Brexit: the referendum

[quadraginta]

OK, so we've finally agreed on the facts of the leaks (plural). Now, can you tell me why anyone should give a monkey's about who the sources were, rather than to the substance of the story?

Can you tell me why any one should give a monkey's about what the Queen may or may not have mentioned, briefly, five years ago, in private?

Is her mere opinion, from half a decade ago, that compelling to the British voter that it will overwhelm any other information they might use?

No wonder she's the Queen. That's one convincing broad.

 

[CapelDodger]

I heard the editor on R4 mention a second event but he refused give any further details despite pressure.

All very enigmatic, which is a desperation play.

The paper I understand only mentioned the Clegg incident for which Gove has been fingered.

Inevitably fingered (is this actually an anti-Gove ploy? Are we that far through the looking-glass here? So many questions if you put your mind to thinking them up ...) but not necessarily guilty. There may be no leak to be guilty of - just a fabrication from somewhere in the Murdoch mud-wallow. After all, if Gove was the source wouldn't he have had a response ready? As it is he's come across as torn between two masters - the Queen and Murdoch.

What's needed is somebody who can exploit this.

Alastair Campbell slams ‘dishonesty’ of papers backing EU exit
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/12/alastair-campbell-dishonesty-papers-eu-referendum

“The Sun has dragged the Queen into the whole thing, taking something that was almost certainly never said to make a claim that she supported the Out campaign. I had a fair bit to do with the royals and the often crazy coverage of them in my time in Downing Street. Based on that experience, and her ability to shrug off without complaint so many false stories written about her, I can pretty much guarantee this – the fact the Palace has made a complaint to Ipso, the so-called independent press regulator, means the story is a load of cock.”

Yes, Alastair Campbell is a whore, but a talented whore, and getting into this one freelance for self-promotion and, I strongly suspect, some personal satisfaction.

'He anticipates a wave of criticism and inevitable counterattacks from Eurosceptics and journalists who he knows will blast him as a hypocrite and propagandist himself, and cite his role in the “dodgy dossier” about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction. “Before any of you start bleating or tweeting ‘dodgy dossier’, the accusations against me of lying, deceit and misinformation in relation to Iraq have been thoroughly investigated by three inquiries (we await the fourth) and I have been cleared by all of them.” '

Getting ahead of that. This game is starting to liven up.

 

[CapelDodger]

Can you tell me why any one should give a monkey's about what the Queen may or may not have mentioned, briefly, five years ago, in private.

There's no good reason, but clearly Murdoch thinks people will care. I think a more interesting question is why does Murdoch (who has vastly more executive power than the British Queen, of course) think that? And is he right?

Is her mere opinion, from half a decade ago, that compelling to the British voter that it will overwhelm any other information they might use.

No wonder she's the Queen. That's one convincing broad.

I think what people will see is a cynical attempt by Brexiters to co-opt the Queen to their cause while simultaneously treating them as idiots - which the Queen has never done, nor ever would, bless 'er.

 

[CapelDodger]

Can you tell me why any one should give a monkey's about what the Queen may or may not have mentioned, briefly, five years ago, in private.

Take 2 : you know that thing about how it's not about the thing it's about the coverup of the thing? This is like that but about the source of the thing. Which was definitely not the plan - whoever's it was. Murdoch himself might have been distracted recently

 

[zooterkin]

Jeremy Clarkson weighs in.

Surprisingly, in favour of remaining in the EU.

The outspoken former Top Gear star claimed it would be better for the UK to be part of a well-run Europe than to stay outside, where it would have ‘little influence’.

He said the Continent should be a ‘liberal’ and ‘kind’ balance in a world that could soon be dominated by American presidential hopeful Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Clarkson, 55, admitted the EU had its problems but said they could be solved if leaders were held to account by the press in Britain, where ‘an MP cannot even put a cup of coffee on expenses without being torn to pieces’.

 

[jimbob]

Jeremy Clarkson weighs in.

Surprisingly, in favour of remaining in the EU.

I didn't see that coming. The depressing thing is that it might have an effect.

 

[Craig B]

Jeremy Clarkson weighs in.

Surprisingly, in favour of remaining in the EU.

That doesn't surprise me overmuch, assuming Jeremy has financial interests that are best provided for within the EU.

 

[Craig B]

More to the point, if Gove (and, by extension, Brexit campaigners generally) is painted as taking advantage of our much-loved Queen (and she really is well-respected) then it will play horribly for them, mark my words. And particularly for Gove, who never had much going for him in the first place. "A face you could cheerfully step on", as my very polite and moderate mother once put it.

There are issues here, referred to in today's Sunday Times, quoted by the BBC.

"In a shot across the bows of ministers - who have used the Queen to promote the government's position on Scottish independence and the EU - a senior figure close to the Palace signalled last night that the royal household would resist any further efforts to drag her into politics," it says.
"The Palace will continue to fight a claim by the Sun newspaper that the Queen 'backs Brexit'. But officials have conceded that publicity about her private views on Europe is the consequence of the politicisation of the royals."
The paper says the intervention came as Justice Secretary Michael Gove apparently outed himself as one of the Sun's sources.
As political editor Tim Shipman puts it: "From the moment the Sun dropped on doormats on Wednesday morning, Buckingham Palace and Downing Street have been in damage limitation mode."​

I think that's very wise. It looks as if the Palace spin doctors are preparing to put their hands up to the Sun accusation, in some form.

The Queen's attitude to the Scottish Indyref was pretty clear, and reports about it were not the cause of outrage to Cameron, because in that case they suited him. We also had the alleged "purring" episode when Cameron reported to her Majesty, seemingly to her satisfaction, that the UK had not yet fallen apart following that referendum.

 

[Information Analyst]

There is also the issue that the comments came 5 years ago, before the decision to have a vote was made. We don't know whether her comments were as explicit as reported. I am fairly sure she wouldn't have used the word 'brexit'. Perhaps it was just a grumble. Cameron has been grumbling for years about the EU but still wants to stay in.

This seems the most important factor to me. Whatever she did or didn't say, it clearly wasn't about the very current prospect of Brexit via the referendum.

 

[Information Analyst]

Gove....The Queen....Nick Clegg.... she said he said.......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In a proper country those three people would have all the relevance and importance of a used chip wrapper.

Rather a bizarre thing to say, given that two of them only have significance as democratically-elected representatives.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Boris is widely regarded to have bet the farm on Brexit, and that his career will be trashed if we vote to stay in. But what would a No vote do to UKIP? Where could Farage and his bunch possibly go if Britain decides to stay in the EU? Would there be any point in UKIP after such a vote? I'd have thought not, but the SNP seems to have prospered after Scotland declined independence, so perhaps it would be foolish to write them off.

 

[Lothian]

.. But what would a No vote do to UKIP? Where could Farage and his bunch possibly go if Britain decides to stay in the EU? ....

Back to the BNP I suspect.

 

[MikeG]

.......Would there be any point in UKIP after such a vote? I'd have thought not, but the SNP seems to have prospered after Scotland declined independence, so perhaps it would be foolish to write them off.

There will be no point to them, and I would write them off, but only in the medium term. There'll be resentment stirred up by the referendum whichever way the result goes, and Ukip will be able to exploit that for a while. But a Remain vote essentially shoots their fox. Any comparison with the SNP falls at the first hurdle. The last 2 SNP leaders have been popular throughout Scotland. Farage, on the other hand, is divisive, and plenty of people who will vote Leave will do so despite, rather than because of, Farage.

 

[CapelDodger]

There are issues here, referred to in today's Sunday Times, quoted by the BBC.I think that's very wise. It looks as if the Palace spin doctors are preparing to put their hands up to the Sun accusation, in some form.

I very much doubt that. "BBC Quotes Sunday Times Shocker" leaves me unmoved, frankly.

The Queen's attitude to the Scottish Indyref was pretty clear ...

I recall her saying "I hope people will think very carefully before voting", which I would categorise as being against sin.

... and reports about it were not the cause of outrage to Cameron, because in that case they suited him.

Is Cameron outraged this time? The complaints I'm hearing are from the Palace, not Downing Street, but I'm not following the story closely (the Six Nations competition takes priority over everything else at this time of year, naturally).

We also had the alleged "purring" episode when Cameron reported to her Majesty, seemingly to her satisfaction, that the UK had not yet fallen apart following that referendum.

After the event and still from behind a veil. Colour me unconvinced.

 

[angrysoba]

Why stop there? Edward I was very hands-on and as for William the Bastard, well, best not go there.

George III's political activism only led to a reaction which reinforced Parliamentary sovereignty. Just one more piece of the evolutionary process.

Now you are just being silly. William I and Edward Longshanks were pre-constitutional monarchy. Parliamentary Sovereignty is not so much a process of gradual evolution as a major shift in power following the Glorious Revolution.

 

[Craig B]

I very much doubt that. "BBC Quotes Sunday Times Shocker" leaves me unmoved, frankly.

Unmoved? Oh, how hard of heart you must be!

I recall her saying "I hope people will think very carefully before voting", which I would categorise as being against sin.

The "sin" being the dissolution of the Union, evidently. Here's the Guardian 14/09/14.

As David Cameron prepares to issue a warning in Scotland that a vote for independence will lead to a permanent split from the UK, campaigners for the union welcomed the Queen's remarks as a reminder of the monumental decision facing voters in Scotland.

The comments by the Queen came as she left Crathie Kirk near her Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire after the Sunday morning service. The Queen told a well-wisher: "Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future."

The Queen's remarks were interpreted by no campaigners as helpful to their cause. They were seen to tally with a warning the prime minister will deliver in Scotland on Monday ...​

 

[Belgian thought]

There are issues here, referred to in today's Sunday Times, quoted by the BBC.

"In a shot across the bows of ministers - who have used the Queen to promote the government's position on Scottish independence and the EU - a senior figure close to the Palace signalled last night that the royal household would resist any further efforts to drag her into politics," it says.
"The Palace will continue to fight a claim by the Sun newspaper that the Queen 'backs Brexit'. But officials have conceded that publicity about her private views on Europe is the consequence of the politicisation of the royals."
The paper says the intervention came as Justice Secretary Michael Gove apparently outed himself as one of the Sun's sources.
As political editor Tim Shipman puts it: "From the moment the Sun dropped on doormats on Wednesday morning, Buckingham Palace and Downing Street have been in damage limitation mode."​

I think that's very wise. It looks as if the Palace spin doctors are preparing to put their hands up to the Sun accusation, in some form.

The Queen's attitude to the Scottish Indyref was pretty clear, and reports about it were not the cause of outrage to Cameron, because in that case they suited him. We also had the alleged "purring" episode when Cameron reported to her Majesty, seemingly to her satisfaction, that the UK had not yet fallen apart following that referendum.

Agree completely.
This stinks.

 

[Garrison]

The oddest thing about the 'Leave' campaign is how many of them campaigned so vehemently against Scottish Independence, but have adopted SNP tactics when it comes to the Brexit. Essentially they insist that Britain will be able to negotiate some sort of bilateral treaty to keep the useful bits if we leave the EU and anyone who says otherwise is scaremongering.

 

[quadraginta]

The oddest thing about the 'Leave' campaign is how many of them campaigned so vehemently against Scottish Independence, but have adopted SNP tactics when it comes to the Brexit. Essentially they insist that Britain will be able to negotiate some sort of bilateral treaty to keep the useful bits if we leave the EU and anyone who says otherwise is scaremongering.

Why re-invent the wheel?

 

[CapelDodger]

Now you are just being silly. William I and Edward Longshanks were pre-constitutional monarchy. Parliamentary Sovereignty is not so much a process of gradual evolution as a major shift in power following the Glorious Revolution.

That's a gross simplification. Charles I had to call Parliament because it had control of taxation - not something which happened by accident. James I made a lot of concessions, included Parliament's established rights - which Parliament has always succeeded in defining.

There have always been tensions between royal autocracy and the Anglo-Saxon tradition of an aristocratic oligarchy. It came to a head in Britain in the 17th century (and the good guys won). Most of the 17th century, not just 1688.