I saw Ronnie Scott and his band perform live many years ago and I thought they were very good.
At the end of the evening I remember him remarking, "If you have enjoyed our performance tonight half as much as we have enjoyed playing, then we have enjoyed playing twice as much as you have enjoyed listening!"
The more damning element in that Ronnie Scotts editorial is not Brexit; it is the gloating at employing 80% foreign workers. Wonder how many British jazz fans have had lengthy periods of unemployment?
I said to my wife that, even if I ran a club as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, I wouldn't dream imposing my political views on a captive audience in my club magazine, yet alone being that rude and impolite to the opposing side, particularly when I knew some of them might be my customers.
For the record, I think you have been treated poorly tonight by Ronnie Scott's club. LEAVE, despite my dislike of it, was a legitimate point of view which ultimately convinced a majority of those who voted, and you should not be discomfited in a place of light entertainment. This is based on my belief that a) simple politeness is the oil that enables us to live and work together, and b) it is a mark of adulthood to recognize that the people you deal with every day may sincerely hold views that are diametrically opposed to your own, and hurting them just because you can is not moral.
Please forgive me if I *also* point out that the owner of Wetherspoons runs his pubs as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, and frequently imposes his views on his clientele.
This is not to diminish your discomfiture - two wrongs don't make a right, they just make two wrongs. It is to point out that your experience is shared by others.
Away from Brexit, some Sunday night philosophy... (poss Planet Earth 2 inspired)
In the last 125 years or so, since we have discovered that we are cousins of animals, humans seem to be trying to distance themselves from the innate behaviours that non human animals perform... bit weird?
It's gone on for a lot longer than that. Civilization is the story of our attempts to pretend we're not shaven apes who feed, fight and f**k.
I said to my wife that, even if I ran a club as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, I wouldn't dream imposing my political views on a captive audience in my club magazine, yet alone being that rude and impolite to the opposing side, particularly when I knew some of them might be my customers.
For the record, I think you have been treated poorly tonight by Ronnie Scott's club. LEAVE, despite my dislike of it, was a legitimate point of view which ultimately convinced a majority of those who voted, and you should not be discomfited in a place of light entertainment. This is based on my belief that a) simple politeness is the oil that enables us to live and work together, and b) it is a mark of adulthood to recognize that the people you deal with every day may sincerely hold views that are diametrically opposed to your own, and hurting them just because you can is not moral.
Please forgive me if I *also* point out that the owner of Wetherspoons runs his pubs as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, and frequently imposes his views on his clientele.
This is not to diminish your discomfiture - two wrongs don't make a right, they just make two wrongs. It is to point out that your experience is shared by others.
That's a fair point, I'd forgotten about Spoons. However, there's a difference between promoting your point of view (like Tim Martin's beermats) and insulting those on the other side.
What Leave meant was undefined. There was no plan. No manifesto. No viable alternatives were ever set out. A stupid referendum, all in all. It doesn't mean necessarily that we need to leave the Single Market. Leaving the EU and staying or not staying in the Single Market has implications that were never explained to voters. And of course, the EU has a big say in what we get.
Since then Theresa May has been much more interested in pandering to the delusions of some of her ministers and party members than in working towards a good deal for the country.
It should be emphasised that as of today the UK has not made a decision, in accordance with its constitutional requirements, to leave the EU, and it may never be legally and politically possible to do so.
It will always be legally possible and is almost inevitable that it will happen politically.
Let's revisit that answer when the Supreme Court has spoken, particularly regarding Scotland.
Holyrood may well have the right to express a view on matters EU, but is it not common consent that it has no right of veto over Westminster? How could it when Westminster is the ultimate source of sovereginty? Either way there is remedy: as parliament can enact A50 legislation with a clause that it shall take precedence over any provision of the Scotland Act.
And such measures are why Brexit will lead to the break up of the UK. The English Brexiteers forget that their worldview is not shared by everyone on these islands and we do not all have the same misguided sense of superiority vis-à-vis the continent expressed by Sean F on the previous thread.
Wrong again they do.
The Welsh voted out as well but of course you knew that but to admit it gives your drivel less impact. Not a surprise that Remainers are happy to throw abuse at the English yet consistently ignore the Welsh vote who also voted leave.
Ignoring democratic votes though is what they are very good at.
Since we joined in 1973 a pro-EU-membership position has been affirmed in 12 national elections and rejected in 1. I don't think we should take the IRA line on democracy whereby you only need to get lucky once...
How many times do we need to vote to leave the EU before you will allow it to happen?
What Leave meant was undefined. There was no plan. No manifesto. No viable alternatives were ever set out. A stupid referendum, all in all. It doesn't mean necessarily that we need to leave the Single Market. Leaving the EU and staying or not staying in the Single Market has implications that were never explained to voters. And of course, the EU has a big say in what we get.
Since then Theresa May has been much more interested in pandering to the delusions of some of her ministers and party members than in working towards a good deal for the country.
Crapville, frankly.
Except the leaders of the Leave campaign kept saying that we would leave the single market. Andrew Neil had a good montage of it on the Daily Politics.
What Leave meant was undefined. There was no plan. No manifesto. No viable alternatives were ever set out. A stupid referendum, all in all. It doesn't mean necessarily that we need to leave the Single Market. Leaving the EU and staying or not staying in the Single Market has implications that were never explained to voters. And of course, the EU has a big say in what we get.
Since then Theresa May has been much more interested in pandering to the delusions of some of her ministers and party members than in working towards a good deal for the country.
Crapville, frankly.
All agreed. And in hindsight, easy to see what the alternative would have been. Forget renegotiation, appoint the Leave campaign early, get them to write a white paper with full civil service support, which would then become the leave manifesto. Exactly as Scotland did. It would have forced the inconsistencies in Leave into the open, got rid of any nonsense such as the £350m for the NHS or Turkey joining the EU.
Then instead of Leave being anything you don't like about the EU/Cameron /foreigners, it would have been a specific proposition, and there would have been real clarity had Leave won the day.
What we have now looks like a real mess, and I'm in the camp saying a new mandate is needed through a General Election, and uniting the divides in the country should be a higher priority than anything else.
Out here in the sticks, I don't recall anyone ever mentioning the result of the referendum, except on the few occasions when I myself have made some mild remark. Exactly the same as when the government changes after a GE, for example.
It's accorded the same status as any other political decision: decision made, let them get on with it while we get on with our lives.
That's an interesting point. I've spent most of the last 20 years dividing my time btetween London and Nottingham. In London, far more people take politics far more seriously. I know what all my London friends and acquainances think about Brexit. A London canvass often attracts a dozen or more helpers. In Broxtowe in particular and Nottingham more generally, people are far less bothered, and in many cases I don't actually know what people think about current issues, although with my background they come up more often. Where people do get into politics, it's mostly amicable, and I've got on well with every Tory opponent before Anna, who doesn't really major on amiability with allies or opponents.
The downside is that I've often canvassed on my own, or with one other person. Get three and you feel you're on a roll.
This doesn't seem surprising, somehow, but on reflection I can't put my finger on the reason why Londoner should be so much more political.
What Leave meant was undefined. There was no plan. No manifesto. No viable alternatives were ever set out. A stupid referendum, all in all. It doesn't mean necessarily that we need to leave the Single Market. Leaving the EU and staying or not staying in the Single Market has implications that were never explained to voters. And of course, the EU has a big say in what we get.
Since then Theresa May has been much more interested in pandering to the delusions of some of her ministers and party members than in working towards a good deal for the country.
Crapville, frankly.
Except the leaders of the Leave campaign kept saying that we would leave the single market. Andrew Neil had a good montage of it on the Daily Politics.
The official propaganda had a bogus line that the Single Market was irrelevant because we could do exactly the same without it and therefore leaving it was a meaningless step
What Leave meant was undefined. There was no plan. No manifesto. No viable alternatives were ever set out. A stupid referendum, all in all. It doesn't mean necessarily that we need to leave the Single Market. Leaving the EU and staying or not staying in the Single Market has implications that were never explained to voters. And of course, the EU has a big say in what we get.
Since then Theresa May has been much more interested in pandering to the delusions of some of her ministers and party members than in working towards a good deal for the country.
Crapville, frankly.
Except the leaders of the Leave campaign kept saying that we would leave the single market. Andrew Neil had a good montage of it on the Daily Politics.
The official propaganda had a bogus line that the Single Market was irrelevant because we could do exactly the same without it and therefore leaving it was a meaningless step
I'm just looking over the pamphlet and I only see eight instances of the words 'single market'. None of those say it was irrelevant, in fact some were suggesting that we would not retain full access/membership:
"Losing our full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs."
What Leave meant was undefined. There was no plan. No manifesto. No viable alternatives were ever set out. A stupid referendum, all in all. It doesn't mean necessarily that we need to leave the Single Market. Leaving the EU and staying or not staying in the Single Market has implications that were never explained to voters. And of course, the EU has a big say in what we get.
Since then Theresa May has been much more interested in pandering to the delusions of some of her ministers and party members than in working towards a good deal for the country.
Crapville, frankly.
Except the leaders of the Leave campaign kept saying that we would leave the single market. Andrew Neil had a good montage of it on the Daily Politics.
The official propaganda had a bogus line that the Single Market was irrelevant because we could do exactly the same without it and therefore leaving it was a meaningless step
So we voted to leave the Single Market and seek to get the same without it. That is what the government should now negotiate. Agreed?
Out here in the sticks, I don't recall anyone ever mentioning the result of the referendum, except on the few occasions when I myself have made some mild remark. Exactly the same as when the government changes after a GE, for example.
It's accorded the same status as any other political decision: decision made, let them get on with it while we get on with our lives.
That's an interesting point. I've spent most of the last 20 years dividing my time btetween London and Nottingham. In London, far more people take politics far more seriously. I know what all my London friends and acquainances think about Brexit. A London canvass often attracts a dozen or more helpers. In Broxtowe in particular and Nottingham more generally, people are far less bothered, and in many cases I don't actually know what people think about current issues, although with my background they come up more often. Where people do get into politics, it's mostly amicable, and I've got on well with every Tory opponent before Anna, who doesn't really major on amiability with allies or opponents.
The downside is that I've often canvassed on my own, or with one other person. Get three and you feel you're on a roll.
This doesn't seem surprising, somehow, but on reflection I can't put my finger on the reason why Londoner should be so much more political.
Because those who are interested in politics gravitate to London thus normalising the interest.
That's like asking why technology geek discussions come up more if you live in Silicon Valley.
This court case isn't one I have followed closely but there's something I don't understand about the whole "ace card" ruse - why would/should the EU care that a British court has ruled that Britain can leave the EU but stay in your single market anyway so nyah-nyah to all your hollow threats, Eurocrats?
For this to be an effective strategy, isn't this going to need to go to the ECJ - and pronto? I can't see how the timescales are workable here.
I said to my wife that, even if I ran a club as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, I wouldn't dream imposing my political views on a captive audience in my club magazine, yet alone being that rude and impolite to the opposing side, particularly when I knew some of them might be my customers.
For the record, I think you have been treated poorly tonight by Ronnie Scott's club. LEAVE, despite my dislike of it, was a legitimate point of view which ultimately convinced a majority of those who voted, and you should not be discomfited in a place of light entertainment. This is based on my belief that a) simple politeness is the oil that enables us to live and work together, and b) it is a mark of adulthood to recognize that the people you deal with every day may sincerely hold views that are diametrically opposed to your own, and hurting them just because you can is not moral.
Please forgive me if I *also* point out that the owner of Wetherspoons runs his pubs as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, and frequently imposes his views on his clientele.
This is not to diminish your discomfiture - two wrongs don't make a right, they just make two wrongs. It is to point out that your experience is shared by others.
That's a fair point, I'd forgotten about Spoons. However, there's a difference between promoting your point of view (like Tim Martin's beermats) and insulting those on the other side.
He (the Wetherspoons guy, not Casino!) usually promotes his point of view in the "nice place: be a pity if something happened to it" manner, so I'm not sure it's a difference worth the distinction.
However, Casino's experience does highlight an unfortunate fact which Brexit has only made obvious: we go thru our lives thinking people broadly agree with us, and then find out that they don't. The various information revolutions promised greater knowledge of the world, and it did happen, tho' not in the way envisaged: we found out that the world is at best indifferent, at worst harmful. It's the mark of adulthood and - as Churchill pointed out[1] - the only way forward is to face facts. But there is still a part of me that misses my naivete...
[1] Much to my embarrassment, I can't find the quote!
This court case isn't one I have followed closely but there's something I don't understand about the whole "ace card" ruse - why would/should the EU care that a British court has ruled that Britain can leave the EU but stay in your single market anyway so nyah-nyah to all your hollow threats, Eurocrats?
For this to be an effective strategy, isn't this going to need to go to the ECJ - and pronto? I can't see how the timescales are workable here.
Well I wouldn't think British courts have jurisdiction on matters of foreign policy of EU governments, the same applies for European courts about british foreign policy.
Ronnie Scott's is a London institution that dates back decades. At the very least, you must concede this is reckless.
Surely this can't be the first time when you've had parts of the entertainment business making false assumptions about what right thinking people should believe? Having such views rammed down your throat is part of the experience. You seem overly touchy about this.
When I'm paying my own money to patronise their establishment, I don't expect to be outright insulted as a reward for my business in the introduction to the evening's entertainment, no. I go there to relax, forget the world, get away from it all, and to be dreamily lost in the jazz. That's sort of the whole point of it.
If he was writing in a personal capacity in the Guardian, that might be different. Where, when and how you do it is so important.
surely jazz has been political as long as jazz has been jazz?
I said to my wife that, even if I ran a club as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, I wouldn't dream imposing my political views on a captive audience in my club magazine, yet alone being that rude and impolite to the opposing side, particularly when I knew some of them might be my customers.
For the record, I think you have been treated poorly tonight by Ronnie Scott's club. LEAVE, despite my dislike of it, was a legitimate point of view which ultimately convinced a majority of those who voted, and you should not be discomfited in a place of light entertainment. This is based on my belief that a) simple politeness is the oil that enables us to live and work together, and b) it is a mark of adulthood to recognize that the people you deal with every day may sincerely hold views that are diametrically opposed to your own, and hurting them just because you can is not moral.
Please forgive me if I *also* point out that the owner of Wetherspoons runs his pubs as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, and frequently imposes his views on his clientele.
This is not to diminish your discomfiture - two wrongs don't make a right, they just make two wrongs. It is to point out that your experience is shared by others.
That's a fair point, I'd forgotten about Spoons. However, there's a difference between promoting your point of view (like Tim Martin's beermats) and insulting those on the other side.
He (the Wetherspoons guy, not Casino!) usually promotes his point of view in the "nice place: be a pity if something happened to it" manner, so I'm not sure it's a difference worth the distinction.
However, Casino's experience does highlight an unfortunate fact which Brexit has only made obvious: we go thru our lives thinking people broadly agree with us, and then find out that they don't. The various information revolutions promised greater knowledge of the world, and it did happen, tho' not in the way envisaged: we found out that the world is at best indifferent, at worst harmful. It's the mark of adulthood and - as Churchill pointed out[1] - the only way forward is to face facts. But there is still a part of me that misses my naivete...
[1] Much to my embarrassment, I can't find the quote!
Churchill used the phrase often, including in his United States of Europe speech (whatever happened to that project?).
Google finds his Ireland speech: It is far better to face facts and not to gloss them over.
Out here in the sticks, I don't recall anyone ever mentioning the result of the referendum, except on the few occasions when I myself have made some mild remark. Exactly the same as when the government changes after a GE, for example.
It's accorded the same status as any other political decision: decision made, let them get on with it while we get on with our lives.
That's an interesting point. I've spent most of the last 20 years dividing my time btetween London and Nottingham. In London, far more people take politics far more seriously. I know what all my London friends and acquainances think about Brexit. A London canvass often attracts a dozen or more helpers. In Broxtowe in particular and Nottingham more generally, people are far less bothered, and in many cases I don't actually know what people think about current issues, although with my background they come up more often. Where people do get into politics, it's mostly amicable, and I've got on well with every Tory opponent before Anna, who doesn't really major on amiability with allies or opponents.
The downside is that I've often canvassed on my own, or with one other person. Get three and you feel you're on a roll.
This doesn't seem surprising, somehow, but on reflection I can't put my finger on the reason why Londoner should be so much more political.
Friend in London tells me - how did you vote in the referendum is a very standard first tinder date question!
I'm a wised up voter and I certainly didn't vote in the expectation that we'd Leave the Single Market just like that.
I expected my government to negotiate the best Brexit deal possible: if that involves staying in the Single Market, and paying hefty contributions to avoid total Free Movement so be it. Or perhaps Ms May will find a different, bespoke agreement. Who knows.
We voted for Brexit. The legal departure of the UK from the EU, and that is all we voted for. We cannot make windows into the souls of 35 million electors.
But Boris and Gove said we'd be leaving the single market if we voted Leave.
Who gives a F what anyone said, apart from the voters. And all we know is that the voters were asked: Do you want to Leave the EU. and the British people said Yes. And that's it.
It is very arguable that the referendum should have been more precise. Should have asked more direct questions about the "kind" of Brexit we would get. Should have offered explicit alternatives between Hard and Soft and None.
But it didn't. It said do you want to LEAVE, and we agreed, and now it's the government's job to get the best LEAVE possible, up to and including staying in the Single Market. And we will give our verdict on the government's performance at the next election.
I'm a wised up voter and I certainly didn't vote in the expectation that we'd Leave the Single Market just like that.
I expected my government to negotiate the best Brexit deal possible: if that involves staying in the Single Market, and paying hefty contributions to avoid total Free Movement so be it. Or perhaps Ms May will find a different, bespoke agreement. Who knows.
We voted for Brexit. The legal departure of the UK from the EU, and that is all we voted for. We cannot make windows into the souls of 35 million electors.
But Boris and Gove said we'd be leaving the single market if we voted Leave.
Who gives a F what anyone said, apart from the voters. And all we know is that the voters were asked: Do you want to Leave the EU. and the British people said Yes. And that's it.
It is very arguable that the referendum should have been more precise. Should have asked more direct questions about the "kind" of Brexit we would get. Should have offered explicit alternatives between Hard and Soft and None.
But it didn't. It said do you want to LEAVE, and we agreed, and now it's the government's job to get the best LEAVE possible, up to and including staying in the Single Market. And we will give our verdict on the government's performance at the next election.
Exactly right.
If main spokesmen of the REMAIN campaign, including the PM and the Chancellor were telling us that a leave vote would involve leaving the single market (see above) and the main spokesmen of the LEAVE campaign were also telling the voters that a leave vote would involve leaving the single market, perhaps neither side should expect electoral generosity from the voters at the next election if we don't.
I'm a wised up voter and I certainly didn't vote in the expectation that we'd Leave the Single Market just like that.
I expected my government to negotiate the best Brexit deal possible: if that involves staying in the Single Market, and paying hefty contributions to avoid total Free Movement so be it. Or perhaps Ms May will find a different, bespoke agreement. Who knows.
We voted for Brexit. The legal departure of the UK from the EU, and that is all we voted for. We cannot make windows into the souls of 35 million electors.
But Boris and Gove said we'd be leaving the single market if we voted Leave.
Who gives a F what anyone said, apart from the voters. And all we know is that the voters were asked: Do you want to Leave the EU. and the British people said Yes. And that's it.
It is very arguable that the referendum should have been more precise. Should have asked more direct questions about the "kind" of Brexit we would get. Should have offered explicit alternatives between Hard and Soft and None.
But it didn't. It said do you want to LEAVE, and we agreed, and now it's the government's job to get the best LEAVE possible, up to and including staying in the Single Market. And we will give our verdict on the government's performance at the next election.
Exactly right.
If main spokesmen of the REMAIN campaign, including the PM and the Chancellor were telling us that a leave vote would involve leaving the single market (see above) and the main spokesmen of the LEAVE campaign were also telling the voters that a leave vote would involve leaving the single market, perhaps neither side should expect electoral generosity from the voters at the next election if we don't.
So, let me get this right, in the event that Remain won, we should have listened to what the Leavers said, and immediately joined to the Euro, demanded Turkey joined immediately, and been the most vocal proponents of a single European army?
And as Leave won, we should pay absolutely no attention to what anyone on the Leave side said, and instead look solely at what Remain politicians said?
On the overnight conversation, it will be interesting to see how many Leave-supporting journalists who frequent Ronnie Scott's, pick up @SeanT's tweeting on the subject.
Scotland is a distinct nation but it is not a sovereign state. It cannot form or unmake treaties in its own name. Matters EU are reserved to Westminster. In the referendum Scots voted as citizens of the UK in a matter affecting the whole of the UK as an indivisible sovereign state.
I'm a wised up voter and I certainly didn't vote in the expectation that we'd Leave the Single Market just like that.
I expected my government to negotiate the best Brexit deal possible: if that involves staying in the Single Market, and paying hefty contributions to avoid total Free Movement so be it. Or perhaps Ms May will find a different, bespoke agreement. Who knows.
We voted for Brexit. The legal departure of the UK from the EU, and that is all we voted for. We cannot make windows into the souls of 35 million electors.
But Boris and Gove said we'd be leaving the single market if we voted Leave.
Who gives a F what anyone said, apart from the voters. And all we know is that the voters were asked: Do you want to Leave the EU. and the British people said Yes. And that's it.
It is very arguable that the referendum should have been more precise. Should have asked more direct questions about the "kind" of Brexit we would get. Should have offered explicit alternatives between Hard and Soft and None.
But it didn't. It said do you want to LEAVE, and we agreed, and now it's the government's job to get the best LEAVE possible, up to and including staying in the Single Market. And we will give our verdict on the government's performance at the next election.
Exactly right.
If main spokesmen of the REMAIN campaign, including the PM and the Chancellor were telling us that a leave vote would involve leaving the single market (see above) and the main spokesmen of the LEAVE campaign were also telling the voters that a leave vote would involve leaving the single market, perhaps neither side should expect electoral generosity from the voters at the next election if we don't.
So, let me get this right, in the event that Remain won, we should have listened to what the Leavers said, and immediately joined to the Euro, demanded Turkey joined immediately, and been the most vocal proponents of a single European army?
And as Leave won, we should pay absolutely no attention to what anyone on the Leave side said, and instead look solely at what Remain politicians said?
Have I got this right?
In a word "No."
It simpler than that, the electorate were not offered a vision of the future by either side in which leaving did not result in us leaving the single market, they voted on that basis, should we be surprised if they react negatively if we subsequently dont ?
Comments
https://twitter.com/stevebrookstein/status/808070197328412672
At the end of the evening I remember him remarking, "If you have enjoyed our performance tonight half as much as we have enjoyed playing, then we have enjoyed playing twice as much as you have enjoyed listening!"
I couldn't fault his logic.
Please forgive me if I *also* point out that the owner of Wetherspoons runs his pubs as a Leaver, frequented largely by Leavers or Leave-sympathisers, and frequently imposes his views on his clientele.
This is not to diminish your discomfiture - two wrongs don't make a right, they just make two wrongs. It is to point out that your experience is shared by others.
Since then Theresa May has been much more interested in pandering to the delusions of some of her ministers and party members than in working towards a good deal for the country.
Crapville, frankly.
The plebs must do as they are told.
Then instead of Leave being anything you don't like about the EU/Cameron /foreigners, it would have been a specific proposition, and there would have been real clarity had Leave won the day.
What we have now looks like a real mess, and I'm in the camp saying a new mandate is needed through a General Election, and uniting the divides in the country should be a higher priority than anything else.
The downside is that I've often canvassed on my own, or with one other person. Get three and you feel you're on a roll.
This doesn't seem surprising, somehow, but on reflection I can't put my finger on the reason why Londoner should be so much more political.
"Losing our full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs."
That's like asking why technology geek discussions come up more if you live in Silicon Valley.
For this to be an effective strategy, isn't this going to need to go to the ECJ - and pronto? I can't see how the timescales are workable here.
However, Casino's experience does highlight an unfortunate fact which Brexit has only made obvious: we go thru our lives thinking people broadly agree with us, and then find out that they don't. The various information revolutions promised greater knowledge of the world, and it did happen, tho' not in the way envisaged: we found out that the world is at best indifferent, at worst harmful. It's the mark of adulthood and - as Churchill pointed out[1] - the only way forward is to face facts. But there is still a part of me that misses my naivete...
[1] Much to my embarrassment, I can't find the quote!
Google finds his Ireland speech: It is far better to face facts and not to gloss them over.
https://twitter.com/YesBrexit/status/782611463697563648
And as Leave won, we should pay absolutely no attention to what anyone on the Leave side said, and instead look solely at what Remain politicians said?
Have I got this right?
It simpler than that, the electorate were not offered a vision of the future by either side in which leaving did not result in us leaving the single market, they voted on that basis, should we be surprised if they react negatively if we subsequently dont ?