article 50 - do they not count?
What about the 48% of voters who didn't vote for brexit - indeed the 63% of the electorate who didn't vote for brexit - do they not count. Apperently according to the shrill brexiters they should simply shut up and are all remoaners.
-
Oh dear, I'm dying here.
Just to refresh, I voted remain but I grew up learning that we cannot all have out own way and I respect the leave vote. Under those circumstances I will leave it to the elected government to do the best they can to facilitate that.
Fallon and Olney want to overturn the leave vote and it's not on.
-
Just to refresh, I voted remain but I grew up learning that we cannot all have out own way and I respect the leave vote. Under those circumstances I will leave it to the elected government to do the best they can to facilitate that.
Then I trust that you respect that you voted in an advisory referendum (even though parliament could just as easily have made it binding) and that the elected Government and Parliament should listen to that advise but are under no obligation whatsoever to 'facilitate' brexit, as you put it. You either respect the process or you don't - and if you do you must respect the advisory nature of the referendum.
And besides, in what way would it be disrespectful for Parliament to decide that once there is an actual deal (rather than a completely hypothetical one in 2016) then that should be put to the electorate to ensure that the actual deal has a mandate and a mandate at the point when it is likely to be enacted, which will be years after the 2016 ballot.
There is absolutely nothing about that process that disrespects the electorate or democracy, quite the reverse. It respects the 2016 vote on the basis of the government negotiating an actual brexit deal. It respects the advisory nature of the vote in that it doesn't force parliament into a position (which is inconsistent with an advisory referendum) and it ensures that there is the most robust democratic process (note democracy is a process not a single event) in that if we leave there will be a clear mandate for the actual deal to leave at the time of leaving.
-
Fallon and Olney want to overturn the leave vote and it's not on.
I hope the opportunity to re-visit this arises via legal and democratic means, since it seems increasingly apparent that the reality is somewhat different from the sloganeering of the pro-Brexit advocates.
-
Fallon and Olney want to overturn the leave vote and it's not on.
If it is a binding referendum then you are right, it would not be acceptable for parliament and democratically elected MPs to enact the result of the vote.
If it is an advisory referendum it is for parliament and democratically elected MPs to decide whether, or not, to enact the result of the vote having taken note of the advice provided by the electorate in that referendum. Note my emphasis - if there is not option for parliament and democratically elected MPs to decide not to enact then it becomes a binding referendum. It is not acceptable to turn an advisory referendum into a binding one when parliament specifically decided that the referendum should be advisory.
By the way if there is a second vote, on the actual agreed brexit deal that takes place at the time when brexit would actually happen, so could be enacted straight away, then I see no reason why that second ballot shouldn't be binding.
-
And how much shit would hit the fan if we don't leave.
-
I thought that Olney campaigned against hard Brexit, not against Brexit. Certainly, in her victory speech that is what she said.
Quote: "The people of Richmond Park and North Kingston have sent a shockwave through this Conservative Brexit government, and our message is clear - we do not want a hard Brexit."
That seems fairly clear, and nobody can say it's undemocratic, since the referendum didn't specify hard or soft.
It's difficult to say what it means, since it's obviously a strong Remain area. I suppose it might make May think twice about an election.
-
Sarah Olney also said she would vote against triggering Article 50
-
And she won. Get over it.
-
I assume when Sturgeon gets her 50.01 majority in indyref(x) the people will get another vote on whether to accept the negotiated split.
-
And how much shit would hit the fan if we don't leave.
About the same as would happen if we left with a hard brexit without a second referendum (as hard brexit wasn't on the ballot paper in 2016).
And it depends on the circumstance. If we didn't leave because in (lets say) 2020 when negotiations are completed the British people voted in a second referendum to stay because they preferred staying to the actual brexit deal on offer, then no shit will hit the fan.
-
And she won. Get over it.
I don't think you quite get it. I don't give a proverbial, I'm just enjoying myself.
-
I assume when Sturgeon gets her 50.01 majority in indyref(x) the people will get another vote on whether to accept the negotiated split.
That's what I think should happen and that is a consistent view - I was making it on here at the time of the IndyRef.
-
I don't think you quite get it. I don't give a proverbial,
Oh I think you do, or why else would you have started a thread on it.
-
A second vote would only happen if the polls swing towards Remain, and significantly. It might happen, or it might not. I don't think this by-election really indicates much, as Richmond is a strong Remain area. It might make the Tories a bit nervous about an election. But I doubt if it will cause a swing against Brexit, that might happen because of the balls-up by the government, or obvious negative aspects of Brexit, or something unforeseen.
-
No Prof, I really don't.
it is a good wind up though.
-
Karma for Goldsmith. Hey, Sriram is right.
-
I can not remember seeing anywhere that the EU Ref was advisory only.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union was the question and the two choices were pretty much...
Leave
Remain
Was indyref1 advisory? I cannot remember that either. I could just see Salmond telling the hordes of jubilant Saltire waving Scots "hang on folks, its only advisory and we will have another ballot later once we have a chat with Westminster"
-
I can not remember seeing anywhere that the EU Ref was advisory only.
Then you clearly weren't paying close enough attention my friend.
Parliament voted in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. They could have gone for the latter, but they didn't.
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union was the question and the two choices were pretty much...
Leave
Remain
The nature of the questions are irrelevant - the relevance is the nature of the referendum that has been enacted by parliament. In this case the referendum was advisory.
The last time the whole of the UK voted in a referendum - in 2011 on the method of voting in general elections we had this question:
At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?
with 'Yes' or 'No' as options.
But that referendum was binding - the government/parliament were required to enact the outcome, unlike in the EU referendum.
Was indyref1 advisory? I cannot remember that either. I could just see Salmond telling the hordes of jubilant Saltire waving Scots "hang on folks, its only advisory and we will have another ballot later once we have a chat with Westminster"
Yes it was advisory - and for obvious reasons, in that the referendum was called by the Scottish parliament who have no authority to enact independence - that authority resides in Westminster.
There are also similarities between IndyRef and EURef (which are distinct to AV vs FPTP-Ref) which makes it necessary for the former to be advisory. Namely that in IndyRef and EURef there was no agreed settlement at the time of the referendum, so voters could only vote on a concept rather than an actual plan - so in IndyREF all sorts of critical issues, e.g. currency were up in the air. Likewise for the massive range of brexit options from Norway-like to the hardest of hard brexits. Hence the need for the referendum to advisory only and subject to negotiation and assessment of whether the actual deal agree is in the national interest.
The AV voting ref was different - the deal was clear and enactable without further negotiation/agreement. An alternative approach would have been to have a more speculative referendum on voting e.g. should we continue to use FPTP. If people voted no they were voting against FPTP, but not for anything specific, except not FPTP (a bit like EU ref and IndyREF). If that had been the vote it should have been advisory only. because the deal still needed to be struck, not just not FPTP, but what as an alliterative - pure PR, STV, AV, AVplus etc, etc.
-
I can not remember seeing anywhere that the EU Ref was advisory only.
These are the exact words from the official Parliamentary Briefing paper on the EU Referendum bill, which was enacted as the EU Referendum Act of 2015.
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.
In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed by both Houses.'
I have pulled out the critical section:
'It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
-
Now be honest, did you personally know that before the vote took place and how many people who voted on the day do you honestly believe were aware of that?
-
Now be honest, did you personally know that before the vote took place and how many people who voted on the day do you honestly believe were aware of that?
Well I did, but what does it what you or others were aware of matter given that it is factually correct?
-
Now be honest, did you personally know that before the vote took place and how many people who voted on the day do you honestly believe were aware of that?
Of course - it was pretty well publicised that it was an advisory referendum. Anyone actually following the parliamentary process that lead to the Bill would have known.
And whether or not people were aware is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that the referendum is, in law, advisory only and not binding. You might as well claim that someone speeding should be let off if they weren't aware that they were driving in a 30 mph speed limit area. That's their look out.
-
Of course - it was pretty well publicised that it was an advisory referendum. Anyone actually following the parliamentary process that lead to the Bill would have known.
Well publicised where? Any sources that the wider population would read. I had literature through the door from both sides including that thing from Cameron and nowhere anywhere can I recall anything being mentioned about the advisory nature of the vote.
And whether or not people were aware is irrelevant - it doesn't change the fact that the referendum is, in law, advisory only and not binding. You might as well claim that someone speeding should be let off if they weren't aware that they were driving in a 30 mph speed limit area. That's their look out.
You think the probable fact that millions upon millions of people did not know is irrelevant? Fuck me that's incredible.
-
Well publicised where? Any sources that the wider population would read. I had literature through the door from both sides including that thing from Cameron and nowhere anywhere can I recall anything being mentioned about the advisory nature of the vote.
You think the probable fact that millions upon millions of people did not know is irrelevant? Fuck me that's incredible.
It's irrelevant to the fact that it was advisory.
-
Just found this. Poor Sarah had to be saved from the interview by her PR people. She lasted about 2 minutes bless her.
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-sarah-olney-dragged-air-pr-after-grilling-julia-1612027334
-
It's irrelevant to the fact that it was advisory.
Of course it is, anyway I expect it was best the thicko racist bigots didn't know as it would have confused them even more.
-
Of course it is, anyway I expect it was best the thicko racist bigots didn't know as it would have confused them even more.
The referendum was advisory - that is simply a fact. And to try to force it into being binding, firstly would fail at the first legal challenge, but also show deep contempt for our sovereign parliament who specifically enacted a bill for an advisory referendum rather than a binding one. I thought your brexit guys believed that the sovereignty of the UK parliament was sacrosanct. Apparently not, or rather only when it suits you.
-
I suppose you could hold the belief that people who were unaware that they were purchasing PPI or similar is like the 30mph speed limit as well. They should have known, I mean the information was available so if they did not read it then hey, their loss.
-
I voted in.
-
I suppose you could hold the belief that people who were unaware that they were purchasing PPI or similar is like the 30mph speed limit as well. They should have known, I mean the information was available so if they did not read it then hey, their loss.
There is a difference between mis-selling and the referendum - it was entirely clear to anyone who bothered to look that the referendum was advisory only.
Indeed I think it almost certain that parliament would never have passed a bill that called for a binding referendum, given that they would have know there were far, far too many unknowns in the negotiations to an actual brexit deal (most of which are entirely out of the hands of the UK parliament) that fettering the discretion of parliament to decide at any point that the actual brexit settlement isn't in the best interests of the country.
-
I voted in.
Well done you - I trust you will do the same in the second referendum on the agree brexit deal in 2020.
-
I suppose you could hold the belief that people who were unaware that they were purchasing PPI or similar is like the 30mph speed limit as well. They should have known, I mean the information was available so if they did not read it then hey, their loss.
Out of interest in what way do you think that confusion over whether the referendum was advisory or binding would have changed anyone's votes.
I think a shrinkingly small number of people would have thought, OK if this is binding I'll vote this way, but if it is advisory I'll vote a different way. Actually if there is any effect I would have thought it would push more people into voting leave, on the basis that it could be changed at a later date. Indeed don't you remember Boris making that point, that voting to leave wouldn't actually mean we left, but would force the EU into more significant change allowing us to stay.
-
Well done you - I trust you will do the same in the second referendum on the agree brexit deal in 2020.
Depends, but I'm pro Europe so....
-
Out of interest in what way do you think that confusion over whether the referendum was advisory or binding would have changed anyone's votes.
Hard to say. Perhaps more may have voted to go and see what deal we could get knowing it could all be undone, but then again perhaps not.
Regardless of that I think an already divided country may will only become more divided and bitter.
I think a shrinkingly small number of people would have thought, OK if this is binding I'll vote this way, but if it is advisory I'll vote a different way. Actually if there is any effect I would have thought it would push more people into voting leave, on the basis that it could be changed at a later date. Indeed don't you remember Boris making that point, that voting to leave wouldn't actually mean we left, but would force the EU into more significant change allowing us to stay.
I didn't watch anything Boris had to say as he is a self serving arrogant cock.
-
Hard to say. Perhaps more may have voted to go and see what deal we could get knowing it could all be undone, but then again perhaps not.
Indeed.
Regardless of that I think an already divided country may will only become more divided and bitter.
Agreed - the referendum was supposed to settle things once and for all, effectively to deal with factions in the tory party. What has happened is that a gaping great wound has opened in our society which is going to take a mighty long time to heal. Will Cameron go down as the worst PM of modern times - probably, particularly if the EU schism triggers the breakup of the UK if Scotland leaves.
I didn't watch anything Boris had to say as he is a self serving arrogant cock.
Agreed - although I did watch him because although is only interested in himself he has power. A dangerous combination.
-
Hard to say. Perhaps more may have voted to go and see what deal we could get knowing it could all be undone, but then again perhaps not.
I think there was already a strong strand of 'spin' that gave the impression that whatever happened with the vote we wouldn't actually leave. So whether or not that was an overt recognition that the referendum was advisory or not, I can't say, but it was certainly a common view.
I think there was a whole lot of politics that was played on both sides that perhaps obscured the fact that the referendum was advisory. Same as for the Scottish referendum with all that nonsense that it would be a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence from Salmond et al, knowing full well that that SNP retained the levers of power allowing them to call for another referendum at any time - which Westminster is frankly powerless to stop, albeit they can stop independence.
-
I think there was already a strong strand of 'spin' that gave the impression that whatever happened with the vote we wouldn't actually leave. So whether or not that was an overt recognition that the referendum was advisory or not, I can't say, but it was certainly a common view.
I think there was a whole lot of politics that was played on both sides that perhaps obscured the fact that the referendum was advisory. Same as for the Scottish referendum with all that nonsense that it would be a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence from Salmond et al, knowing full well that that SNP retained the levers of power allowing them to call for another referendum at any time - which Westminster is frankly powerless to stop, albeit they can stop independence.
They only retain 'levers of power' if they win elections
-
They only retain 'levers of power' if they win elections
Of course, which they did, in 2016 after the IndyRef.
I don't remember Salmond saying that the IndyRef was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence because we (i.e. the SNP) think they are going to be out of power for generations.
Nope, it was a classic political stunt to try to persuade people that if they didn't do it now they'd never have another opportunity. That looks like a rather hollow claim now, doesn't it with full on debate about a second independence referendum.
-
Of course, which they did, in 2016 after the IndyRef.
I don't remember Salmond saying that the IndyRef was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence because we (i.e. the SNP) think they are going to be out of power for generations.
Nope, it was a classic political stunt to try to persuade people that if they didn't do it now they'd never have another opportunity. That looks like a rather hollow claim now, doesn't it with full on debate about a second independence referendum.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that he couldn't know that would get elected again, particularly given that this was on a proportional system deliberately chosen to make any majority extremely difficult to get. Indeed in 2016, despite an increase in their vote, they lost their majority and any referendum would be dependent on other party, likely Green, support.
Actually at the time, I think most people, including Salmond, did think this would be a once in a lifetime vote but not surprisingly they didn't foresee the huge increase in membership, nor that the EU referendum would end up with the result that it did. The 2016 manifesto covered this by talking of the possibility of a referendum if there was substantive change e.g. the Euro vote. Given that No made a substantial part of the case the difficulty of staying in the EU andchow this could only be guaranteed by No, then 'hollow claims' is a bit rich.
-
Which is irrelevant to the fact that he couldn't know that would get elected again, particularly given that this was on a proportional system deliberately chosen to make any majority extremely difficult to get. Indeed in 2016, despite an increase in their vote, they lost their majority and any referendum would be dependent on other party, likely Green, support.
Sure he couldn't know that the SNP would have enoug support to get a bill for another IndyRef through - but to state that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity suggests he knew that they wouldn't, which wasn't true - and indeed has proven not to be true on the basis of the 2016 result.
Actually at the time, I think most people, including Salmond, did think this would be a once in a lifetime vote but not surprisingly they didn't foresee the huge increase in membership, nor that the EU referendum would end up with the result that it did. The 2016 manifesto covered this by talking of the possibility of a referendum if there was substantive change e.g. the Euro vote. Given that No made a substantial part of the case the difficulty of staying in the EU andchow this could only be guaranteed by No, then 'hollow claims' is a bit rich.
I disagree - I think Salmond, the consumate politician knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to ensure that as many people voted independence as possible, by fooling them into thinking that they couldn't ever get another chance.
You are of course right about the irony of the IndyRef debate over Scotland's membership of the EU.
-
And while there is debate about the possibility of another referendum, I am still unconvinced it will happen. The numbers are such that it looks unlikely to get a YES vote, and I suspect the gradualists will back away from another vote that they are not at least reasonably sure they can win.
-
And while there is debate about the possibility of another referendum, I am still unconvinced it will happen. The numbers are such that it looks unlikely to get a YES vote, and I suspect the gradualists will back away from another vote that they are not at least reasonably sure they can win.
That may well be true - the SNP won't trigger one unless they think they have a very good chance of winning. But just because they 'wont' trigger one, doesn't mean they 'couldn't' which was the tenet of the 'once in a lifetime opportunity' claims from the very self same SNP just a couple of years ago.
-
Sure he couldn't know that the SNP would have enoug support to get a bill for another IndyRef through - but to state that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity suggests he knew that they wouldn't, which wasn't true - and indeed has proven not to be true on the basis of the 2016 result.
I disagree - I think Salmond, the consumate politician knew exactly what he was doing. He was trying to ensure that as many people voted independence as possible, by fooling them into thinking that they couldn't ever get another chance.
You are of course right about the irony of the IndyRef debate over Scotland's membership of the EU.
No, I don't think it implies not being in power in the future. I think he honestly though that any loss would lead to a position where there would not be enough support for a second refetendum for the foreseeable future. That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.
-
That may well be true - the SNP won't trigger one unless they think they have a very good chance of winning. But just because they 'wont' trigger one, doesn't mean they 'couldn't' which was the tenet of the 'once in a lifetime opportunity' claims from the very self same SNP just a couple of years ago.
No, this is just you making an assertion - that Salmond stated that on the basis of being out of power - and then begging the question by using that assumption as true. Indeed you are also disagreeing with your original idea that Salmond was lying and knew they would somehow retain the 'levers of power'.
-
Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum. While I don't support another referendum, I can see that any statement made then has been superseded by 'Events, dear boy, events' as MacMillan may or may not have said.
-
No, I don't think it implies not being in power in the future. I think he honestly though that any loss would lead to a position where there would not be enough support for a second refetendum for the foreseeable future. That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.
No I don't think that is right - the primary purpose of the SNP is (obviously) to attain independence for Scotland. So if the SNP gained power and thought they could win a referendum they are hard-wired to want to hold one. Let's not forget that at the first opportunity the SNP had to trigger a referendum (i.e. with sufficient majority in the Scottish parliament) they did so. And they will again, the caveat being that first they think they could win it and secondly that offering a referendum would jeopardise their chances of actually getting the power needed.
It is disingenuous that he claimed there wouldn't be another referendum in the 'near-ish' future - he talked about a generation or was it a lifetime, but a length of time much greater than the 'near-ish' future.
-
No, this is just you making an assertion - that Salmond stated that on the basis of being out of power - and then begging the question by using that assumption as true. Indeed you are also disagreeing with your original idea that Salmond was lying and knew they would somehow retain the 'levers of power'.
No my comment about being out of power was in response to your comment about them needing the levers of power. The point I was making was that the claim that the referendum was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence was pure politics, based on trying to persuade people that it was now or never. The pragmatic issues of being in power etc were nothing to do with it.
-
No I don't think that is right - the primary purpose of the SNP is (obviously) to attain independence for Scotland. So if the SNP gained power and thought they could win a referendum they are hard-wired to want to hold one. Let's not forget that at the first opportunity the SNP had to trigger a referendum (i.e. with sufficient majority in the Scottish parliament) they did so. And they will again, the caveat being that first they think they could win it and secondly that offering a referendum would jeopardise their chances of actually getting the power needed.
It is disingenuous that he claimed there wouldn't be another referendum in the 'near-ish' future - he talked about a generation or was it a lifetime, but a length of time much greater than the 'near-ish' future.
I didn't say he claimed there wouldn't be a referendum in the nearish future. So kindly withdraw the comment on me being disingenuous.
You are right about the SNP being likely to call a referendum if they thought they could win it, the point of the once in a lifetime was it was unlikely to be the case that they could win one in any foreseeable future time. But then things changed with the huge increase in membership, the 2915 GE and the Brexit vote.
-
No my comment about being out of power was in response to your comment about them needing the levers of power. The point I was making was that the claim that the referendum was a once in a lifetime chance to vote for independence was pure politics, based on trying to persuade people that it was now or never. The pragmatic issues of being in power etc were nothing to do with it.
But your original position was it was a lie because the SNP somehow knew that they would hold the 'levers of power' which obviously cannot be guaranteed, particularly under d'Hondt electoral system. The pragmatic issues of being in power are very much to do with whether you can call a referendum.
-
I didn't say he claimed there wouldn't be a referendum in the nearish future. So kindly withdraw the comment on me being disingenuous.
Your own words - my emphasis:
'That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'
You certainly seem to be linking the SNP position to a proximity of a second referendum as nearish future, rather than once in a generation/once in a lifetime, which was the case in 2014.
-
Your own words - my emphasis:
'That is the SNP could continue to be elected in Holyrood but would not be able to have another referendum in the manufesto. Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'
You certainly seem to be linking the SNP position to a proximity of a second referendum as nearish future, rather than once in a generation/once in a lifetime, which was the case in 2014.
So where does that say that Salmond claimed that? It doesn't does it. So please retract the accusation.
-
But your original position was it was a lie because the SNP somehow knew that they would hold the 'levers of power' which obviously cannot be guaranteed, particularly under d'Hondt electoral system. The pragmatic issues of being in power are very much to do with whether you can call a referendum.
We are going round in circles.
Let me be very clear - if Salmond's claims about the IndyRef being a once in a lifetime opportunity was linked to his perception of the SNP's likelihood of holding the levers of power then it implies he thought they'd be out of power (i.e. without the levers of power) for a generation or more. Which is where your original comment linking the SNPs comments not the proximity of another referendum to their holding the levers of power.
Alternatively his comments had nothing to do with the likelihood or otherwise of the SNP having sufficient support in the Scottish parliament to trigger a referendum, and he was purely playing politics.
The latter is my opinion.
-
So where does that say that Salmond claimed that? It doesn't does it. So please retract the accusation.
Lining the second and third sentences - I quote again.
'Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'
Who were you implying was doing the 'thinking' in the final paragraph - some random person, or perhaps the 'he' in the previous paragraph. I think most people would read the linked sentences and conclude that you are talking about the same person. If not, then I apologise, but suggest you are rather clearer in your language in future, because the clear implication of that quote is that 'he', i.e Salmond, was doing the thinking that there wouldn't be another referendum in the nearish future - but that wan't his claim - he claimed that there wouldn't be another one in a generation/lifetime.
-
We are going round in circles.
Let me be very clear - if Salmond's claims about the IndyRef being a once in a lifetime opportunity was linked to his perception of the SNP's likelihood of holding the levers of power then it implies he thought they'd be out of power (i.e. without the levers of power) for a generation or more. Which is where your original comment linking the SNPs comments not the proximity of another referendum to their holding the levers of power.
Alternatively his comments had nothing to do with the likelihood or otherwise of the SNP having sufficient support in the Scottish parliament to trigger a referendum, and he was purely playing politics.
The latter is my opinion.
We have already coveted, and indeed you have accepted, that the only time the SNP would call for a referendum is when they were in power and likely to win. For Salmond to be lying he would have to know that they would be in power (not guaranteed but not ruled out by the comment) and that they would think themselves likely to win. It was generally thought that a loss would mean that they would have reached a high water mark and wouldn't be in the possible position of winning for many years, but things change. Salmond undoubtedly wanted to get the vote out, but other than personal animosity you have no evidence of lying as opposed to him not being a prophet about political events.
-
Lining the second and third sentences - I quote again.
'Undoubtedly he used that to stress the need to vote if you wanted Yes. That even after the EU vote there is a huge doubt as to whether there will be another referendum underlines that thinking there would be a one in the nearish future was not that reasonable.'
Who were you implying was doing the 'thinking' in the final paragraph - some random person, or perhaps the 'he' in the previous paragraph. I think most people would read the linked sentences and conclude that you are talking about the same person. If not, then I apologise, but suggest you are rather clearer in your language in future, because the clear implication of that quote is that 'he', i.e Salmond, was doing the thinking that there wouldn't be another referendum in the nearish future - but that wan't his claim - he claimed that there wouldn't be another one in a generation/lifetime.
It's a generic person, and includes Salmond, and the nearish future is about the current position. None of that changes that at no time in the second sentence does it talk about makes such a claim. You need to stop your emotions leading you to add things to people's posts.
I await your apology .
-
Prof D
In view of Brexit everything has changed, including the prospect of a second referendum on Scottish independence.
To be blunt about it we in Scotland have been fucked-over by voters in the English regions, and some of us aren't comfortable with that situation - and if there is any legal way for the SNP to spike Brexit then I'm 100% behind them!
-
Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum. While I don't support another referendum, I can see that any statement made then has been superseded by 'Events, dear boy, events' as MacMillan may or may not have said.
Firstly it is the 2016 Scottish elections that are the relevant ones here, as it is the Scottish parliament that triggered the first referendum and would trigger a second one, not the Westminster parliament.
And to suggest no one predicted the 2015 results in Scotland and the 2016 ones too is non-sense. Sure 2015 was beyond the wildest dreams of the SNP, but was entirely predicted in the polls through the years running up to the 2015 General Election. Indeed they were regularly polling at levels above 50% in Westminster polls.
But Salmond also knew that it was the Scottish parliament elections that were key and in those the SNP actually did slightly less well in 2016 than they were predicted in the polls. So, although the SNP might not have believed the polls, they were certainly telling them that they were likely to hold on to the levers of power in Holyrood either alone or with another party (e.g. Greens) likely to give them enough support to trigger a second referendum if they chose.
-
It's a generic person, and includes Salmond, and the nearish future is about the current position. None of that changes that at no time in the second sentence does it talk about makes such a claim. You need to stop your emotions leading you to add things to people's posts.
I await your apology .
I have done, - note reply 61:
'I think most people would read the linked sentences and conclude that you are talking about the same person. If not, then I apologise ...'
But I remain of the view that it is entirely unclear that the later sentence refers to a 'generic' person, but is clearly linked to an earlier sentence where the 'he' is Salmond. So excuse me if I read your sentences in the most obvious interpretation. You have now indicated this wasn't what you meant (albeit not at all clear) and on that basis I have already apologised.
On emotions, I suggest it is you that needs to take a rain check, given that you are demanding an apology when I've already given one.
-
Firstly it is the 2016 Scottish elections that are the relevant ones here, as it is the Scottish parliament that triggered the first referendum and would trigger a second one, not the Westminster parliament.
And to suggest no one predicted the 2015 results in Scotland and the 2016 ones too is non-sense. Sure 2015 was beyond the wildest dreams of the SNP, but was entirely predicted in the polls through the years running up to the 2015 General Election. Indeed they were regularly polling at levels above 50% in Westminster polls.
But Salmond also knew that it was the Scottish parliament elections that were key and in those the SNP actually did slightly less well in 2016 than they were predicted in the polls. So, although the SNP might not have believed the polls, they were certainly telling them that they were likely to hold on to the levers of power in Holyrood either alone or with another party (e.g. Greens) likely to give them enough support to trigger a second referendum if they chose.
Do you actually have some need to make up stuff? My post doesn't say no one predicted the 2015 election, though few did. Please stop misrepresenting what is being said.
-
My post doesn't say no one predicted the 2015 election, though few did. Please stop misrepresenting what is being said.
Oh FFS sake NS, take a chill pill and read your own posts:
'Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum.'
Your words not mine.
Clearly the relevant people here are those in the SNP, as my post made clear. You very, very clearly stated your belief that the SNP leadership, including Salmond didn't expect the 2015 result. Well I think that is wrong, because a quick glance at the polls would have told them that they were on course for a stunning victory. All you have to do is look at their campaigning strategy in the run up to the 2015 result, looking at the seats they were targeting tells you they were well aware that a victory of the level that actually happened was on the cards.
-
Oh FFS sake NS, take a chill pill and read your own posts:
'Just to add that I don't think Alex or indeed any SNP senior figure expected the 2015 GE results at the time of the referendum.'
Your words not mine.
Clearly the relevant people here are those in the SNP, as my post made clear. You very, very clearly stated your belief that the SNP leadership, including Salmond didn't expect the 2015 result. Well I think that is wrong, because a quick glance at the polls would have told them that they were on course for a stunning victory. All you have to do is look at their campaigning strategy in the run up to the 2015 result, looking at the seats they were targeting tells you they were well aware that a victory of the level that actually happened was on the cards.
Yes and my words do not say that no one predicted it, and your words say it was beyond their wildest dreams so you are again disagreeing with yourself and misrepresenting what I've said
I would suggest that I am not the one in need of a chill pill here, as once again your posting is overwhelmed by emotion leading to inaccuracy.
-
My post doesn't say no one predicted the 2015 election, though few did.
All the pollsters did, and the bookies, and most pundits. And without doubt the major parties were pretty clear about what was happening on the ground in the 12 months or so running up to the 2015 election.
Sure that final details on how stunning for the SNP and how catastrophic for the other parties (particularly Labour) was not quite certain, but that there was going to be pretty well complete wipeout of other parties was well accepted.
When not on here I spend a lot of time on a political web-site that looks at polling, betting and election predictions, and in the run up to 2015 there was a pretty credible view, based on the polling, that the SNP could win every single seat in Scotland - in the end they failed to win 3, and 2 of those 3 ended up ultra-marginal with majorities less than 1000.
-
Yes and my words do not say that no one predicted it,
If you are allowed to shift the specific (Salmond) to the generic, as you did earlier, and I accepted that, and apologies from misinterpreting you, then I suggest I am allowed to shift the generic (no-one) to the specific (the SNP) which seems reasonable as we were talking about what the SNP leadership thought.
and your words say it was beyond their wildest dreams so you are again disagreeing with yourself and misrepresenting what I've said.
Nope, dreams and reality are different.
So I think it was beyond the SNP's wildest dreams to expect to win all but three seats in Scotland and despite the fact that all the evidence predicted they would do that it was still beyond their wildest dreams - guess what dreams sometimes come true and the SNP knew darned well that it was well on the cards even if they dared not believe it.
As do nightmares.
I suspect that for Labour to lose all but one seat in Scotland, and the LibDems to end up with just a handful of seats in Westminster was beyond their worst nightmares but was completely predicted and senior figure in Labour and the LibDems knew it albeit they no doubt hoped against hope that it wasn't true.
-
Stop being so anti-democtratic. And also recognise that this by election is a significant blow to May and the three brexiters. It will markedly bolster those that take the sensible view that parliament must have a significant say on the process and the deal and that the government must outline its main objectives for a deal - 'having your cake and eat it' handwritten on a piece of paper by an aide doesn't constitute a strategy.
The problem is that I'm not sure that European leaders will allow much flexibility during the negotiations or after them. Our Parliament and MPs probably has less influence over the outcome now than they ever had whilst debating EU treaties/legislation/directives/etc.
-
The problem is that I'm not sure that European leaders will allow much flexibility during the negotiations or after them. Our Parliament and MPs probably has less influence over the outcome now than they ever had whilst debating EU treaties/legislation/directives/etc.
I think you are right there will be little flexibility from the EU leaders - they can either have the cake, or we can eat it, but we can't have both. So we can either retain significant access to the single market or we can restrict free movement, but we can't have both.
What the by-election does it bolster the parliamentary view that it must have a significant say in whether we have the cake, or we eat it. And also it increases pressure on the government to make clear which of cake or eating it preferred.
Now the reason why the government has been so coy is nothing to do with running commentaries, or giving away negotiating positions - that's non-sense as all that is being suggested is a headline priority which would have to be revealed at the 'talks about talks' stage anyhow. No the government is terrified at stating whether having cake or eating it is priority because as soon as it does all hell breaks loose and the uber-fragile lies holding together the brexiteers will dissolve. So if the government opts for soft brexit the UKIP hard line nutters will throw a massive wobbly, but if it goes for hard brexit a new consensus will form, almost certainly with a majority, between the 48% remainers, for whom hard brexit is the last thing they want, and the soft brexiteers, for whom remaining is probably preferable to xenophobic isolationism.
-
What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......
Against a majority of 3.78% for Brexit she is happy to take her majority of 4.53% as a massive vote of confidence.
Good point.
What it does mean is that the Tories only have a 10 seat majority now, so the likelihood of a early GE has just gone up.
This says nothing about the come back of the LibDems only that they venally jumped on a bandwagon to win.
-
What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......
Only if it's legal but then Brexiteers don't approve of legislative bodies.
My advice to those for whom this is a bad result is ''gerrover it!''
-
What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......
They ought to do what remainers have been advised...move on and never vote again.
-
Good point.
What it does mean is that the Tories only have a 10 seat majority now, so the likelihood of a early GE has just gone up.
This says nothing about the come back of the LibDems only that they venally jumped on a bandwagon to win.
They are perfectly welcome to start a campaign to unseat her (and indeed I'm sure this campaign will already have started). And in a maximum of 3.5 years there will be a second vote in which they can kick her out if that's what the electorate chose.
Any chance we will have the opportunity to have another vote in 3.5 years to overturn brexit. Let's hope so.
-
What the by-election does it bolster the parliamentary view that it must have a significant say in whether we have the cake, or we eat it. And also it increases pressure on the government to make clear which of cake or eating it preferred.
I'm not convinced that we have that level of flexibility, PD. It won't be what the UK Government may or may not want; rather, it'll be the EU leaders saying 'this is what we are offering - take it or leave it'
-
What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......
Against a majority of 3.78% for Brexit she is happy to take her majority of 4.53% as a massive vote of confidence.
There will be an opportunity for the people who are against her to unseat her in 2020 at the latest. Brexit is forever if it happens.
-
This says nothing about the come back of the LibDems only that they venally jumped on a bandwagon to win.
What was venal about it?
The candidate was quite open that she opposes Brexit and she got in.
-
They are perfectly welcome to start a campaign to unseat her (and indeed I'm sure this campaign will already have started). And in a maximum of 3.5 years there will be a second vote in which they can kick her out if that's what the electorate chose.
Any chance we will have the opportunity to have another vote in 3.5 years to overturn brexit. Let's hope so.
You'll be lucky if the EU exists in 3.5 years time! ;D
-
I'm not convinced that we have that level of flexibility, PD. It won't be what the UK Government may or may not want; rather, it'll be the EU leaders saying 'this is what we are offering - take it or leave it'
We could do the same. The EU is not in a strong position.
-
What was venal about it?
The candidate was quite open that she opposes Brexit and she got in.
Don't understand your comment. You do know what venal means? 'Quite open' looks like the wrong comment to me, with this regard.
-
You'll be lucky if the EU exists in 3.5 years time! ;D
You really are a deluded chap JK.
-
You really are a deluded chap JK.
Are you aware of all the cracks forming in the EU and especially the Eurozone, which is party to all the big EU players - Germany, France, Italy.....
-
You'll be lucky if the EU exists in 3.5 years time! ;D
I'm sorry Jack but unless Marine Le pen wins then the promises that the EU was washed up are blown.
-
I'm sorry Jack but unless Marine Le pen wins then the promises that the EU was washed up are blown.
LePen won't win - and even if she did the French people would still support the EU.
JK's suggestion that the EU is about to collapse is deluded nonsense.
-
Don't understand your comment. You do know what venal means? 'Quite open' looks like the wrong comment to me, with this regard.
Yes, I do know exactly what venal means which is why I don't understand why you are applying it here.
-
Are you aware of all the cracks forming in the EU and especially the Eurozone, which is party to all the big EU players - Germany, France, Italy.....
As is Austria who have just voted in Alexander Van der Bellen as their president, defeating a hard right eurosceptic, anti-migrant candidate.
Van der Bellen supports green and social liberal policies, and has described himself as a liberal. He is supportive of the European Union and advocates European federalism.
Not much evidence there for the cracks in the EU that you mention.
-
350 million a week for the NHS, the collapse of the EU......promises, promises.
-
As is Austria who have just voted in Alexander Van der Bellen as their president, defeating a hard right eurosceptic, anti-migrant candidate.
Van der Bellen supports green and social liberal policies, and has described himself as a liberal. He is supportive of the European Union and advocates European federalism.
Not much evidence there for the cracks in the EU that you mention.
Yes.
And given that Sarah Olney was arguably elected on a Lib Dem/Green ticket, I like to think that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
-
I'm sorry Jack but unless Marine Le pen wins then the promises that the EU was washed up are blown.
So what about the result of the Italian referendum? I.e. the sorry state of the Italian banks; ergo the Euro.
-
Yes.
And given that Sarah Olney was arguably elected on a Lib Dem/Green ticket, I like to think that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Clutching at straws. How sad.
-
Italians have stuck the boot in and Austria dodging a bullet does not solve the underlying problems. France and the Netherlands to come as well as Germany. The main parties will probably hold on but is that enough.
I wonder if those in charge will pause for thought, or will they carry on down the same merry road.
-
Italians have stuck the boot in and Austria dodging a bullet does not solve the underlying problems. France and the Netherlands to come as well as Germany. The main parties will probably hold on but is that enough.
I wonder if those in charge will pause for thought, or will they carry on down the same merry road.
The real problem isn't elections per se but the dire straits and moribund sate of the Euro.
-
So what about the result of the Italian referendum? I.e. the sorry state of the Italian banks; ergo the Euro.
Do you know what the Italian referendum was about?
Clue: it had nothing to do with the banks or the EU.
-
Do you know what the Italian referendum was about?
Clue: it had nothing to do with the banks or the EU.
Showing your ignorance again, Jeremy. It was about a constitutional change in Italy to quicken the processes of government. One reason for this was to implement more quickly changes that would keep their zombie banks in having the appearance of being alive and being animated. Once that goes Italy's bonds would hit the roof and the whole Eurozone would collapse - being that Italy is too big to bailout. All that is keeping it going are the ECB's bond buying programme (QE). But what that does is to drive down the Euro's market value so slowing the EU market down, which it can't afford.
Now Italy is pretty much in a state of stasis as it moves to yet another GE where the 5 Star Movement could actually take power. They want a referendum on whether to stay in the EZ or not. All factors that could drive those bonds sky high.
-
Showing your ignorance again, Jeremy. It was about a constitutional change in Italy to quicken the processes of government.
Please enumerate the constitutional changes. The fact is that I don't think you know what they were.
-
Showing your ignorance again, Jeremy. It was about a constitutional change in Italy to quicken the processes of government. One reason for this was to implement more quickly changes that would keep their zombie banks in having the appearance of being alive and being animated. Once that goes Italy's bonds would hit the roof and the whole Eurozone would collapse - being that Italy is too big to bailout. All that is keeping it going are the ECB's bond buying programme (QE). But what that does is to drive down the Euro's market value so slowing the EU market down, which it can't afford.
What a pity that the Italians who took part in the referendum had no idea that this is what it was all about, Jack.
-
Please enumerate the constitutional changes. The fact is that I don't think you know what they were.
I have given you an outline of them as relayed by an constitutional commentator on the TV.
-
I have given you an outline of them as relayed by an constitutional commentator on the TV.
No you haven't, you have merely described what you believe to be their effect. You really have no idea what they are.
-
What a pity that the Italians who took part in the referendum had no idea that this is what it was all about, Jack.
People should know by now that referendums are never voted on solely on the issue the referendum was set up ask. However, Renzi did put his head on the bloke with its resultant outcome and hey presto....
-
No you haven't, you have merely described what you believe to be their effect. You really have no idea what they are.
So are you saying the commentator was lying then? And if so explain how.
-
People should know by now that referendums are never voted on solely on the issue the referendum was set up ask.
I agree - but that is a big admission from you.
So clearly the EU referendum was the same - so you presumably recognise therefore that the wafer thin majority for Leave includes people voting on entirely unrelated issues to the issue the referendum was set up to ask.
-
So are you saying the commentator was lying then? And if so explain how.
No, I'm saying that you do not know what the referendum was about.
-
People should know by now that referendums are never voted on solely on the issue the referendum was set up ask. However, Renzi did put his head on the bloke with its resultant outcome and hey presto....
I'm fully aware of that, Jack - but the 'unexpected' comes from the voters, not those asking jhe referendum question - look at the way that Cameron ended up with egg on his face when it became clear that some people used the referendum to make a judgement on his premiership. What yopu claim would have had to have been hidden within the question being asked - and I haven't heard a thing about anything you're suggesting from political commentators - either British and Italian.
-
I agree - but that is a big admission from you.
So clearly the EU referendum was the same - so you presumably recognise therefore that the wafer thin majority for Leave includes people voting on entirely unrelated issues to the issue the referendum was set up to ask.
Well, one thing I do know is that all that mega project fear of what the pro lot claimed would happen if we voted for Brexit didn't put them off so they must have been really keen on it to vote that way. Yes it was a vote that includes a bash against the establishment and all their spin and lies and double dealings, which would of course include the EU. And I'm sure it included at bash against austerity, which would include the EU (look at Greece et al); and austerity being part of the Neo-Liberal project which the EU has signed up to. So what's your point?
-
No, I'm saying that you do not know what the referendum was about.
And you do? Go on then!
-
I'm fully aware of that, Jack - but the 'unexpected' comes from the voters, not those asking jhe referendum question - look at the way that Cameron ended up with egg on his face when it became clear that some people used the referendum to make a judgement on his premiership. What yopu claim would have had to have been hidden within the question being asked - and I haven't heard a thing about anything you're suggesting from political commentators - either British and Italian.
So you haven't heard what I've heard. Who's fault is that?
So I'll ask you the same thing that I asked, Jeremy. What do you say the Italian referendum was about?
-
And you do? Go on then!
Why?
I'm not the one who falsely claimed it was about the EU.
-
Why?
I'm not the one who falsely claimed it was about the EU.
What the hell are you talking about? Get a grip, Jeremy!!!
-
What the hell are you talking about? Get a grip, Jeremy!!!
You claimed the Italian referendum was about the EU.
I disputed your claim.
You failed to justify your claim.
Business as usual.
-
You claimed the Italian referendum was about the EU.
I disputed your claim.
You failed to justify your claim.
Business as usual.
No I did not, not directly. I said that, besides other constitutional requirements, it was there to quicken things up parliamentary procedures so that measures to help keep the banks afloat could be brought into force more quickly else their banks will fail. This of course will help stop the Euro from crashing with the Italian economy.
I'm not sure how you can dispute this per se as Italy is in the Euro and so if it fails the Euro will fail, being that Italy is too big to bailout.
-
No I did not, not directly. I said that, besides other constitutional requirements, it was there to quicken things up parliamentary procedures so that measures to help keep the banks afloat could be brought into force more quickly else their banks will fail. This of course will help stop the Euro from crashing with the Italian economy.
I'm not sure how you can dispute this per se as Italy is in the Euro and so if it fails the Euro will fail, being that Italy is too big to bailout.
Having listened to a number of people with interests - family or otherwise - in Italy (mostly political commentators it must be said) I have heard zilch about this idea that the referendum was, in part, to do with keeping the banks afloat. Yes, if the country can be made more stable, politically, it will help the economy which will help the banks - but then the same can be said about the UK, Germany or the Republic of Ireland.
-
Having listened to a number of people with interests - family or otherwise - in Italy (mostly political commentators it must be said) I have heard zilch about this idea that the referendum was, in part, to do with keeping the banks afloat. Yes, if the country can be made more stable, politically, it will help the economy which will help the banks - but then the same can be said about the UK, Germany or the Republic of Ireland.
I suggest you do your homework and be more vigilant about what's going on in the world. I also suggest your so called Italian political commentators are mere amateurs and incompetents.