That makes no sense. Many (probably most) cases before the supreme Court are not partisan in nature. It is their performance on partisan nature cases that matters.
Unbelievably glorious day in SE England but I know it has been very different in other areas. Tomorrow marks the 952nd anniversary of the first EU Referendum which of course REMAIN also lost (as in remaining an independent state and not being conquered by a foreign power).
As a non-Conservative, do I detect the first scintilla of panic among the Conservatives? Perhaps, perhaps not. Hirohito told the Japanese to endure the unendurable in 1945, perhaps May will tell the Conservative Party to support the unsupportable but we'll see.
I thought the notion of a 20-month or so transition period during which time we will effectively be a "vassal State of the EU" as someone said, had been conceded. From my limited perspective, the question now seems to be whether we must accept a CU with the EU or tell them to FU or FO I suppose. A CU between the UK and the EU preserves "our precious Union" but at the cost of "Global Britain" (presumably).
IF the DUP walk it doesn't necessarily mean the end of May - it depends how many Labour and other MPs will decide BINO and the survival of May is preferable to crashing out and probably ending up having to deal with Johnson.
Once again we come back to some fundamental questions of politics - the recognition that if you don't hang together you'll all hang separately is one but the other and perhaps deeper one is the point at which support of a Party is trumped by support of a key point of principle. At what point is the Party loyalty supplanted by conviction or is it "My Party, right or wrong" to the bitter end.
Quite. If remain had won, both parties would have used it as justification for permanent membership of the EU with whatever additional integration they saw fit. There would have been no amendment of our terms to reflect the views of leavers. It was a binary decision - although apparently only if remain won.
You've just contradicted yourself.
1. The Remain manifesto (no further integration) would have been implemented 2. It would have been used for justification for further integration.
Either you believe the Remain manifesto would not have been implemented, and there would have been no further integration. Or you believe it would have been used for cover by the 51% of the 52%.
Which is it?
The remain manifesto did not rule out further integration.
The closeness of the vote would've prevented any government from risking another such vote unless they actually wanted to leave.
Political consensus can override common ground with the electorate, as per aid spending. It happened for decades with the EU.
Oh I agree that they would not have wanted a peoples' vote on this for a long time. But similarly they would not have signed up to any treaty that might be thought to have needed a referendum either.
The Brexit that gets the greatest support of the British people is the morally right answer.
And which Brexit is that?
Maybe we need a vote. Of the people. Needs a catchy name though.
Not really - i do not oppose a second referendum (not peoples vote nonsense) but I am not all sure how we get there.
There are lots of obstacles around a second vote including the wording, margin of win, and just how we would stay in especially as an EU official said yesterday they would be pleased to see us stay in but we would lose our rebate
That would be enough to put remain in great peril.
Also I assume TM or the PM at the time would be neutral, so who would lead remain and leave campaigns
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Even Theresa May says that Norway is not Brexit. Was she lying then?
Being incorrect and lying are two different things.
Are you denying that there were Leave voters who wanted Norway?
No, of course not. I don't ignore reality. But Leave won, and Leave needs to be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with the campaign that Leave ran, which ruled out a Norway exit.
No Brexit needs to be carried out in a way that commands the greatest support among the British people.
This is not an election where one side won, and 51% of the 52% get to choose the outcome.
The Brexit that gets the greatest support of the British people is the morally right answer.
I am sorry, but I completely disagree. Brexit w democracy works.
Look, we disagree. I wrote passionately for Leave on this blog ahead of the referendum. But I also agreed with Daniel Hannan, where he said the narrowness of the victory needed to be reflected in the relationship we had with the EU.
I would have been - and I hope you would have too - horrified if the result had been 52:48 for Remain, and we then said that as 51% of the 52% supported Euro membership, that there had been a clear mandate for it.
Wasn't that the plan of the Establishment ?
Win the Referendum and then use it as a justification for decades more of EverCloserUnion ?
I really don't think think that if it had been 52% Remain then the government would have said "Okay, its clear that much of the country wants something done about immigration so we'll put restrictions on who can come here from Eastern Europe".
Quite. If remain had won, both parties would have used it as justification for permanent membership of the EU with whatever additional integration they saw fit. There would have been no amendment of our terms to reflect the views of leavers. It was a binary decision - although apparently only if remain won.
If voters voted Remain they voted Remain, there would have been no Brexit and we would have stayed in the EU with the opt outs as stood and outside the Eurozone. There would have been no change in the status quo.
Brexit by necessity requires change as it means leaving the EU, however most voters in the polls are clear they do not want a complete divorce from our relationship with the EU if it means no trade deal at all with our largest market. It is the extent of the change that is the issue
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
Look, we disagree. I wrote passionately for Leave on this blog ahead of the referendum. But I also agreed with Daniel Hannan, where he said the narrowness of the victory needed to be reflected in the relationship we had with the EU.
I would have been - and I hope you would have too - horrified if the result had been 52:48 for Remain, and we then said that as 51% of the 52% supported Euro membership, that there had been a clear mandate for it.
Wasn't that the plan of the Establishment ?
Win the Referendum and then use it as a justification for decades more of EverCloserUnion ?
I really don't think think that if it had been 52% Remain then the government would have said "Okay, its clear that much of the country wants something done about immigration so we'll put restrictions on who can come here from Eastern Europe".
I don't think so. Firstly we had Cameron's opt out from ever closer union. That was a fairly meaningless gesture at the time but after a vote of 52:48 I think it would have gained substance. I have little doubt that any UK government that wanted to be elected again would have been seeking to restrict the scale of freedom of movement within the EU and would have opposed further integration. How far they would have got with that is another question.
Cameron's opt-out was worthless - we know well that the EU has a habit of changing words when it suits.
We also know well that British governments have a long history of talking tough about standing up to the EU before surrendering and then hiding behind mealy-mouthed words.
Cameron's 'halved the bill' being an example, Blair's giving away half the Rebate being another.
And even if you had confidence in Cameron would you have had confidence in British PMs five or ten or twenty years down the line ?
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Be serious. If we sign CETA, we will be part of the free trade zone. If May had not agreed to the backstop as a device to frustrate Brexit, that is what would happen.
Can't be the Clydesdale Bank's table though. He never got his hands on them. Must be RBS.
During work on the latter he caught the eye of National Australia Bank executive Don Argus, and was invited to become deputy chief executive of Clydesdale in 1995,[9] and as per his "five-second rule", accepted on the spot[9] rising to chief executive of National Australia's British banking operations in 1996.[13] Around this time he gained the moniker "Fred the Shred" from City financiers, reflecting a reputation for ruthlessly generating cost savings and efficiencies whilst at Clydesdale.[5] He was later described as "a corporate Attila", having gained a reputation in the City for being a fearsome outsider – being Scottish, and not educated at a public school or at Oxbridge – who made raids in the south and abroad when it suited him.[14]
Can't be the Clydesdale Bank's table though. He never got his hands on them. Must be RBS.
During work on the latter he caught the eye of National Australia Bank executive Don Argus, and was invited to become deputy chief executive of Clydesdale in 1995,[9] and as per his "five-second rule", accepted on the spot[9] rising to chief executive of National Australia's British banking operations in 1996.[13] Around this time he gained the moniker "Fred the Shred" from City financiers, reflecting a reputation for ruthlessly generating cost savings and efficiencies whilst at Clydesdale.[5] He was later described as "a corporate Attila", having gained a reputation in the City for being a fearsome outsider – being Scottish, and not educated at a public school or at Oxbridge – who made raids in the south and abroad when it suited him.[14]
If voters voted Remain they voted Remain, there would have been no Brexit and we would have stayed in the EU with the opt outs as stood and outside the Eurozone. There would have been no change in the status quo.
Brexit by necessity requires change as it means leaving the EU, however most voters in the polls are clear they do not want a complete divorce from our relationship with the EU if it means no trade deal at all with our largest market. It is the extent of the change that is the issue
Just what I said. Remainers would have expected to implement their manifesto in full, but leavers have to obtain the permission of the losers.
May's deal will not implement the promises of the Leave campaign as set out in the brochure that rcs1000 so helpfully linked. That is not acceptable.
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Be serious. If we sign CETA, we will be part of the free trade zone. If May had not agreed to the backstop as a device to frustrate Brexit, that is what would happen.
I think the confusion is this.
1. "There is a free trade area and we will be part of it."
and
2. "There is a free trade area and we will have an agreement with it."
CETA is 2. Otherwise it would have said, "There is a free trade area from Canada to the Russian border and we will be part of it." The geographic anchoring made it very clear that it was not talking about CETA.
Look, we disagree. I wrote passionately for Leave on this blog ahead of the referendum. But I also agreed with Daniel Hannan, where he said the narrowness of the victory needed to be reflected in the relationship we had with the EU.
I would have been - and I hope you would have too - horrified if the result had been 52:48 for Remain, and we then said that as 51% of the 52% supported Euro membership, that there had been a clear mandate for it.
Wasn't that the plan of the Establishment ?
Win the Referendum and then use it as a justification for decades more of EverCloserUnion ?
I really don't think think that if it had been 52% Remain then the government would have said "Okay, its clear that much of the country wants something done about immigration so we'll put restrictions on who can come here from Eastern Europe".
I don't think so. Firstly we had Cameron's opt out from ever closer union. That was a fairly meaningless gesture at the time but after a vote of 52:48 I think it would have gained substance. I have little doubt that any UK government that wanted to be elected again would have been seeking to restrict the scale of freedom of movement within the EU and would have opposed further integration. How far they would have got with that is another question.
Cameron's opt-out was worthless - we know well that the EU has a habit of changing words when it suits.
We also know well that British governments have a long history of talking tough about standing up to the EU before surrendering and then hiding behind mealy-mouthed words.
Cameron's 'halved the bill' being an example, Blair's giving away half the Rebate being another.
And even if you had confidence in Cameron would you have had confidence in British PMs five or ten or twenty years down the line ?
No, which is why I voted leave but I think it is silly to think that such a close result would not have changed the environment in which governments have to work.
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Be serious. If we sign CETA, we will be part of the free trade zone. If May had not agreed to the backstop as a device to frustrate Brexit, that is what would happen.
I think the confusion is this.
1. "There is a free trade area and we will be part of it."
and
2. "There is a free trade area and we will have an agreement with it."
CETA is 2. Otherwise it would have said, "There is a free trade area from Canada to the Russian border and we will be part of it." The geographic anchoring made it very clear that it was not talking about CETA.
I think you are getting a bit desperate here. It refers to a free trade area and specifically rules out membership of the SM by virtue of the other objectives. So CETA is exactly what they envisaged.
It is they you need to win over, you already have the Diehard Brexiteer No Deal straight to WTO terms voters and you will never have Remain voters, certainly without a Deal
Thank you for missing the point.nding Chequers to defending a totally non-existent solution.
No you have missed the point and proved nothing.
There is a commitment to avoid a hard border in Ireland by staying in a Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border, only once we have given that commitment and paid our exit bill will the EU engage in FTA talks and agree to a transition period.
The straight to WTO terms No Deal Brexit you support only has about 40% support amongst the voters, poling shows about 20% of Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal and No Deal would likely see EUref2 before the Brexit date in March 2019 potentially leading to No Brexit at all
Are you sure no deal wto has 40% support.
I do not believe it is anywhere near that
A YouGov poll had it 55% Remain 45% Leave if Leave was on No Deal terms ie the same number of voters would support Leave on No Deal terms as voted Yes to independence in Scotland's 2014 referendum. Still a significant number but no longer a majority
How many current Tory policies have majority support in the polls? For those that do not, can we insist that the Government stops pursuing them?
We vote in a government with a programme. That is the way our system works. We have to choose between menus with prices, and the inevitable comprises. Holding a referendum is fundamentally undemocratic. It is a yes no choice without having to weigh up the consequences. Unfortunately we can't unhold one once it has happened so we have to leave. But the whole episode is pitiful.
It is they you need to win over, you already have the Diehard Brexiteer No Deal straight to WTO terms voters and you will never have Remain voters, certainly without a Deal
Thank you for missing the point.nding Chequers to defending a totally non-existent solution.
No you have missed the point and proved nothing.
There is a commitment to avoid a hard border in Ireland by staying in a Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border, only once we have given that commitment and paid our exit bill will the EU engage in FTA talks and agree to a transition period.
The straight to WTO terms No Deal Brexit you support only has about 40% support amongst the voters, poling shows about 20% of Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal and No Deal would likely see EUref2 before the Brexit date in March 2019 potentially leading to No Brexit at all
Are you sure no deal wto has 40% support.
I do not believe it is anywhere near that
A YouGov poll had it 55% Remain 45% Leave if Leave was on No Deal terms ie the same number of voters would support Leave on No Deal terms as voted Yes to independence in Scotland's 2014 referendum. Still a significant number but no longer a majority
How many current Tory policies have majority support in the polls? For those that do not, can we insist that the Government stops pursuing them?
When you command a majority in Parliament, you can try insisting on anything you like. Until then, you are just a rather garrulous guy on the internet.
Look, we disagree. I wrote passionately for Leave on this blog ahead of the referendum. But I also agreed with Daniel Hannan, where he said the narrowness of the victory needed to be reflected in the relationship we had with the EU.
I would have been - and I hope you would have too - horrified if the result had been 52:48 for Remain, and we then said that as 51% of the 52% supported Euro membership, that there had been a clear mandate for it.
Wasn't that the plan of the Establishment ?
Win the Referendum and then use it as a justification for decades more of EverCloserUnion ?
I really don't think think that if it had been 52% Remain then the government would have said "Okay, its clear that much of the country wants something done about immigration so we'll put restrictions on who can come here from Eastern Europe".
I don't think so. Firstly we had Cameron's opt out from ever closer union. That was a fairly meaningless gesture at the time but after a vote of 52:48 I think it would have gained substance. I have little doubt that any UK government that wanted to be elected again would have been seeking to restrict the scale of freedom of movement within the EU and would have opposed further integration. How far they would have got with that is another question.
Cameron's opt-out was worthless - we know well that the EU has a habit of changing words when it suits.
We also know well that British governments have a long history of talking tough about standing up to the EU before surrendering and then hiding behind mealy-mouthed words.
Cameron's 'halved the bill' being an example, Blair's giving away half the Rebate being another.
And even if you had confidence in Cameron would you have had confidence in British PMs five or ten or twenty years down the line ?
No, which is why I voted leave but I think it is silly to think that such a close result would not have changed the environment in which governments have to work.
Every poll on the EU I ever saw showed that people were against every additional integration since Maastricht. Didn't stop both sides going ahead.
If Remain had won, the argument would have been that the people of the UK had committed to being a member of the EU and the loss of sovereignty that this entailed.
What is absolutely clear (I sound like May here, grrrr) is that there would have been no re-negotiation of Cameron's 'deal' to reflect the fact that the result was close. We would have been told that Remain had won, it was a yes/no decision, and that was that.
And we would never have been granted another referendum.
Look, we disagree. I wrote passionately for Leave on this blog ahead of the referendum. But I also agreed with Daniel Hannan, where he said the narrowness of the victory needed to be reflected in the relationship we had with the EU.
I would have been - and I hope you would have too - horrified if the result had been 52:48 for Remain, and we then said that as 51% of the 52% supported Euro membership, that there had been a clear mandate for it.
Wasn't that the plan of the Establishment ?
Win the Referendum and then use it as a justification for decades more of EverCloserUnion ?
I really don't think think that if it had been 52% Remain then the government would have said "Okay, its clear that much of the country wants something done about immigration so we'll put restrictions on who can come here from Eastern Europe".
I don't think so. Firstly we had Cameron's opt out from ever closer union. That was a fairly meaningless gesture at the time but after a vote of 52:48 I think it would have gained substance. I have little doubt that any UK government that wanted to be elected again would have been seeking to restrict the scale of freedom of movement within the EU and would have opposed further integration. How far they would have got with that is another question.
Cameron's opt-out was worthless - we know well that the EU has a habit of changing words when it suits.
We also know well that British governments have a long history of talking tough about standing up to the EU before surrendering and then hiding behind mealy-mouthed words.
Cameron's 'halved the bill' being an example, Blair's giving away half the Rebate being another.
And even if you had confidence in Cameron would you have had confidence in British PMs five or ten or twenty years down the line ?
No, which is why I voted leave but I think it is silly to think that such a close result would not have changed the environment in which governments have to work.
You mean that Cameron would have turned the dial up to 11 on his pledge to 'reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands' ?
Can't be the Clydesdale Bank's table though. He never got his hands on them. Must be RBS.
During work on the latter he caught the eye of National Australia Bank executive Don Argus, and was invited to become deputy chief executive of Clydesdale in 1995,[9] and as per his "five-second rule", accepted on the spot[9] rising to chief executive of National Australia's British banking operations in 1996.[13] Around this time he gained the moniker "Fred the Shred" from City financiers, reflecting a reputation for ruthlessly generating cost savings and efficiencies whilst at Clydesdale.[5] He was later described as "a corporate Attila", having gained a reputation in the City for being a fearsome outsider – being Scottish, and not educated at a public school or at Oxbridge – who made raids in the south and abroad when it suited him.[14]
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Why on earth didn’t May didn’t just promise £350m for the NHS in the 2017 GE?
Archer is right. There is no greatest happiness of greatest number of people middle way with Brexit. There is either a clean break, where we cut ourselves off from Europe and the rest of the world, which will be very painful, or a do as you are told adherence to the EU system with no say, which we will find frustrating and miserable, or participatory membership of the EU, which we rejected. All our choices are bad, but we have to choose one of them.
Considering that Clegg is responsible for those students being tens of thousands of pounds extra in debt he's lucky that they didn't let him come and then kick his head in.
The Brexit that gets the greatest support of the British people is the morally right answer.
And which Brexit is that?
Maybe we need a vote. Of the people. Needs a catchy name though.
Not really - i do not oppose a second referendum (not peoples vote nonsense) but I am not all sure how we get there.
There are lots of obstacles around a second vote including the wording, margin of win, and just how we would stay in especially as an EU official said yesterday they would be pleased to see us stay in but we would lose our rebate
That would be enough to put remain in great peril.
Also I assume TM or the PM at the time would be neutral, so who would lead remain and leave campaigns
Leave would likely win again if we get a transition period and move towards a FTA Deal or if it was Leave but stay in the single market and join EFTA.
However if the choice was Remain but with no rebate or Leave and crash the economy and potentially break up the Union then Remain would almost certainly win
I am thinking that I will now support a second referendum!
We will contrive to lose by 4% but then insist that we cannot accept the EU treaties as they are because they do not reflect the views of the 48% who voted against. Since it will be impossible to implement the result of the referendum taking into account the views of the losers, we will have to remain outside the EU. Perfect.
Of course, if Leave had lost, the remainers would not exactly be making the same argument about the rights of the minority....
We'll never know but my best guess is that a government that had won the referendum 52:48 would have made it crystal clear to the EU that we had reached the level of integration that we were willing to accept and no further. It would have been crazy and electoral suicide not to. I think we would even have found ourselves seeking more opt outs and a drift away inside the the tent over time.
The speech Cameron would have made in the event of a Remain victory (included at the end of Tim Shipman's All Out War, but I can't find it online) did indeed include something to the effect of, "I will make it clear to the EU that as far as Britain is concerned the process of political integration is over". But so what? The EU churns out law after law, none of which Cameron's 'special status' would have exempted us from. The fact is being in the EU means accepting the whole body of its law, no country can just say, "we're staying in, but no more integration".
Bottom line is governments of both parties would have done sweet FA to stop further integration. Even on the big stuff like an EU Army I doubt a meaningful opt-out would have been sought and won.
Not entirely true, you can evict even EEA migrants after 3 months within the SM if they do not have a job. The EU allowed transition controls in 2004 on free movement from the new accession nations but Blair refused to take them
It is they you need to win over, you already have the Diehard Brexiteer No Deal straight to WTO terms voters and you will never have Remain voters, certainly without a Deal
Thank you for missing the point.nding Chequers to defending a totally non-existent solution.
No you have missed the point and proved nothing.
There is a commitment to avoid a hard border in Ireland by staying in a Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border, only once we have given that commitment and paid our exit bill will the EU engage in FTA talks and agree to a transition period.
The straight to WTO terms No Deal Brexit you support only has about 40% support amongst the voters, poling shows about 20% of Leave voters would switch to Remain if No Deal and No Deal would likely see EUref2 before the Brexit date in March 2019 potentially leading to No Brexit at all
Are you sure no deal wto has 40% support.
I do not believe it is anywhere near that
A YouGov poll had it 55% Remain 45% Leave if Leave was on No Deal terms ie the same number of voters would support Leave on No Deal terms as voted Yes to independence in Scotland's 2014 referendum. Still a significant number but no longer a majority
How many current Tory policies have majority support in the polls? For those that do not, can we insist that the Government stops pursuing them?
We vote in a government with a programme. That is the way our system works. We have to choose between menus with prices, and the inevitable comprises. Holding a referendum is fundamentally undemocratic. It is a yes no choice without having to weigh up the consequences. Unfortunately we can't unhold one once it has happened so we have to leave. But the whole episode is pitiful.
Just asking - were you against the referendum when you thought Remain would win?
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Leaving aside the alleged grammatical errors, do you accept that Norway is incompatible with the Leave manifesto that you attached?
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Why on earth didn’t May didn’t just promise £350m for the NHS in the 2017 GE?
Considering that Clegg is responsible for those students being tens of thousands of pounds extra in debt he's lucky that they didn't let him come and then kick his head in.
The hard left is a dangerous beast though. Greer, Tatchell and Clegg whatever you might think of them are all victims of the hard left now.
I am thinking that I will now support a second referendum!
We will contrive to lose by 4% but then insist that we cannot accept the EU treaties as they are because they do not reflect the views of the 48% who voted against. Since it will be impossible to implement the result of the referendum taking into account the views of the losers, we will have to remain outside the EU. Perfect.
Of course, if Leave had lost, the remainers would not exactly be making the same argument about the rights of the minority....
We'll never know but my best guess is that a government that had won the referendum 52:48 would have made it crystal clear to the EU that we had reached the level of integration that we were willing to accept and no further. It would have been crazy and electoral suicide not to. I think we would even have found ourselves seeking more opt outs and a drift away inside the the tent over time.
The speech Cameron would have made in the event of a Remain victory (included at the end of Tim Shipman's All Out War, but I can't find it online) did indeed include something to the effect of, "I will make it clear to the EU that as far as Britain is concerned the process of political integration is over". But so what? The EU churns out law after law, none of which Cameron's 'special status' would have exempted us from. The fact is being in the EU means accepting the whole body of its law, no country can just say, "we're staying in, but no more integration".
Bottom line is governments of both parties would have done sweet FA to stop further integration. Even on the big stuff like an EU Army I doubt a meaningful opt-out would have been sought and won.
The EU are not going to integrate via another treaty as they could not get it passed in Europe. They would just do it anyway, irrespective of the treaties and the UK would have been dragged along.
It is a matter of record that UK opt outs have been reversed by the EU and ECJ.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Why on earth didn’t May didn’t just promise £350m for the NHS in the 2017 GE?
I know. Baffling.
Us activists kept thinking. Maybe they’re waiting. 3 weeks out. 2 weeks past. Final week, surely?
It never came. It was staggering.
The worst result of the entire election for me, personally, was that my bets in the initial few days of the campaign - which looked like long odds winners - led me to get the ‘we’re limiting your account’ email from various bookies. All for naught.
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Leaving aside the alleged grammatical errors, do you accept that Norway is incompatible with the Leave manifesto that you attached?
Absolutely.
There is no outcome that is not contradictory, because the manifesto promises both a free trade deal, and things the EU will not accept.
I am thinking that I will now support a second referendum!
We will contrive to lose by 4% but then insist that we cannot accept the EU treaties as they are because they do not reflect the views of the 48% who voted against. Since it will be impossible to implement the result of the referendum taking into account the views of the losers, we will have to remain outside the EU. Perfect.
Of course, if Leave had lost, the remainers would not exactly be making the same argument about the rights of the minority....
We'll never know but my best guess is that a government that had won the referendum 52:48 would have made it crystal clear to the EU that we had reached the level of integration that we were willing to accept and no further. It would have been crazy and electoral suicide not to. I think we would even have found ourselves seeking more opt outs and a drift away inside the the tent over time.
The speech Cameron would have made in the event of a Remain victory (included at the end of Tim Shipman's All Out War, but I can't find it online) did indeed include something to the effect of, "I will make it clear to the EU that as far as Britain is concerned the process of political integration is over". But so what? The EU churns out law after law, none of which Cameron's 'special status' would have exempted us from. The fact is being in the EU means accepting the whole body of its law, no country can just say, "we're staying in, but no more integration".
Bottom line is governments of both parties would have done sweet FA to stop further integration. Even on the big stuff like an EU Army I doubt a meaningful opt-out would have been sought and won.
The EU are not going to integrate via another treaty as they could not get it passed in Europe. They would just do it anyway, irrespective of the treaties and the UK would have been dragged along.
It is a matter of record that UK opt outs have been reversed by the EU and ECJ.
AIUI the European ConstitutionLisbon Treaty removed the need for further treaties. The deluge of new laws is a drip-drip form of integration which continues all the time.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Why on earth didn’t May didn’t just promise £350m for the NHS in the 2017 GE?
I know. Baffling.
Because like most many current politicians she is incompetent at being a politician ?
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Be serious. If we sign CETA, we will be part of the free trade zone. If May had not agreed to the backstop as a device to frustrate Brexit, that is what would happen.
I think the confusion is this.
1. "There is a free trade area and we will be part of it."
and
2. "There is a free trade area and we will have an agreement with it."
CETA is 2. Otherwise it would have said, "There is a free trade area from Canada to the Russian border and we will be part of it." The geographic anchoring made it very clear that it was not talking about CETA.
I think you are getting a bit desperate here. It refers to a free trade area and specifically rules out membership of the SM by virtue of the other objectives. So CETA is exactly what they envisaged.
We don't have to argue, we can solve this by a poll. I will organise for YouGov to show that slide to a representative sample of 10,000 people in the UK for a few thousand pounds.
Loser pays for the poll, and pays the winner £1,000.
I am thinking that I will now support a second referendum!
We will contrive to lose by 4% but then insist that we cannot accept the EU treaties as they are because they do not reflect the views of the 48% who voted against. Since it will be impossible to implement the result of the referendum taking into account the views of the losers, we will have to remain outside the EU. Perfect.
Of course, if Leave had lost, the remainers would not exactly be making the same argument about the rights of the minority....
We'll never know but my best guess is that a government that had won the referendum 52:48 would have made it crystal clear to the EU that we had reached the level of integration that we were willing to accept and no further. It would have been crazy and electoral suicide not to. I think we would even have found ourselves seeking more opt outs and a drift away inside the the tent over time.
The speech Cameron would have made in the event of a Remain victory (included at the end of Tim Shipman's All Out War, but I can't find it online) did indeed include something to the effect of, "I will make it clear to the EU that as far as Britain is concerned the process of political integration is over". But so what? The EU churns out law after law, none of which Cameron's 'special status' would have exempted us from. The fact is being in the EU means accepting the whole body of its law, no country can just say, "we're staying in, but no more integration".
Bottom line is governments of both parties would have done sweet FA to stop further integration. Even on the big stuff like an EU Army I doubt a meaningful opt-out would have been sought and won.
The EU are not going to integrate via another treaty as they could not get it passed in Europe. They would just do it anyway, irrespective of the treaties and the UK would have been dragged along.
It is a matter of record that UK opt outs have been reversed by the EU and ECJ.
AIUI the European ConstitutionLisbon Treaty removed the need for further treaties. The deluge of new laws is a drip-drip form of integration which continues all the time.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Leaving aside the alleged grammatical errors, do you accept that Norway is incompatible with the Leave manifesto that you attached?
Absolutely.
There is no outcome that is not contradictory, because the manifesto promises both a free trade deal, and things the EU will not accept.
The manifesto does not promise anything the EU will not accept.
The ONLY issue here is the backstop. It is designed to frustrate Brexit and May and Robbins agreed to it on that basis. The offer could and should have been withdrawn in March and if it had, we would have moved on by now.
Otherwise, they have offered CETA and none of the other matters require their permission.
But, to make it simple, let's say that there is no way to agree with the EU a free trade area. The choice then is Norway, which breaches all of the Leave campaigns promises, and no deal, which will satisfy all of the objectives of the Leave campaign other than the aspiration for an FTA which would be replaced with WTO, although with the strong likelihood that an FTA would be agreed later.
So, if we are actually interested in enacting the Leave vote, it is quite obvious what direction the Government needs to take.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Oh, I think that would be possible. It would just be (extremely) expensive.
We don't have to argue, we can solve this by a poll. I will organise for YouGov to show that slide to a representative sample of 10,000 people in the UK for a few thousand pounds.
Loser pays for the poll, and pays the winner £1,000.
I honestly don't even understand the difference you are trying to make out, so I don't think a poll is going to help.
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Leaving aside the alleged grammatical errors, do you accept that Norway is incompatible with the Leave manifesto that you attached?
Absolutely.
There is no outcome that is not contradictory, because the manifesto promises both a free trade deal, and things the EU will not accept.
The manifesto does not promise anything the EU will not accept.
The ONLY issue here is the backstop. It is designed to frustrate Brexit and May and Robbins agreed to it on that basis. The offer could and should have been withdrawn in March and if it had, we would have moved on by now.
Otherwise, they have offered CETA and none of the other matters require their permission.
But, to make it simple, let's say that there is no way to agree with the EU a free trade area. The choice then is Norway, which breaches all of the Leave campaigns promises, and no deal, which will satisfy all of the objectives of the Leave campaign other than the aspiration for an FTA which would be replaced with WTO, although with the strong likelihood that an FTA would be agreed later.
So, if we are actually interested in enacting the Leave vote, it is quite obvious what direction the Government needs to take.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Why on earth didn’t May didn’t just promise £350m for the NHS in the 2017 GE?
I know. Baffling.
Us activists kept thinking. Maybe they’re waiting. 3 weeks out. 2 weeks past. Final week, surely?
It never came. It was staggering.
The worst result of the entire election for me, personally, was that my bets in the initial few days of the campaign - which looked like long odds winners - led me to get the ‘we’re limiting your account’ email from various bookies. All for naught.
You were betting on the Conservatives in the first few days ???
I got some very nice odds on Labour in London constituencies at the same time
We don't have to argue, we can solve this by a poll. I will organise for YouGov to show that slide to a representative sample of 10,000 people in the UK for a few thousand pounds.
Loser pays for the poll, and pays the winner £1,000.
I honestly don't even understand the difference you are trying to make out, so I don't think a poll is going to help.
Really?
You claim that the slide made it clear it was CETA that was being discussed. We are going to ask people what they think.
We don't have to argue, we can KNOW.
Come on, if it was clear, this is free money to you.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Why on earth didn’t May didn’t just promise £350m for the NHS in the 2017 GE?
Because it would demonstrate you don't need to Brexit to get £350 million for the NHS? I know logic doesn't come into any of this, but perhaps May thought it should.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
There was no lie, and WTO was not the goal. Everyone knew that a trade deal would be a matter of negotiation. Nobody thought that our PM would agree that the dismemberment of the UK was going to be necessary for a trade deal or that she would so obviously try to undermine and invalidate Brexit.
The people weighed all the promises, threats and risks and arrived at their verdict.
And, of course, the same logic that you draw upon never seems to work in reverse. Are you saying that if Remain had won, and then the EU managed to get some additional integration through despite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
We don't have to argue, we can solve this by a poll. I will organise for YouGov to show that slide to a representative sample of 10,000 people in the UK for a few thousand pounds.
Loser pays for the poll, and pays the winner £1,000.
I honestly don't even understand the difference you are trying to make out, so I don't think a poll is going to help.
Really?
You claim that the slide made it clear it was CETA that was being discussed. We are going to ask people what they think.
We don't have to argue, we can KNOW.
Come on, if it was clear, this is free money to you.
What are you actually claiming that it did say? That we would be members of the SM? Because that would be contradicted by everything else in the document, as well as the clear statements made by the Leave representatives during the campaign. So, no, I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Considering that Clegg is responsible for those students being tens of thousands of pounds extra in debt he's lucky that they didn't let him come and then kick his head in.
I paid the 3,000 fees but would have much rather paid the 9,000 fees. Not going to ever clear it anyway and under the new regime I’d be paying significantly less per month.
There was an interesting piece on the German Greens recently in the Economist. It seems that the membership is increasingly middle agedl, having grown up with the party, but attracting younger members too. Increasingly Centrist-Dad on economic policy, though much more radical on social policy, including being pro-immigration.
If I was German, I would vote for them. It's where the SPD voters are going methinks.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
There was no lie, and WTO was not the goal. Everyone knew that a trade deal would be a matter of negotiation. Nobody thought that our PM would agree that the dismemberment of the UK was going to be necessary for a trade deal or that she would so obviously try to undermine and invalidate Brexit.
The people weighed all the promises, threats and risks and arrived at their verdict.
And, of course, the same logic that you draw upon never seems to work in reverse. Are you saying that if Remain had won, and then the EU managed to get some additional integration through despite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
I'm not trying to rewrite the referendum result. I am pointing out that the manifesto which you believe should be slavishly implemented (and which, I would remind you, says that Article 50 should not be called until we have already negotiated) is contradictory.
Your claim is that there is one true Brexit, and that is achieved by selecting only the bits of the manifesto that suit your viewpoint.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Not for many. Like many other Europeans, I consider free movement a major benefit, not a cost.
@goddersbloom Follow Follow @goddersbloom More The Conservative Party have relented. My membership card arrived today. I suspect the personal intervention of David Davis. Membership number 528905543 Haltemprice & Howden
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Margaret Thatcher took us into the Single European Act because she realised freedom of capital had to be accompanied by freedom of labour. At the time there were just 12 countries in the EEC and movement within and across them was generally at the skilled level or where such migration (in the Iberian Peninsula, between the UK and Ireland and between Holland and Belgium for examples) had always occurred.
The ability of someone in Italy, Germany or France with skills to come and work in Britain wasn't unattractive and particularly as the Lawson boom was choked off by lack of labour capacity which led to wage inflation.
Unfortunately, by the time the Single European Act came into being, Communism had collapsed and the potential for a wave of new workers from the ex-Communist6 states (starting with the former GDR which had become part of the EEC with reunification in October 1990). It would take a further 15 years before the likes of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined and were able to participate in the Single Market.
The gates were opened at a time of economic strength when Britain and Germany needed cheap labour - we completely misjudged how many would come but 50 years of propaganda telling them how much better life was in the West had an effect.
Perhaps we'd have been better leaving the ex-Communist states as associate members for 50 years but we needed the workers and above all workers who would not fuel inflation.
@goddersbloom Follow Follow @goddersbloom More The Conservative Party have relented. My membership card arrived today. I suspect the personal intervention of David Davis. Membership number 528905543 Haltemprice & Howden
I do hope the H and H Ladies have cleaned behind their fridges!
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Why on earth didn’t May didn’t just promise £350m for the NHS in the 2017 GE?
Because it would demonstrate you don't need to Brexit to get £350 million for the NHS? I know logic doesn't come into any of this, but perhaps May thought it should.
But she's subsequently linked it to the Brexit dividend.
One or two of us on here have been warning about UC for months and months.
The few billion to fix the hole, will stop at least the issue of several million families losing up to £2.4K a year.
That seems the bare minimum to me, to fix the UC nightmare, which, together with housing, will sink the Tories.
I stand to lose more than £12.4k a year, never mind £2.4k a year given they announced (quietly) earlier this year that the transitional protection will only last for one year as far as the £16k asset limit being applied to tax credit recipients is concerned. The Corbynator would have to do plenty of damage to match that. Maybe I should alter the habits of a lifetime and blow all of my family's assets in advance. Or upgrade to a house worth twice as much as our current place.
The problem is you have too much money to qualify for benefits?
To qualify for Universal Credit (without transitional protection), but this doesn't apply to tax credits. Transitional protection is supposed to last until circumstances change (I still don't know what constitutes a change and what doesn't), but new small print this June revealed that isn't the case for this eligibility criterion.
This is the nearest thing to a "manifesto". It contains the line "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it."
So, will we be implementing that?
Yes, it is called CETA.
Now, this brochure says:
1. We are keeping our money and not sending it to Brussels 2. We will take control of our borders 3. We will exit EU regulations 4. We will make our own free trade deals 5. We will not accept control of the ECJ
So, can you tell me what parts of this are consistent with Norway?
I am not confused.
That's because the "manifesto" is contradictory.
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
Leaving aside the alleged grammatical errors, do you accept that Norway is incompatible with the Leave manifesto that you attached?
Absolutely.
There is no outcome that is not contradictory, because the manifesto promises both a free trade deal, and things the EU will not accept.
The manifesto does not promise anything the EU will not accept.
The ONLY issue here is the backstop. It is designed to frustrate Brexit and May and Robbins agreed to it on that basis. The offer could and should have been withdrawn in March and if it had, we would have moved on by now.
Otherwise, they have offered CETA and none of the other matters require their permission.
But, to make it simple, let's say that there is no way to agree with the EU a free trade area. The choice then is Norway, which breaches all of the Leave campaigns promises, and no deal, which will satisfy all of the objectives of the Leave campaign other than the aspiration for an FTA which would be replaced with WTO, although with the strong likelihood that an FTA would be agreed later.
So, if we are actually interested in enacting the Leave vote, it is quite obvious what direction the Government needs to take.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
Even Theresa May says that Norway is not Brexit. Was she lying then?
Being incorrect and lying are two different things.
Are you denying that there were Leave voters who wanted Norway?
No, of course not. I don't ignore reality.
That means we go for a deal which keeps some of the benefits of membership even at the cost of some of the disbenefits of membership. And the sooner the better. We've all had enough of this.
I am thinking that I will now support a second referendum!
We will contrive to lose by 4% but then insist that we cannot accept the EU treaties as they are because they do not reflect the views of the 48% who voted against. Since it will be impossible to implement the result of the referendum taking into account the views of the losers, we will have to remain outside the EU. Perfect.
Of course, if Leave had lost, the remainers would not exactly be making the same argument about the rights of the minority....
We'll never know but my best guess is that a government that had won the referendum 52:48 would have made it crystal clear to the EU that we had reached the level of integration that we were willing to accept and no further. It would have been crazy and electoral suicide not to. I think we would even have found ourselves seeking more opt outs and a drift away inside the the tent over time.
My best guess is that a winning government would have paid no notice whatsoever to the concerns of the electorate, and proceeded in a way that either suited the political class or at least offered the path of least resistance. Which is pretty much what the losing government is doing at present, albeit against the headwind of trying to portray some semblance of respecting the referendum result.
And while I agree that the Brexit that we end up with should reflect the closeness of the result, this lack of attention to the voters' concerns is why Corbyn will win the next election. His policies are dreadful but at least he gives the vague impression that he's listening to his voters, rather than talking past them.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
There was no lie, and WTO was not the goal. Everyone knew that a trade deal would be a matter of negotiation. Nobody thought that our PM would agree that the dismemberment of the UK was going to be necessary for a trade deal or that she would so obviously try to undermine and invalidate Brexit.
The people weighed all the promises, threats and risks and arrived at their verdict.
And, of course, the same logic that you draw upon never seems to work in reverse. Are you saying that if Remain had won, and then the EU managed to get some additional integration through despite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
I'm not trying to rewrite the referendum result. I am pointing out that the manifesto which you believe should be slavishly implemented (and which, I would remind you, says that Article 50 should not be called until we have already negotiated) is contradictory.
Your claim is that there is one true Brexit, and that is achieved by selecting only the bits of the manifesto that suit your viewpoint.
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
I think everyone can guess what I think of this hilariously stupid, brain-dead and crazy idea that only could be thought up by incompetent drunken halfwits.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Margaret Thatcher took us into the Single European Act because she realised freedom of capital had to be accompanied by freedom of labour. At the time there were just 12 countries in the EEC and movement within and across them was generally at the skilled level or where such migration (in the Iberian Peninsula, between the UK and Ireland and between Holland and Belgium for examples) had always occurred.
The ability of someone in Italy, Germany or France with skills to come and work in Britain wasn't unattractive and particularly as the Lawson boom was choked off by lack of labour capacity which led to wage inflation.
Unfortunately, by the time the Single European Act came into being, Communism had collapsed and the potential for a wave of new workers from the ex-Communist6 states (starting with the former GDR which had become part of the EEC with reunification in October 1990). It would take a further 15 years before the likes of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined and were able to participate in the Single Market.
The gates were opened at a time of economic strength when Britain and Germany needed cheap labour - we completely misjudged how many would come but 50 years of propaganda telling them how much better life was in the West had an effect.
Perhaps we'd have been better leaving the ex-Communist states as associate members for 50 years but we needed the workers and above all workers who would not fuel inflation.
Weren't we told that we needed a 'Broader EU' to stop a 'Deeper EU' ?
And we ended up with an EU which was both broader and deeper ?
I assume by 'workers who would not fuel inflation' you mean 'workers who would not fuel WAGE inflation' they certainly helped fuel PROPERTY inflation.
And isn't depressing wage inflation but encouraging property inflation a guaranteed way of shifting wealth up the socioeconomic scale ?
Weren't we told that we needed a 'Broader EU' to stop a 'Deeper EU' ?
And we ended up with an EU which was both broader and deeper ?
Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals all supported enlargement but for different reasons. As you say, Conservatives believed the inclusion of countries which had been forcibly co-opted into a political and economic bloc would keep well clear of the same thing happening and would act as a bloc against Franco-German federalism.
Socialists believed the inclusion of former Communist countries would bring a rich seam of centre-left votes which would provide a semi-permanent blocking majority in the Commission, Council and Parliament and ensure social issues, welfare and workers' rights would be protected.
Liberals supported it in the interests of global and regional collaboration and because they thought embedding the ex-Communist countries in the EU would ensure the survival and strengthening of democratic political culture within these countries.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
There was no lie, and WTO was not the goal. Everyone knew that a trade deal would be a matter of negotiation. Nobody thought that our PM would agree that the dismemberment of the UK was going to be necessary for a trade deal or that she would so obviously try to undermine and invalidate Brexit.
The people weighed all the promises, threats and risks and arrived at their verdict.
And, of course, the same logic that you draw upon never seems to work in reverse. Are you saying that if Remain had won, and then the EU managed to get some additional integration through despite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
I'm not trying to rewrite the referendum result. I am pointing out that the manifesto which you believe should be slavishly implemented (and which, I would remind you, says that Article 50 should not be called until we have already negotiated) is contradictory.
Your claim is that there is one true Brexit, and that is achieved by selecting only the bits of the manifesto that suit your viewpoint.
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
As a complete aside, I note the Bullingdon Club was in the news again this week.
I encountered members of said club at the Kingston Blount Point to Point in spring 2017. It was a cold day with sleet and rain falling but the Club had a race on the card which had been run since the year dot.
There were about 20 of them there, totally unsuitably dressed for a cold, wet spring afternoon and they seemed to have a lot of trouble putting up a gazebo for shelter. They put it up and it fell down - they put it up again, it fell down again.
They brought plenty of champagne but seemed quite reasonable and even pleasant but I sense the quality of membership had declined since the days of Cameron and Johnson. I also noticed the only non-white person at the point to point was one of the Bullingdon members.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
There was no lie, and WTO was not the goal. Everyone knew that a trade deal would be a matter of negotiation. Nobody thought that our PM would agree that the dismemberment of the UK was going to be necessary for a trade deal or that she would so obviously try to undermine and invalidate Brexit.
The people weighed all the promises, threats and risks and arrived at their verdict.
And, of course, the same logic that you draw upon never seems to work in reverse. Are you saying that if Remain had won, and then the EU managed to get some additional integration through despite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
I'm not trying to rewrite the referendum result. I am pointing out that the manifesto which you believe should be slavishly implemented (and which, I would remind you, says that Article 50 should not be called until we have already negotiated) is contradictory.
Your claim is that there is one true Brexit, and that is achieved by selecting only the bits of the manifesto that suit your viewpoint.
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
You have no idea what the majority of leavers want - but it is reasonable to assume that they want what Vote Leave promised in the campaign. And since 40 and 45% of the UK public (according to HYUFD) support No Deal, it seems that you are wrong.
Norway is not what Vote Leave promised, as you have conceded. And May is not even discussing implementing Brexit; she is engaged in nothing other than discussions as to how to delay implementing it.
Unless you still believe that Chequers is real, then it doesn't look like you have any plan to implement Brexit at all.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
There was no lie, and WTO was not the goal. Everyone knew that a trade deal would be a matter of negotiation. Nobody thought that our PM would agree that the dismemberment of the UK was going to be necessary for a trade deal or that she would so obviously try to undermine and invalidate Brexit.
The people weighed all the promises, threats and risks and arrived at their verdict.
And, of course, the same logic that you draw upon never seems to work in reverse. Are you saying that if Remain had won, and then the EU managed to get some additional integration through despite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
I'm not trying to rewrite the referendum result. I am pointing out that the manifesto which you believe should be slavishly implemented (and which, I would remind you, says that Article 50 should not be called until we have already negotiated) is contradictory.
Your claim is that there is one true Brexit, and that is achieved by selecting only the bits of the manifesto that suit your viewpoint.
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
Perhaps you two need to get your own (chat)room ?
How about a chat room for everyone from either side who's obsessed with Brexit?
That way we might have an interesting thread for once.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
It would be possible to argue for something in that direction. As an EU member.
Ah yes, but if the goal was WTO, then the vote wouldn't have been 52:48.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
There was no lie, and WTO was not the goal. Everyone knew that a trade deal would be a matter of negotiation. Nobody thought that our PM would agree that the dismemberment of the UK was going to be necessary for a trade deal or that she would so obviously try to undermine and invalidate Brexit.
ite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
I'm not trying to rewrite the referendum result. I am pointing out that the manifesto which you believe should be slavishly implemented (and which, I would remind you, says that Article 50 should not be called until we have already negotiated) is contradictory.
Your claim is that there is one true Brexit, and that is achieved by selecting only the bits of the manifesto that suit your viewpoint.
As I think I have made quite clear, I favour a Brexit that implements as many elements of the Leave manifesto as possible, as opposed to one that is totally in conflict with all of them (Norway) or one which is aimed at making sure that we never really leave at all (May).
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I won.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
Perhaps you two need to get your own (chat)room ?
How about a chat room for everyone from either side who's obsessed with Brexit?
That way we might have an interesting thread for once.
Would certainly make PB a quicker read. And leave room for a few more puns.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
It would be possible to argue for something in that direction. As an EU member.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
It would be possible to argue for something in that direction. As an EU member.
"without freedom of movement"
no, it really wouldn't.
Well it’s a bazillion times less likely having voted to leave.
Yet again: Leave won by campaigning against immigration and for increased spending on the NHS. Brexit must do those two things. After that, everything else is up for discussion.
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Indeed. And an economic partnership without freedom of movement would be perfect. Unfortunately our partners arent interested
Not for many. Like many other Europeans, I consider free movement a major benefit, not a cost.
I think everyone can guess what I think of this hilariously stupid, brain-dead and crazy idea that only could be thought up by incompetent drunken halfwits.
Comments
Unbelievably glorious day in SE England but I know it has been very different in other areas. Tomorrow marks the 952nd anniversary of the first EU Referendum which of course REMAIN also lost (as in remaining an independent state and not being conquered by a foreign power).
As a non-Conservative, do I detect the first scintilla of panic among the Conservatives? Perhaps, perhaps not. Hirohito told the Japanese to endure the unendurable in 1945, perhaps May will tell the Conservative Party to support the unsupportable but we'll see.
I thought the notion of a 20-month or so transition period during which time we will effectively be a "vassal State of the EU" as someone said, had been conceded. From my limited perspective, the question now seems to be whether we must accept a CU with the EU or tell them to FU or FO I suppose. A CU between the UK and the EU preserves "our precious Union" but at the cost of "Global Britain" (presumably).
IF the DUP walk it doesn't necessarily mean the end of May - it depends how many Labour and other MPs will decide BINO and the survival of May is preferable to crashing out and probably ending up having to deal with Johnson.
Once again we come back to some fundamental questions of politics - the recognition that if you don't hang together you'll all hang separately is one but the other and perhaps deeper one is the point at which support of a Party is trumped by support of a key point of principle. At what point is the Party loyalty supplanted by conviction or is it "My Party, right or wrong" to the bitter end.
There are lots of obstacles around a second vote including the wording, margin of win, and just how we would stay in especially as an EU official said yesterday they would be pleased to see us stay in but we would lose our rebate
That would be enough to put remain in great peril.
Also I assume TM or the PM at the time would be neutral, so who would lead remain and leave campaigns
This notion that there is some platonic ideal of Brexit inherent in the referendum ballot slip is so much nonsense. If Leavers wanted a mandate for other requirements of Brexit they should have made them a central plank of their campaign.
Pandering to xenophobia was as catastrophic for Leave as for the country as a whole.
Brexit by necessity requires change as it means leaving the EU, however most voters in the polls are clear they do not want a complete divorce from our relationship with the EU if it means no trade deal at all with our largest market. It is the extent of the change that is the issue
The manifesto says there IS a free trade zone, and the UK will be a part of it.
At the very least it's deliberately misleading.
We also know well that British governments have a long history of talking tough about standing up to the EU before surrendering and then hiding behind mealy-mouthed words.
Cameron's 'halved the bill' being an example, Blair's giving away half the Rebate being another.
And even if you had confidence in Cameron would you have had confidence in British PMs five or ten or twenty years down the line ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin
May's deal will not implement the promises of the Leave campaign as set out in the brochure that rcs1000 so helpfully linked. That is not acceptable.
1. "There is a free trade area and we will be part of it."
and
2. "There is a free trade area and we will have an agreement with it."
CETA is 2. Otherwise it would have said, "There is a free trade area from Canada to the Russian border and we will be part of it." The geographic anchoring made it very clear that it was not talking about CETA.
I would have respect for them if they were at least open in their views.
Until then, you are just a rather garrulous guy on the internet.
If Remain had won, the argument would have been that the people of the UK had committed to being a member of the EU and the loss of sovereignty that this entailed.
What is absolutely clear (I sound like May here, grrrr) is that there would have been no re-negotiation of Cameron's 'deal' to reflect the fact that the result was close. We would have been told that Remain had won, it was a yes/no decision, and that was that.
And we would never have been granted another referendum.
Good to know
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1051155126713544704?s=20
https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1051158814966329345
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/oct/12/man-run-over-by-lawn-mower-while-trying-to-kill-so/
BRISTOL, Tenn. – A man who police say was run over with a lawn mower while trying to kill his son with a chain saw has had to have his leg amputated...
I'll get my coat...
However if the choice was Remain but with no rebate or Leave and crash the economy and potentially break up the Union then Remain would almost certainly win
Bottom line is governments of both parties would have done sweet FA to stop further integration. Even on the big stuff like an EU Army I doubt a meaningful opt-out would have been sought and won.
Fewer candidates than normal doesn’t mean a shortage of candidates...
It is a matter of record that UK opt outs have been reversed by the EU and ECJ.
It never came. It was staggering.
The worst result of the entire election for me, personally, was that my bets in the initial few days of the campaign - which looked like long odds winners - led me to get the ‘we’re limiting your account’ email from various bookies. All for naught.
There is no outcome that is not contradictory, because the manifesto promises both a free trade deal, and things the EU will not accept.
Loser pays for the poll, and pays the winner £1,000.
The ONLY issue here is the backstop. It is designed to frustrate Brexit and May and Robbins agreed to it on that basis. The offer could and should have been withdrawn in March and if it had, we would have moved on by now.
Otherwise, they have offered CETA and none of the other matters require their permission.
But, to make it simple, let's say that there is no way to agree with the EU a free trade area. The choice then is Norway, which breaches all of the Leave campaigns promises, and no deal, which will satisfy all of the objectives of the Leave campaign other than the aspiration for an FTA which would be replaced with WTO, although with the strong likelihood that an FTA would be agreed later.
So, if we are actually interested in enacting the Leave vote, it is quite obvious what direction the Government needs to take.
You're basically saying it was OK to lie to people to get to 52%.
I got some very nice odds on Labour in London constituencies at the same time
You claim that the slide made it clear it was CETA that was being discussed. We are going to ask people what they think.
We don't have to argue, we can KNOW.
Come on, if it was clear, this is free money to you.
https://twitter.com/wahlrecht_de/status/1051166419633799169?s=21
The people weighed all the promises, threats and risks and arrived at their verdict.
And, of course, the same logic that you draw upon never seems to work in reverse. Are you saying that if Remain had won, and then the EU managed to get some additional integration through despite the UKs objections, that Remain would have won because of a lie and the result would have been immediately invalidated? I think we know the answer.
You don't get to re-write the referendum result because of what you think people might have done. The point raised is that if the choice is between enacting none of the Leave campaign's manifesto, and implementing the vast majority of it, it should be pretty obvious what should be done.
It’s not a debt, it’s a tax.
If I was German, I would vote for them. It's where the SPD voters are going methinks.
Your claim is that there is one true Brexit, and that is achieved by selecting only the bits of the manifesto that suit your viewpoint.
MINISTER FOR BONGO BONGO LAND TRADE
General Godfrey Bloom
@goddersbloom
Follow Follow @goddersbloom
More
The Conservative Party have relented.
My membership card arrived today.
I suspect the personal intervention of David Davis.
Membership number 528905543
Haltemprice & Howden
The ability of someone in Italy, Germany or France with skills to come and work in Britain wasn't unattractive and particularly as the Lawson boom was choked off by lack of labour capacity which led to wage inflation.
Unfortunately, by the time the Single European Act came into being, Communism had collapsed and the potential for a wave of new workers from the ex-Communist6 states (starting with the former GDR which had become part of the EEC with reunification in October 1990). It would take a further 15 years before the likes of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined and were able to participate in the Single Market.
The gates were opened at a time of economic strength when Britain and Germany needed cheap labour - we completely misjudged how many would come but 50 years of propaganda telling them how much better life was in the West had an effect.
Perhaps we'd have been better leaving the ex-Communist states as associate members for 50 years but we needed the workers and above all workers who would not fuel inflation.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1051168284324884480
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-politics-liberals/swedish-centre-right-split-scuppers-plan-for-minority-government-idUSKCN1MN0ID
CETA and a refusal to accept the backstop implements ALL of the vote Leave manifesto. No deal implements almost all of it and leaves open the option of an FTA to complete the picture.
You are trying to magic up totally insignificant 'contradictions' to excuse the fact that you want to ignore everything that Leave advocated.
Leave won. Implement their manifesto.
I think everyone can guess what I think of this hilariously stupid, brain-dead and crazy idea that only could be thought up by incompetent drunken halfwits.
And we ended up with an EU which was both broader and deeper ?
I assume by 'workers who would not fuel inflation' you mean 'workers who would not fuel WAGE inflation' they certainly helped fuel PROPERTY inflation.
And isn't depressing wage inflation but encouraging property inflation a guaranteed way of shifting wealth up the socioeconomic scale ?
Socialists believed the inclusion of former Communist countries would bring a rich seam of centre-left votes which would provide a semi-permanent blocking majority in the Commission, Council and Parliament and ensure social issues, welfare and workers' rights would be protected.
Liberals supported it in the interests of global and regional collaboration and because they thought embedding the ex-Communist countries in the EU would ensure the survival and strengthening of democratic political culture within these countries.
I voted Leave.
You are the only person that has even made me regret my vote.
The vast majority of Leavers believe we should have a Brexit for as many Brits as possible. This our fundamental disagreement.
And I need to finish writing
"2020: The Election They Wished They Had't Won"
I encountered members of said club at the Kingston Blount Point to Point in spring 2017. It was a cold day with sleet and rain falling but the Club had a race on the card which had been run since the year dot.
There were about 20 of them there, totally unsuitably dressed for a cold, wet spring afternoon and they seemed to have a lot of trouble putting up a gazebo for shelter. They put it up and it fell down - they put it up again, it fell down again.
They brought plenty of champagne but seemed quite reasonable and even pleasant but I sense the quality of membership had declined since the days of Cameron and Johnson. I also noticed the only non-white person at the point to point was one of the Bullingdon members.
Still time for WWIII long before 2020...
Norway is not what Vote Leave promised, as you have conceded. And May is not even discussing implementing Brexit; she is engaged in nothing other than discussions as to how to delay implementing it.
Unless you still believe that Chequers is real, then it doesn't look like you have any plan to implement Brexit at all.
That way we might have an interesting thread for once.
As an EU member.
And leave room for a few more puns.
Could be a bit lonely, though.
no, it really wouldn't.