Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now.
Indeed. Polls today show the public still fairly split, but in the context of a real second referendum the vote could be as much as 70-30 for Remain.
It could easily be the same for Leave. People tend to get annoyed when politicians start asking the same question over and over again and don't accept the result.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
There will certainly be plenty of sunny optimism. The only thing that is certain at the moment is that all the claims of disaster immediately after voting to Leave turned out to be garbage. As such Remain loses its most potent weapon - fear.
It is all moot anyway. For better or worse it is pretty much too late to have another referendum to reverse the decision before we actually leave. Once that has happened Out will be the status quo position and Remain/Rejoin will see a lot of support slip away.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
That is "populism" for you! What a mess. Politics in the UK seems to have sunk through the floor. The point being the politicians are offering a worst deal than we have in the EU. As a country we will look stupid either way.
We do indeed look stupid. Our international reputation has taken a battering, and whatever happens that is damage done.
Just had my 'Confidential Election Briefing' email from the local party. *Gasp*: Apparently it's neck and neck and could be decided by whether I go door-knocking tonight!
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now. You would disregard real votes that you oppose in favour of opinion polls that support your view. You need to address that as it sure as hell isn't democracy.
Actually, no.
The only way out of this shitshow is to reverse course via another referendum, I accept that.
I also accept that a policy that determines the geopolitical and economic future of the country needs to rest on more than a narrow vote now two years in the past. A vote not carried in several constituent nations of this United Kingdom. A vote which disenfranchised long term expatriates. A vote of which there is good evidence of interference by a hostile power. And a vote which no longer - according to poll after poll - carries the support of the public.
Polls fluctuate. After the 1975 referendum, public opinion turned very strongly against EU membership up till the late eighties.
We took the vote and that's that. You just have to accept that sometimes, in a democracy, you're on the losing side.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
Yes, these numbers are crap. Why? So far, we have a divorce bill, a transition period that kicks the negotiation can down the road, and people are being stressed out by the incessant news headlines.
The only known positive we have of Brexit yet is the new Agricultural policy, which looks much better and will be gradually (and sensibly) phased in until 2024. And I bet hardly anyone knows about it either.
We don’t know the new immigration controls, trading arrangements, regulatory freedoms, budget savings and nor have we yet signed any trade deals. We do know the EU is playing hardball, we know Northern Ireland is a big problem and we also know the Lords have made things much more complicated.
But, we also know the EU has now reached acceptance on Brexit, wouldn’t take us back without some serious mea culpa from the UK, and knows it has to make this work (and be tolerable) for both parties whilst discouraging others, which it will.
Meanwhile all of the constitutional and political concerns surrounding the original UK-EU split are still there. So core Brexiteers will stick with it. Waverers will weigh up what they think of both the deal and what HMG will do with it and, by then, things will very probably have moved on for both the UK and EU.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now. You would disregard real votes that you oppose in favour of opinion polls that support your view. You need to address that as it sure as hell isn't democracy.
Actually, no.
The only way out of this shitshow is to reverse course via another referendum, I accept that.
I also accept that a policy that determines the geopolitical and economic future of the country needs to rest on more than a narrow vote now two years in the past. A vote not carried in several constituent nations of this United Kingdom. A vote which disenfranchised long term expatriates. A vote of which there is good evidence of interference by a hostile power. And a vote which no longer - according to poll after poll - carries the support of the public.
Polls fluctuate. After the 1975 referendum, public opinion turned very strongly against EU membership up till the late eighties.
We took the vote and that's that. You just have to accept that sometimes, in a democracy, you're on the losing side.
There may be justifications for a second referendum, but polls like this aren't one of then. Something like 65-35 in favour either of remain or of a second referendum would be where I'd draw the line.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now. You would disregard real votes that you oppose in favour of opinion polls that support your view. You need to address that as it sure as hell isn't democracy.
Actually, no.
The only way out of this shitshow is to reverse course via another referendum, I accept that.
I also accept that a policy that determines the geopolitical and economic future of the country needs to rest on more than a narrow vote now two years in the past. A vote not carried in several constituent nations of this United Kingdom. A vote which disenfranchised long term expatriates. A vote of which there is good evidence of interference by a hostile power. And a vote which no longer - according to poll after poll - carries the support of the public.
Polls fluctuate. After the 1975 referendum, public opinion turned very strongly against EU membership up till the late eighties.
We took the vote and that's that. You just have to accept that sometimes, in a democracy, you're on the losing side.
There could be a rejoin referendum under a future Labour government in, say, 2028 after winning a 2027GE.
If so, I’d expect it to be lost but not be certain of it. It would be done for the precise same reasons Cameron had to do the same in 2016, just the other way round.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
I wouldn't be so sure. The key to Brexit's success was 'change'. People think we've now Brexited and they haven't seen the change. In fact they haven't seen anything at all that looks appealing. Very difficult to know what they can hang their hat on if they were forced to run the campaign again
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
If we did such a thing, it would have to (tactically) be a snap referendum ambush *after* the deal was brokered.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now.
Indeed. Polls today show the public still fairly split, but in the context of a real second referendum the vote could be as much as 70-30 for Remain.
It could easily be the same for Leave. People tend to get annoyed when politicians start asking the same question over and over again and don't accept the result.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
If we did such a thing, it would have to (tactically) be a snap referendum ambush *after* the deal was brokered.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
The last referendum offered a mystery box. We we're promised that all sorts of things would be in the box, depending on who you listened to it was riches or disaster.
Now we know what's in the box we can now make an informed choice.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now.
Indeed. Polls today show the public still fairly split, but in the context of a real second referendum the vote could be as much as 70-30 for Remain.
It could easily be the same for Leave. People tend to get annoyed when politicians start asking the same question over and over again and don't accept the result.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
Not sure if we’ll have a (somewhat) live results spreadsheet tomorrow night. Haven’t had the time this year to populate all the necessary information. Sad times.
The results roll in at a sensible time for you I think ? I presume you haven't found any other planets with elections yet !
Even our Leaver friends have to laugh at the shambles that is Brexit. It really is an utter farce. Sit back, enjoy the football and LOL at the entire Brexit project - an international joke.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
That is "populism" for you! What a mess. Politics in the UK seems to have sunk through the floor. The point being the politicians are offering a worst deal than we have in the EU. As a country we will look stupid either way.
We do indeed look stupid. Our international reputation has taken a battering, and whatever happens that is damage done.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Nope. As I said nothing has changed yet because we have not left. If, once we have actually left you want another referendum to rejoin I will be happy to support that referendum although of curse I would campaign and vote to stay out. You would lose.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
If we did such a thing, it would have to (tactically) be a snap referendum ambush *after* the deal was brokered.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
The last referendum offered a mystery box. We we're promised that all sorts of things would be in the box, depending on who you listened to it was riches or disaster.
Now we know what's in the box we can now make an informed choice.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now.
Indeed. Polls today show the public still fairly split, but in the context of a real second referendum the vote could be as much as 70-30 for Remain.
It could easily be the same for Leave. People tend to get annoyed when politicians start asking the same question over and over again and don't accept the result.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
Perhaps Brexit will end like “Twelve Angry Men” with some Everyman like Greg Clark convincing everyone else it is total bullshit, and Fox sobbing violently into his cabinet papers.
Right now it feels like the end of the Italian Job
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now.
Indeed. Polls today show the public still fairly split, but in the context of a real second referendum the vote could be as much as 70-30 for Remain.
It could easily be the same for Leave. People tend to get annoyed when politicians start asking the same question over and over again and don't accept the result.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
If we did such a thing, it would have to (tactically) be a snap referendum ambush *after* the deal was brokered.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
The last referendum offered a mystery box. We we're promised that all sorts of things would be in the box, depending on who you listened to it was riches or disaster.
Now we know what's in the box we can now make an informed choice.
Wrong on both counts, I’m afraid.
Please point me to the 2016 document where the terms of the post EU UK settlement were set out so you could weigh the economic and political pros and cons.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina Miller challenge and was pleased with the result. I said yesterday that we should get rid of the Royal Prerogative even if it meant votes going against what I believed in. I believe in democracy. You don't.
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now.
Indeed. Polls today show the public still fairly split, but in the context of a real second referendum the vote could be as much as 70-30 for Remain.
It could easily be the same for Leave. People tend to get annoyed when politicians start asking the same question over and over again and don't accept the result.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
The courts, civil service and so govt here stick absolutely rigidly to the rules though I'm a way the French say don't though. So I'm afraid your rather sensible stuff on immigration simply wouldn't get a look in at the top.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Agree on both points.
Any constitutional change should require at least an absolute majority of the electorate to pass.
On immigration, we could have done more to make the UK less appealing to EU immigrants. But of course, for most people who are anti-immigration, it's not the EU immigrants they have in mind. And yet we have had consistently more non-EU than EU immigration for years - this government could have halved immigration at a stroke without flouting any EU rules. But they wouldn't do it because the impact on the economy, and on the NHS and other casre services, would have been catastrophic.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I don’t remember europhiles being particularly interested in giving the public a vote on Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitution or Lisbon.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I don’t remember europhiles being particularly interested in giving the public a vote on Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitution or Lisbon.
Life comes at you fast.
What if we'd had a vote on Maastricht as an alternative to having an opt out from the Euro? At the time it would have forced Labour to campaign for it, the shenanigans with the Tory Maastricht rebels would never have happened, and we'd now be happily in the Eurozone.
It took many consecutive events that individually were unlikely for us to end up with a Leave vote. A similar train of individually unlikely events could lead us to stay.
There’s parallels between the fluidity of the situation and the importance of apparently minor events between Brexit and Anglo-Irish relations from 1910 to 1922.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
Why not? The French show two fingers whenever trading regulations don't suit them, and no harm has ever accrued to them. Indeed, Barnier was one of their more egregious offenders and he's openly talked of as Selmayr's next stooge Juncker's successor.
I think however a more pertinent issue with much immigration was their access to our welfare system. And that is something we have the ability, but not the will, to do something about - by tightening up on access to it.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Agree on both points.
Any constitutional change should require at least an absolute majority of the electorate to pass.
That would be a very difficult one to enforce for a number of reasons. I'm also dubious about how helpful such thresholds are. The 40% criteria in 1979 didn't stop moves for Scottish devolution. I'm thinking that a similar requirement in 2016 would simply have fed a 'we wuz robbed' meme - which would have been disastrous.
The thing that is so silly is that he talks about Parliament rejecting the deal but right now where is a deal coming from. Fox is far away the most inept Brexiteer and I am a conservative member who voted remain, but wants us to leave to fulfil the democratic vote
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I don’t remember europhiles being particularly interested in giving the public a vote on Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitution or Lisbon.
Life comes at you fast.
What if we'd had a vote on Maastricht as an alternative to having an opt out from the Euro? At the time it would have forced Labour to campaign for it, the shenanigans with the Tory Maastricht rebels would never have happened, and we'd now be happily in the Eurozone.
I wouldn’t have minded such a referendum, and I think it would have become a proxy vote for the Euro in any event.
I think it would have lost by a clear margin and we’d either have formalised a series of opt-outs, or not joined the European Union.
Perhaps Brexit will end like “Twelve Angry Men” with some Everyman like Greg Clark convincing everyone else it is total bullshit, and Fox sobbing violently into his cabinet papers.
Right now it feels like the end of the Italian Job
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
We live in a world where Donald Trump beat Hilary Clinton. Anybody who thinks that a second referendum would have a predictable outcome is a total idiot.
If there's one thing you ought to have twigged by now after Trump, Brexit, Macron, and Corbyn is that the prevailing political wisdom is invariably a load of bollocks, the public quite like messing with the political classes given half a chance and sticking two fingers up to the establishment.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
If we did such a thing, it would have to (tactically) be a snap referendum ambush *after* the deal was brokered.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
The last referendum offered a mystery box. We we're promised that all sorts of things would be in the box, depending on who you listened to it was riches or disaster.
Now we know what's in the box we can now make an informed choice.
Wrong on both counts, I’m afraid.
Please point me to the 2016 document where the terms of the post EU UK settlement were set out so you could weigh the economic and political pros and cons.
The campaign was on the basis of UK laws, UK trade deals, greater immigration control and saving budgetary contributions. I don’t think most voters thought there wouldn’t need to be a negotiation with a bit of give and take.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I don’t remember europhiles being particularly interested in giving the public a vote on Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitution or Lisbon.
Life comes at you fast.
What if we'd had a vote on Maastricht as an alternative to having an opt out from the Euro? At the time it would have forced Labour to campaign for it, the shenanigans with the Tory Maastricht rebels would never have happened, and we'd now be happily in the Eurozone.
I wouldn’t have minded such a referendum, and I think it would have become a proxy vote for the Euro in any event.
I think it would have lost by a clear margin and we’d either have formalised a series of opt-outs, or not joined the European Union.
We did formalise a series of opt outs so even if you'd won a referendum against the full treaty, the end result would likely have been the same.
Also remember that polling showed the EEC/EU was quite popular in that period so I think you would have been disappointed with the result, especially as John Smith would have been backing it.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
If we did such a thing, it would have to (tactically) be a snap referendum ambush *after* the deal was brokered.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
The last referendum offered a mystery box. We we're promised that all sorts of things would be in the box, depending on who you listened to it was riches or disaster.
Now we know what's in the box we can now make an informed choice.
Wrong on both counts, I’m afraid.
Please point me to the 2016 document where the terms of the post EU UK settlement were set out so you could weigh the economic and political pros and cons.
The campaign was on the basis of UK laws, UK trade deals, greater immigration control and saving budgetary contributions. I don’t think most voters thought there wouldn’t need to be a negotiation with a bit of give and take.
Can you point to such a document now?
What you posted doesn't make sense. For example, there were no and remain no UK trade deals. Before the vote leavers are on the record that we would retain single market access . Others said trade deals would happen in hours. It was vague twaddle, confused and you know it.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
We live in a world where Donald Trump beat Hilary Clinton. Anybody who thinks that a second referendum would have a predictable outcome is a total idiot.
If there's one thing you ought to have twigged by now after Trump, Brexit, Macron, and Corbyn is that the prevailing political wisdom is invariably a load of bollocks, the public quite like messing with the political classes given half a chance and sticking two fingers up to the establishment.
I'd like to think think we're more sensible than the States, but I fear maybe not. There is one thing though that universally focuses attention---shite hitting the fan. Edit: come to think of it I do think that sometimes we like to suffer.
How do you picture the Vote Leave campaign next time? You won't have any sunny optimism to run on, and no politician with any ambition will want to go near it.
We live in a world where Donald Trump beat Hilary Clinton. Anybody who thinks that a second referendum would have a predictable outcome is a total idiot.
If there's one thing you ought to have twigged by now after Trump, Brexit, Macron, and Corbyn is that the prevailing political wisdom is invariably a load of bollocks, the public quite like messing with the political classes given half a chance and sticking two fingers up to the establishment.
Given that the establishment has spent two years running around like headless chickens trying to implement Brexit, the best way to stick two fingers up will be to vote Remain, particularly given that the establishment is trying to prevent people having a say on the matter.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I think if the UK had rejected Lisbon then the government would have been able to negotiate some kind of exemption on free movement and welfare obligations. With 25 other nations waiting on the UK to ratify the treaty the concessions would have come fairly quickly. The issue with Dave's negotiation was that nothing else depended on it. We had a weak bargaining position, especially since he'd made it clear he would recommend a remain vote regardless of what the negotiation achieved.
There were so many opportunities for the remain side to give the leavers and Eurosceptics something, but they continually decided to rub our faces in "more Europe" until it wasn't sustainable and it ended in the leave vote.
Dave's failure to "unratify" Lisbon and put it to a public vote made a huge difference to the atmosphere in which the 2016 vote was conducted. Many Eurosceptics saw this as the one and only chance to reject the EU. They may not have wanted to leave before the vote was called but in the end faced with voting for or against the EU, there was only one choice.
The thing that is so silly is that he talks about Parliament rejecting the deal but right now where is a deal coming from. Fox is far away the most inept Brexiteer and I am a conservative member who voted remain, but wants us to leave to fulfil the democratic vote
Fox is deluded like the rest of the Brexit supporting people, they are the ones negotiating and it is a worse deal than the one we have at the moment. If it was better like they claimed in the campaign fair enough but they have had control and come up with something that puts the UK at a disadvantage economically. Someone is going to have to have to do some pretty painful eating of words whether it is Boris or Davis I do not care. The Tories by continuing this madness are not going to be the party of economic competence for much longer. The alternative Corbyn government would totally destroy the economy. A choice of little Englander fantasists or neo - Marxist. I chose neither.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I think if the UK had rejected Lisbon then the government would have been able to negotiate some kind of exemption on free movement and welfare obligations. With 25 other nations waiting on the UK to ratify the treaty the concessions would have come fairly quickly. The issue with Dave's negotiation was that nothing else depended on it. We had a weak bargaining position, especially since he'd made it clear he would recommend a remain vote regardless of what the negotiation achieved.
There were so many opportunities for the remain side to give the leavers and Eurosceptics something, but they continually decided to rub our faces in "more Europe" until it wasn't sustainable and it ended in the leave vote.
Dave's failure to "unratify" Lisbon and put it to a public vote made a huge difference to the atmosphere in which the 2016 vote was conducted. Many Eurosceptics saw this as the one and only chance to reject the EU. They may not have wanted to leave before the vote was called but in the end faced with voting for or against the EU, there was only one choice.
It took many consecutive events that individually were unlikely for us to end up with a Leave vote. A similar train of individually unlikely events could lead us to stay.
There’s parallels between the fluidity of the situation and the importance of apparently minor events between Brexit and Anglo-Irish relations from 1910 to 1922.
I think Brexit and Boris will be seen as a similar epic mistake as Churchill and the Gold Standard 90 years ago by historians. I doubt that Boris will gain any redemption.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
The.
.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
out.
.
Wrong on both counts, I’m afraid.
Please point me to the 2016 document where the terms of the post EU UK settlement were set out so you could weigh the economic and political pros and cons.
The campaign was on the basis of UK laws, UK trade deals, greater immigration control and saving budgetary contributions. I don’t think most voters thought there wouldn’t need to be a negotiation with a bit of give and take.
Can you point to such a document now?
What you posted doesn't make sense. For example, there were no and remain no UK trade deals. Before the vote leavers are on the record that we would retain single market access . Others said trade deals would happen in hours. It was vague twaddle, confused and you know it.
Err.. no.
My post does make sense it’s just - bizarrely - you’ve chosen to be pedantic about it. I meant, quite clearly, the right for the UK to make its own trade deals, and for legislation to originate from the UK Parliament by representatives we can hold accountable.
Further, the Vote Leave manifesto said that it would involve leaving the single market. I remember a debate on here at the time when even some Leavers (Robert and Richard T) queried it, but decided to vote Leave regardless.
If your argument is that some well-known Leavers made inconsistent arguments on the telly at odds with the vote Leave manifesto then, yes, I’d agree with you. But that’s not the same thing.
And I note you can’t point to any document, now, that outlines the post Brexit UK-EU relationship. And you know it.
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock.
?
I take a different view on constitutional change, and think it requires a different test. See, for example, the Australian monarch referendum, or the referendums we had in NZ to change the flag. I don’t like this majoritarian business.
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I don’t remember europhiles being particularly interested in giving the public a vote on Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, the Constitution or Lisbon.
Life comes at you fast.
What if we'd had a vote on Maastricht as an alternative to having an opt out from the Euro? At the time it would have forced Labour to campaign for it, the shenanigans with the Tory Maastricht rebels would never have happened, and we'd now be happily in the Eurozone.
I wouldn’t have minded such a referendum, and I think it would have become a proxy vote for the Euro in any event.
I think it would have lost by a clear margin and we’d either have formalised a series of opt-outs, or not joined the European Union.
We did formalise a series of opt outs so even if you'd won a referendum against the full treaty, the end result would likely have been the same.
Also remember that polling showed the EEC/EU was quite popular in that period so I think you would have been disappointed with the result, especially as John Smith would have been backing it.
As usual from you that’s a lot of wishful thinking.
Yes to a Maastricht vote (another missed chance to halt the integration bus). But as you say in the past. We can’t just ad infinitum say “balls to your freedom of movement policy” ,(much as I’m sure a majority would like to). It’s not a sustainable position is it? Eventually they’d apply trade sanctions and kick us out anyway. I’m sure you realise this. It’s the Catch 22 that did for Cameron and our membership - though it was to me symptom of the control issue not the main feature.
I think if the UK had rejected Lisbon then the government would have been able to negotiate some kind of exemption on free movement and welfare obligations. With 25 other nations waiting on the UK to ratify the treaty the concessions would have come fairly quickly. The issue with Dave's negotiation was that nothing else depended on it. We had a weak bargaining position, especially since he'd made it clear he would recommend a remain vote regardless of what the negotiation achieved.
There were so many opportunities for the remain side to give the leavers and Eurosceptics something, but they continually decided to rub our faces in "more Europe" until it wasn't sustainable and it ended in the leave vote.
Dave's failure to "unratify" Lisbon and put it to a public vote made a huge difference to the atmosphere in which the 2016 vote was conducted. Many Eurosceptics saw this as the one and only chance to reject the EU. They may not have wanted to leave before the vote was called but in the end faced with voting for or against the EU, there was only one choice.
Also, and possibly more importantly, it would have been a gesture of good faith by the EU that it listens and so the public could continue to have confidence in it.
Edit: and the rest of your post is bang on the money as well, too.
Given that the establishment has spent two years running around like headless chickens trying to implement Brexit, the best way to stick two fingers up will be to vote Remain, particularly given that the establishment is trying to prevent people having a say on the matter.
If the public think they are being steered to say Remain this time, which is the perfectly logical if a second referendum is called, they might quite easily decide to throw a spanner in the works again. Anyone who thinks the public will simply do the "right thing" when asked has been asleep for a couple of years.
I'd like to think think we're more sensible than the States, but I fear maybe not. There is one thing though that universally focuses attention---shite hitting the fan. Edit: come to think of it I do think that sometimes we like to suffer.
We are perfectly capable of electing a British Trump, we nearly did it just last year.
I'd like to think think we're more sensible than the States, but I fear maybe not. There is one thing though that universally focuses attention---shite hitting the fan. Edit: come to think of it I do think that sometimes we like to suffer.
We are perfectly capable of electing a British Trump, we nearly did it just last year.
What if we'd had a vote on Maastricht as an alternative to having an opt out from the Euro? At the time it would have forced Labour to campaign for it, the shenanigans with the Tory Maastricht rebels would never have happened, and we'd now be happily in the Eurozone.
If we had been in the Eurozone we would now be anything but happy. The Financial Crisis would have been magnitudes worse than it was for us and would have broken both the country and probably the EU as well. You are so fanatical about your beloved EU that you really don't think these things through.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
If we did such a thing, it would have to (tactically) be a snap referendum ambush *after* the deal was brokered.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
The last referendum offered a mystery box. We we're promised that all sorts of things would be in the box, depending on who you listened to it was riches or disaster.
Now we know what's in the box we can now make an informed choice.
Wrong on both counts, I’m afraid.
Please point me to the 2016 document where the terms of the post EU UK settlement were set out so you could weigh the economic and political pros and cons.
The campaign was on the basis of UK laws, UK trade deals, greater immigration control and saving budgetary contributions. I don’t think most voters thought there wouldn’t need to be a negotiation with a bit of give and take.
Can you point to such a document now?
What you posted doesn't make sense. For example, there were no and remain no UK trade deals. Before the vote leavers are on the record that we would retain single market access . Others said trade deals would happen in hours. It was vague twaddle, confused and you know it.
There can be no deals until we leave. Unlike many other countries in the EU - and the EU itself - we actually follow the rules.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
The.
.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
out.
.
Wrong on both counts, I’m afraid.
Please point me to the 2016 document where the terms of the post EU UK settlement were set out so you could weigh the economic and political pros and cons.
The campaign was on the basis of UK laws, UK trade deals, greater immigration control and saving budgetary contributions. I don’t think most voters thought there wouldn’t need to be a negotiation with a bit of give and take.
Can you point to such a document now?
What you posted doesn't make sense. For example, there were no and remain no UK trade deals. Before the vote leavers are on the record that we would retain single market access . Others said trade deals would happen in hours. It was vague twaddle, confused and you know it.
Err.. no.
My post does make sense it’s just - bizarrely - you’ve chosen to be pedantic about it. I meant, quite clearly, the right for the UK to make its own trade deals, and for legislation to originate from the UK Parliament by representatives we can hold accountable.
Further, the Vote Leave manifesto said that it would involve leaving the single market. I remember a debate on here at the time when even some Leavers (Robert and Richard T) queried it, but decided to vote Leave regardless.
If your argument is that some well-known Leavers made inconsistent arguments on the telly at odds with the vote Leave manifesto then, yes, I’d agree with you. But that’s not the same thing.
And I note you can’t point to any document, now, that outlines the post Brexit UK-EU relationship. And you know it.
Er, the point is that when there is a plan we can finally have an informed vote. No more mystery box. A choice between two imperfect outcomes.
Brexit. A policy without logic, without coherence, and without support.
How long must we pretend this is we want or need it?
Agree but without support is stretching it
A minority of the public - in poll after poll - do now support Brexit.
No doubt an even smaller minority support the garbled mess we are going to end up with.
If we have learnt anything in the last few years it is that time and time again opinion polls are proved to be worthless.
We thus see that Brexitism is inherently undemocratic. Having won the referendum it now dispenses with any need of public - or indeed parliamentary, given recent rhetoric - support!
Nope. Lying again. I have said all along that Parliament should get to vote on these things. I supported the Gina
It is only people like you who want to overturn democratic decisions when you don't agree with them. You really are a shameful character.
You need to address the fact that Brexit no longer carries public support. What breed of democracy are you espousing?
Polls do not reflect how people will vote. That has been very clear for a long time now. You would disregard real votes that you oppose in favour of opinion polls that support your view. You need to address that as it sure as hell isn't democracy.
Actually, no.
The only way out of this shitshow is to reverse course via another referendum, I accept that.
I also accept that a policy that determines the geopolitical and economic future of the country needs to rest on more than a narrow vote now two years in the past. A vote not carried in several constituent nations of this United Kingdom. A vote which disenfranchised long term expatriates. A vote of which there is good evidence of interference by a hostile power. And a vote which no longer - according to poll after poll - carries the support of the public.
Polls fluctuate. After the 1975 referendum, public opinion turned very strongly against EU membership up till the late eighties.
We took the vote and that's that. You just have to accept that sometimes, in a democracy, you're on the losing side.
Frit.
It's not a case of " come in if you think you're hard enough.". The vote was taken and Leave won. It's not our fault if people found your arguments poor.
With regards to Brexit, it seems like the government are still trying to work out what they want. Of course, they should have worked that out before triggering article 50, and there should also have been some sort of further public consultation on it, given the vast constitutional implications. So, we are still dealing with the fall out of poor political judgement, in both the way the referendum was framed, and in the aftermath of it.
It is hard to see what deal is going to emerge. It seems more likely that are going to be faced with a choice between crashing out, and some sort of punitive 'interim' deal, rolling over and over indefinetly. So, BINO, but not even quite that. More like 'Brexit deferred'.
I'd go for the crashing out, to be honest. Deferring Brexit endlessly and finding new weasel words to explain it is not honoring the referendum result. We just ultimately have to take the hit and face the consequences of it.
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
The last one was a decision in principle, like the Scottish independence referendum. If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, nationalists would be rightly incensed if we told them that a second vote was needed.
The view of Labour supporters is irrelevant. The key metric is the view of Conservative supporters. Only if they turn against Brexit will there be any change, and I believe they're still solid in favour.
Only because Conservatives always play "follow my leader". Weren`t most of them in favour of remaining, when Mr Cameron was leading them?
Hmmmm. So if you are Liam Fox you can change your mind, but the British people are not allowed to even when new information comes to light.
There has been no new information - except that project fear turned out to be as big a load of rubbish as we said it was. Besides it has not been 6 years yet. If you want another vote in 4 years good luck to you. I would not object to another vote at all. But you would get slaughtered.
If things are so great, hold the vote You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
But if we did, and won again, you'd demand a fresh vote, ad infinitum.
Nope. A vote on a specific proposition makes sense. The last one was vague twaddle.
The last one was a decision in principle, like the Scottish independence referendum. If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, nationalists would be rightly incensed if we told them that a second vote was needed.
In which case I’d say tough tits. In my view a 52/48 margin is insufficient to declare independence. Supermajorities are there because they demand that a proposition be supported by a coalition of majorities. This is fit and proper for significant constitutional change.
I have other issues with the Scots referendum, namely the disenfranchisement of Scots who weren’t living in Scotland.
I can only imagine how I’d feel if my own country - NZ - decided to dissolve itself and I couldn’t have a say.
Both the Scottish referendum and the Brexit referendum were a result of Cameron’s arrogance and complacency when it came to constitutional matters. Cameron was pathetic like that.
The view of Labour supporters is irrelevant. The key metric is the view of Conservative supporters. Only if they turn against Brexit will there be any change, and I believe they're still solid in favour.
Only because Conservatives always play "follow my leader". Weren`t most of them in favour of remaining, when Mr Cameron was leading them?
In-built sheep mentality - you see it on here with the otherwise intelligent Carlotta and HYUFD. Neobrexiteer syndrome being inevitable of many examples.
Comments
It is all moot anyway. For better or worse it is pretty much too late to have another referendum to reverse the decision before we actually leave. Once that has happened Out will be the status quo position and Remain/Rejoin will see a lot of support slip away.
@ Gardenwalker
We based acceptance of the EU for 41 years on a referendum in1975, so on that basis another is due in 2057. (One was even promised by all main parties in 2005 but did we get one? Did we hell. Though I suspect most thoughtful Remainers now regard that as the Mother of all Cock Ups). We voted one man one vote across the U.K., equating 1.6m in N Ireland with 55m in England “as a constituent part” is straight out of the FIFA playbook of equating the Turks and Caicos with Germany for voting purposes. Long term ex pats: no taxation no representation. Hostile power dunno, genuinely, but where’s the evidence it swayed 800k votes from one to the other? The odd poll showing 46/54 or whatever ain’t going to mean anything. Christ Corbyn was twenty points behind this time last year.
Anyway how would we do any of the very sensible proposals you had earlier on immigration within the EU? They won’t budge. Maybe letters plaintiff should be addressed to Brussels to change things?
Just not fast enough
You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
We took the vote and that's that. You just have to accept that sometimes, in a democracy, you're on the losing side.
The only known positive we have of Brexit yet is the new Agricultural policy, which looks much better and will be gradually (and sensibly) phased in until 2024. And I bet hardly anyone knows about it either.
We don’t know the new immigration controls, trading arrangements, regulatory freedoms, budget savings and nor have we yet signed any trade deals. We do know the EU is playing hardball, we know Northern Ireland is a big problem and we also know the Lords have made things much more complicated.
But, we also know the EU has now reached acceptance on Brexit, wouldn’t take us back without some serious mea culpa from the UK, and knows it has to make this work (and be tolerable) for both parties whilst discouraging others, which it will.
Meanwhile all of the constitutional and political concerns surrounding the original UK-EU split are still there. So core Brexiteers will stick with it. Waverers will weigh up what they think of both the deal and what HMG will do with it and, by then, things will very probably have moved on for both the UK and EU.
If so, I’d expect it to be lost but not be certain of it. It would be done for the precise same reasons Cameron had to do the same in 2016, just the other way round.
Else the EU would make it utterly shite, by design. Right now they have to compromise to get it through the UK Parliament because they don’t want “no deal” either, as it’d seriously hurt them too.
Bear in mind most of what we are hearing in public now is rhetoric designed by someone for our consumption. None of us are in the negotiation rooms behind closed doors where it’s really being thrashed out.
I wanted to RON on the Lisbon Treaty.
What are we going to talk about once Brexit is done and dusted in 11 months time?, er... 3 years time?, um... [insert period of your choice here]
Suspect we'll all be long gone before Brexit stops being debated on here!
I think we ought probably to have had a referendum after Maastricht, and again after Lisbon, but that’s by the bye.
I admit there is a problem with immigration policy as I’d like it within the EU. The status quo ante was not sustainable and the best I can suggest is deliberate flouting of the EU rulebook. A reverse, if you like, of Merkel’s grand gesture to the Syrians.
Now we know what's in the box we can now make an informed choice.
I presume you haven't found any other planets with elections yet !
Fortunately for Roger, I consider him a cliched luvvie snob and a prat rather than a piece of work.
Without him I wouldn’t nearly have as many laughs on here at his expense nor, occasionally, make a few quits on the Oscars.
As some of the Brexiteers on here are now admitting BINO is now odds-on.
It feels more like the end of a Goodies episode.
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/989937321175896065
Any constitutional change should require at least an absolute majority of the electorate to pass.
On immigration, we could have done more to make the UK less appealing to EU immigrants. But of course, for most people who are anti-immigration, it's not the EU immigrants they have in mind. And yet we have had consistently more non-EU than EU immigration for years - this government could have halved immigration at a stroke without flouting any EU rules. But they wouldn't do it because the impact on the economy, and on the NHS and other casre services, would have been catastrophic.
Life comes at you fast.
There’s parallels between the fluidity of the situation and the importance of apparently minor events between Brexit and Anglo-Irish relations from 1910 to 1922.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/liam-fox-meets-philippine-president-rodrigo-duterte
Selmayr's next stoogeJuncker's successor.I think however a more pertinent issue with much immigration was their access to our welfare system. And that is something we have the ability, but not the will, to do something about - by tightening up on access to it.
Brexit is a fiasco.
I think it would have lost by a clear margin and we’d either have formalised a series of opt-outs, or not joined the European Union.
If there's one thing you ought to have twigged by now after Trump, Brexit, Macron, and Corbyn is that the prevailing political wisdom is invariably a load of bollocks, the public quite like messing with the political classes given half a chance and sticking two fingers up to the establishment.
Can you point to such a document now?
Also remember that polling showed the EEC/EU was quite popular in that period so I think you would have been disappointed with the result, especially as John Smith would have been backing it.
Edit: come to think of it I do think that sometimes we like to suffer.
There were so many opportunities for the remain side to give the leavers and Eurosceptics something, but they continually decided to rub our faces in "more Europe" until it wasn't sustainable and it ended in the leave vote.
Dave's failure to "unratify" Lisbon and put it to a public vote made a huge difference to the atmosphere in which the 2016 vote was conducted. Many Eurosceptics saw this as the one and only chance to reject the EU. They may not have wanted to leave before the vote was called but in the end faced with voting for or against the EU, there was only one choice.
It was originally expected just after Christmas, then rumoured to be imminent at various times but still no sign of it four months later.
I know it wouldn't have made the difference in recent votes but later votes could be much closer.
Also vital for the vote on the boundary changes this Autumn.
My post does make sense it’s just - bizarrely - you’ve chosen to be pedantic about it. I meant, quite clearly, the right for the UK to make its own trade deals, and for legislation to originate from the UK Parliament by representatives we can hold accountable.
Further, the Vote Leave manifesto said that it would involve leaving the single market. I remember a debate on here at the time when even some Leavers (Robert and Richard T) queried it, but decided to vote Leave regardless.
If your argument is that some well-known Leavers made inconsistent arguments on the telly at odds with the vote Leave manifesto then, yes, I’d agree with you. But that’s not the same thing.
And I note you can’t point to any document, now, that outlines the post Brexit UK-EU relationship. And you know it.
Edit: and the rest of your post is bang on the money as well, too.
Its basically a barometer of the media and the government - not much to do with Brexit.
Jeesh
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43983958
But don't rush for first, Josias beta us all to it.
It is hard to see what deal is going to emerge. It seems more likely that are going to be faced with a choice between crashing out, and some sort of punitive 'interim' deal, rolling over and over indefinetly. So, BINO, but not even quite that. More like 'Brexit deferred'.
I'd go for the crashing out, to be honest. Deferring Brexit endlessly and finding new weasel words to explain it is not honoring the referendum result. We just ultimately have to take the hit and face the consequences of it.
I have other issues with the Scots referendum, namely the disenfranchisement of Scots who weren’t living in Scotland.
I can only imagine how I’d feel if my own country - NZ - decided to dissolve itself and I couldn’t have a say.
Both the Scottish referendum and the Brexit referendum were a result of Cameron’s arrogance and complacency when it came to constitutional matters. Cameron was pathetic like that.