We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Not so. The ECJ has already been asked to rule on the case. They will make a ruling and that will stand irrespective of the views of the other 27 countries.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Ultimately what the ECJ thinks is irrelevant if the EU leaders agree to it because they can always just extend A50 pending legal clarification on the best way to make it permanent.
Legal clarification is coming whatever the EU 27 do. The case is already before the ECJ. If they rule it cannot be revoked then that is it.
If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.
I'm beginning to think so.
Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?
Not sure that would be motivation for Labour to offer to support the Tory administration.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
"As people voted leave to be better off..."
How do you know that? Some Leavers may have hoped or expected to be better off but I never got the impression that was the prime reason for voting Leave for many.
Trying to ascribe a single prime reason why 17 million or so people voted one way is a futile exercise. There was/is clearly a hard core of leave voters who would do so again irrespective of the economic consequences (and have held that view for a long time); I’m pretty sure some were primarily concerned with immigration. Quite how many fall in which category (then and now) has to.be fairly obscure, polling notwithstanding.
Its all about better off. They don't like foreigners. Why? They took our jobs. They don't like NHS tourists. Why? They're taking our resources. Don't like kids in their school with non-English. Don't like asylum seekers getting a house. Its all about money and its all money taken from them and goven to someone else.
As I said on Saturday, the tide is going out on the ERG and the hard brexiters. People don't want to hear any more from the morons whose personal obsession has led to this almighty mess. On topic, it is therefore a mystery why Boris is favourite again; this must surely be a betting opportunity to lay.
If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.
I'm beginning to think so.
Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?
Not sure that would be motivation for Labour to offer to support the Tory administration.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
All deals make us worse off. Relatively speaking, the May deal isn't that bad. Once the NI situation is worked out, more options will become available, including EFTA.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
Not so, they can't leave things in legal limbo because a company or other group might bring a case in the ECJ later (for example to object to a UK competitor getting a government contract in an EU country).
This is an interesting question. If the EU were a normal organisation of 27 states, I would say say "where there is a will there's a way". But the EU has a life of its own. It's not clear how far 27 states - some of whom will feel more strongly than others - could sway the EU as an institution.
It is not the EU they have to sway it is the ECJ. And contrary to what everyone seems to think they are on the whole a very un-political body. They interpret EU law based upon the treaties irrespective of whether that rues for or against the other bodies of the EU. There have been plenty of cases where they have ruled against the Commission for example. What matters to the ECJ is defending the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
The real problem is that we are approaching the point were our backs are to the wall and we have no good options left.
Now that Corbyn says Labour will not countenance No Deal, and seems unlikely to vote for the govts position of May's inferior Deal, that only leaves one option.
What will the 17.4m think? Probably that the Parliamentary Leavers were twits who messed the whole opportunity up.... because that is exactly what they are doing.
If you think that will be the limit of their comments or actions then you are very sadly mistaken.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
If thats anyway near true, then holy cow, May might just just pull it off.
I'm beginning to think so.
Probably needs a solid phalanx of Labour abstainers though. Maybe after other options (EFTA, ref2) have been rejected by Commons votes, and the markets/sterling start to wobble?
Not sure that would be motivation for Labour to offer to support the Tory administration.
Economically and Politically best options for the UK in order: 1. Remain 2. EEA/EFTA 3. This Deal 4. No Deal
As people voted leave to be better off why would any Labour MP vote for a deal that makes them worse off? That the deal also keeps May in office and therefore free to pillage the poor and disabled for longer just makes it even less possible for Labour MPs to back this.
"The national interest" is not to be worse off. That some other crap scenario makes us even worse off than the deal is no reason to back the deal.
I thought you voted to leave? Have you changed your mind??
I did vote to leave. My view that as a non-Schengen non-Euro not interested in the federal Europe project country we would be pushed to the outer reaches of the EU anyway. So why not step off under our own steam and rejoin an enlarged EFTA?
However, as it seems that we have binned off that option and upset EFTA into the process, to stay would be preferable to May's crap deal or leaving with no deal. And I think I raise a valid point - did any of the people who voted to leave vote to be worse off? Yes you get some gobshites who suggest "a dip is a price worth paying" but they don't mean them personally, it would hit other people.
Now that the facts regarding no deal are increasingly clear I expect that I am not the only person who has switched position...
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
No, but the ERG have done us another favour.
They are now the poster children for incompetent fuckups. Like Brexit.
Every time one them pops up on TV to wail about the EU, they can be gently reminded of their inability to count to 48, or realise we are an island, let alone understand the complex working of International trade.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Surely it must be. The first referendum has healed so many divisions, there couldn't possibly be any left after a second.
Buccaneering Brexiteer latest ... * Dominic Raab has discovered Britain is an island off the coast of France. * Nadine Dorries has learned leaving the EU means having no MEPs * David Davis and Owen Paterson have tried to negotiate a trade deal with Oklahoma. * ERG can't count
Buccaneering Brexiteer latest ... * Dominic Raab has discovered Britain is an island off the coast of France. * Nadine Dorries has learned leaving the EU means having no MEPs * David Davis and Owen Paterson have tried to negotiate a trade deal with Oklahoma. * ERG can't count
ERG were quoting the gross number of letters, not the net. Do keep up.
The great irony would be if the courts rule we can revoke Article 50.
So a new PM can revoke the current one - then issue a new Article 50 notice, with a new two year window to negotiate a deal that isn't as shite as May's....
A flawless plan just so long as nobody on the EU side realises what we are doing.
I wonder if, once May toddles off, the eunuch-at-an-orgy underperformance of the ERG will shift the relative success of potential candidates so that moderates perhaps do better than chest-thumpers. Just a thought.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
The ERG were always saloon bar boors: entertainingly plausible until they are actually tasked with doing anything. Then you find out they know nothing about anything.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
Translated: he knows that the referendum was won on a pack of lies and myriad false prospectuses, and is shit scared that if people are offered the chance to forget the whole thing they'll probably take it.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
+1 The Brexit sold by Leave is unobtainable.
I think Leave cheer leaders in the media, parliament and on here dramatically overplay the 2016 result. Much of what was promised has evaporated, I don't think Leavers have much credibility. The Tory press is responsible for much of this as they feed their anti-European agenda to the public on a daily basis. Interestingly, I wonder if German or French media have as much success in feeding such an agenda?
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
No, but the ERG have done us another favour.
They are now the poster children for incompetent fuckups. Like Brexit.
Every time one them pops up on TV to wail about the EU, they can be gently reminded of their inability to count to 48, or realise we are an island, let alone understand the complex working of International trade.
They have Ratnered their own brand.
Which is nice.
The problem for you is that they are Tories. You get tarred by the same brush.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
Translated: he knows that the referendum was won on a pack of lies and myriad false prospectuses, and is shit scared that if people are offered the chance to forget the whole thing they'll probably take it.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
+1 The Brexit sold by Leave is unobtainable.
I think Leave cheer leaders in the media, parliament and on here dramatically overplay the 2016 result. Much of what was promised has evaporated, I don't think Leavers have much credibility. The Tory press is responsible for much of this as they feed their anti-European agenda to the public on a daily basis. Interestingly, I wonder if German or French media have as much success in feeding such an agenda?
A poll at the weekend suggested "NO Deal" would win a three-way?
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Ultimately what the ECJ thinks is irrelevant if the EU leaders agree to it because they can always just extend A50 pending legal clarification on the best way to make it permanent.
Legal clarification is coming whatever the EU 27 do. The case is already before the ECJ. If they rule it cannot be revoked then that is it.
If it cannot be revoked then it can be extended pending a treaty revision.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
Translated: he knows that the referendum was won on a pack of lies and myriad false prospectuses, and is shit scared that if people are offered the chance to forget the whole thing they'll probably take it.
Nope I just believe in democracy - something you seem to have particular scorn for. Not surprising given you are a Remainer and the EU has always had a problem with democratic votes.
Lovely tweet I saw today about how ludicrous it is that those who can't even organise a simple letter writing campaign can expect to lead discussions about international treaties and trade negotiations.
Please God we're now at peak Mogg following this risible display.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
Translated: he knows that the referendum was won on a pack of lies and myriad false prospectuses, and is shit scared that if people are offered the chance to forget the whole thing they'll probably take it.
Nope I just believe in democracy - something you seem to have particular scorn for. Not surprising given you are a Remainer and the EU has always had a problem with democratic votes.
Where it will get really interesting with all these anti-demorcrats is what they do when Corbyn becomes PM...
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
No, but the ERG have done us another favour.
They are now the poster children for incompetent fuckups. Like Brexit.
Every time one them pops up on TV to wail about the EU, they can be gently reminded of their inability to count to 48, or realise we are an island, let alone understand the complex working of International trade.
They have Ratnered their own brand.
Which is nice.
You think anyone outside the bubble is paying any attention to that? You are deluded.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
If you discover leaving outright means breaking the economy and the alternative of leaving in name only means a key loss of democratic oversight, not revisiting the question is negligent.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
Translated: he knows that the referendum was won on a pack of lies and myriad false prospectuses, and is shit scared that if people are offered the chance to forget the whole thing they'll probably take it.
Nope I just believe in democracy - something you seem to have particular scorn for. Not surprising given you are a Remainer and the EU has always had a problem with democratic votes.
What if the Leave campaign used tainted money and was based on lies? What does that say about the state of democracy?
'Bad Boy of Brexit' Arron Banks arrives back in UK from Bermuda as the National Crime Agency probes 'Russia links' to £8million funding of campaign group Leave.EU
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
Translated: he knows that the referendum was won on a pack of lies and myriad false prospectuses, and is shit scared that if people are offered the chance to forget the whole thing they'll probably take it.
Nope I just believe in democracy - something you seem to have particular scorn for. Not surprising given you are a Remainer and the EU has always had a problem with democratic votes.
Where it will get really interesting with all these anti-demorcrats is what they do when Corbyn becomes PM...
You think Corbyn will become PM ?? I'll have a tenner with you that he will not... inc results up to and in then next GE when it takes place.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Far better to have a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal question then put the winner of that up against Remain in a second question in a two part referendum
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
Translated: he knows that the referendum was won on a pack of lies and myriad false prospectuses, and is shit scared that if people are offered the chance to forget the whole thing they'll probably take it.
Nope I just believe in democracy - something you seem to have particular scorn for. Not surprising given you are a Remainer and the EU has always had a problem with democratic votes.
What if the Leave campaign used tainted money and was based on lies? What does that say about the state of democracy?
'Bad Boy of Brexit' Arron Banks arrives back in UK from Bermuda as the National Crime Agency probes 'Russia links' to £8million funding of campaign group Leave.EU
Aaron Banks was not the Leave campaign. And even with the money he spent it is still far less than was spent on the Remain side. You are clutching at straws.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Far better to have a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal question then put the winner of that up against Remain in a second question in a two part referendum
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
If you discover leaving outright means breaking the economy and the alternative of leaving in name only means a key loss of democratic oversight, not revisiting the question is negligent.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Far better to have a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal question then put the winner of that up against Remain in a second question in a two part referendum
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Far better to have a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal question then put the winner of that up against Remain in a second question in a two part referendum
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
The only referendum question that makes sense is May's Deal Yes or No.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Far better to have a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal question then put the winner of that up against Remain in a second question in a two part referendum
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
Pot Kettle
Doesn't work Jonathan. All those claims about chaos just for voting to Leave before we even did the act turned out to be so much dingo's kidneys. Those who hate this country are the ones who would irrevocably damage democracy by overturning a democratic decision before it has even been enacted.
Still think this is the narrative the Westminster press pack is generally missing. They’re still seeing a Remain v No deal fight to the death while the country is actually split between JFDI and “Er yeah, that’s Brexit”.
Also.. polite remainers who are willing to go along with this “because democracy” will go full-on ERG-in-reverse-apeshit if this gets voted down.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Far better to have a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal question then put the winner of that up against Remain in a second question in a two part referendum
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
The only referendum question that makes sense is May's Deal Yes or No.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Yes. That would be the end of it. You might want to indulge your mania until the End Days, but most people would have had more than enough. Add to that the fact the the Leave Constituency is composed of older voters who are dying off and it is not hard to see that this is Leave's one and only chance.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that theysay they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Far better to have a Leave with Deal v Leave with No Deal question then put the winner of that up against Remain in a second question in a two part referendum
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
Pot Kettle
Doesn't work Jonathan. All those claims about chaos just for voting to Leave before we even did the act turned out to be so much dingo's kidneys. Those who hate this country are the ones who would irrevocably damage democracy by overturning a democratic decision before it has even been enacted.
Brexiteers can complain about many, many things. But in the middle of the worst political crisis in over 50 years, complaining about others causing chaos is not one of them.
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Sorry but we know why the leavers would never specify what Brexit actually meant prior to the vote for the very good reason that, even if they could have agreed, being specific would have lost them the vote.
As it is we are are going to get a Brexit that would have been defeated had we known the outcome 2 years ago. You might thing that's smart and fair, I believe it's a gigantic con trick and will fail because the country was never behind it in the first place.
The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Yes. That would be the end of it. You might want to indulge your mania until the End Days, but most people would have had more than enough. Add to that the fact the the Leave Constituency is composed of older voters who are dying off and it is not hard to see that this is Leave's one and only chance.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
+1
They behave as if "democracy" is some weird game where you're stuck with something even when it becomes evident it will be a tragic misjudgement. The idea of democracy is that those who govern us respond to public opinion; if people change their mind then so must those in power.
Threatening 48 letters and not achieving them might means fewer votes against the deal than otherwise might be had.
There are still plenty who hate the deal and will vote against it, short of removing the PM.
If you were leading the plan to vote it down, would you want to kick off your campaign like this? With JRM pleading for letters and Davis demanding a vote on Thursday? A sense of desperation in the air?
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Yes. That would be the end of it. You might want to indulge your mania until the End Days, but most people would have had more than enough. Add to that the fact the the Leave Constituency is composed of older voters who are dying off and it is not hard to see that this is Leave's one and only chance.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
+1
They behave as if "democracy" is some weird game where you're stuck with something even when it becomes evident it will be a tragic misjudgement. The idea of democracy is that those who govern us respond to public opinion; if people change their mind then so must those in power.
Yes, I dont think that they have the numbers for that either.
The May-Barnier plan will pass, and the wounded PM will limp on.
If TM wins this she is entitled to a huge amount of credit
What? Like a Wonga loan? Interest of 5,403,473% (APR Representive 0.6%, Loans secured on property, assets and children. Rates may go up as well as up. Failure to make payments will get you referred to The Godfather Collection Agency - it's not personal, it is merely business)
Labour's 2017 election manifesto categorically rejected a No Deal Brexit. If push comes tom shove that gives enough Labour MPs the cover to back May's deal over crashing out. But all other options need to be tested first. My guess is that the likeliest scenario is no election, no referendum, no new PM and a final May Deal or No Deal vote that will see the former option get through because the alternative is so much worse.
Why deliberately rule out a People's Vote? Rule out No Deal instead and vote on May or Remain.
We already voted on Remain and it lost. Now we should just be voting on the type of Leave we have. That seems the logical and reasonable way to proceed.
It does sound reasonable on the surface. However, as others have pointed out, leavers had different versions of Brexit in mind when they voted.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
So if Leavers had different versions of Leave in their mind then voting for the two extremes - No Deal or an incredibly soft deal - seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. Taking the opportunity to revisit the question of whether or not we leave is not.
Sorry but we know why the leavers would never specify what Brexit actually meant prior to the vote for the very good reason that, even if they could have agreed, being specific would have lost them the vote.
As it is we are are going to get a Brexit that would have been defeated had we known the outcome 2 years ago. You might thing that's smart and fair, I believe it's a gigantic con trick and will fail because the country was never behind it in the first place.
Tough. The vote was on leaving the EU. We all knew we wouldn't get exactly the Brexit we wanted. But the important point of actually being outside the EU was what mattered. That is what you Remaniacs never understood and it is why you are still making the same mistakes over and over again.
Brexiteers can complain about many, many things. But in the middle of the worst political crisis in over 50 years, complaining about others causing chaos is not one of them.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
When we have enacted the first referendum feel free to press for a rejoin. Until then you have no credibility.
Brexiteers can complain about many, many things. But in the middle of the worst political crisis in over 50 years, complaining about others causing chaos is not one of them.
Nope. This is down to you I am afraid.
Did I take back control and didn't notice? I am sure I voted against this nonsense. The fact the Brexiteers have failed to come up with a credible, workable plan is no-ones fault but their own.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
He does not want it on in case it wins. Apparently that is not democracy.
Definition of democracy 1a : government by the people, especially : rule of the majority
1b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Yes. That would be the end of it. You might want to indulge your mania until the End Days, but most people would have had more than enough. Add to that the fact the the Leave Constituency is composed of older voters who are dying off and it is not hard to see that this is Leave's one and only chance.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
Like I said, deluded. You would tear down the democratic system of this country and incite a massive extremist backlash all because you can't stay in your little club.
Brexiteers can complain about many, many things. But in the middle of the worst political crisis in over 50 years, complaining about others causing chaos is not one of them.
Nope. This is down to you I am afraid.
Did I take back control and didn't notice? I am sure I voted against this nonsense. The fact the Brexiteers have failed to come up with a credible, workable plan is no-ones fault but their own.
In case you missed it this whole affair has been run by a Remainer.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
When we have enacted the first referendum feel free to press for a rejoin. Until then you have no credibility.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Yes. That would be the end of it. You might want to indulge your mania until the End Days, but most people would have had more than enough. Add to that the fact the the Leave Constituency is composed of older voters who are dying off and it is not hard to see that this is Leave's one and only chance.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
Like I said, deluded. You would tear down the democratic system of this country and incite a massive extremist backlash all because you can't stay in your little club.
I am staying in the club. The clue is in the flag....
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
He does not want it on in case it wins. Apparently that is not democracy.
Definition of democracy 1a : government by the people, especially : rule of the majority
1b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
Which has to involve the Government actually enacting the wishes of the people. Something they have so far failed to do. Thick Remainers once again failing to understand the basics.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
When we have enacted the first referendum feel free to press for a rejoin. Until then you have no credibility.
Leave won the first referendum on a central lie - one that was pointed out at the time, and ignored. As such, it is essentially undeliverable - which is why we're in this mess now.
Continuing with something so fatally flawed could be seen as silly, if not insane given the damage it could do.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Yes. That would be the end of it. You might want to indulge your mania until the End Days, but most people would have had more than enough. Add to that the fact the the Leave Constituency is composed of older voters who are dying off and it is not hard to see that this is Leave's one and only chance.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
Like I said, deluded. You would tear down the democratic system of this country and incite a massive extremist backlash all because you can't stay in your little club.
I am staying in the club. The clue is in the flag....
In which case it is none of your business. And it proves you a liar since you spent plenty of time on here claiming you were not going to leave Britain.
We should revoke Article 50. Then invoke it again.
Call the first Brexit a mulligan.
I think you have succinctly summed up the likely ECJ judgement on why we can't unilaterally revoke Article 50.
Which will make things interesting regarding the whole question of a second referendum.
Macron has said the porte remains ouverte. Which member states might say no it doesn't?
Unsurprisingly it is nothing to do with the member states. It is the ECJ which will make the decision based on their interpretation of the treaties.
Realpolitik counts - if none of the EU countries want to refer a rejoin to the ECJ and then all agree, then Brexit is de facto over.
It is a lovely thought, but these turkeys in Westminster seem determined to inflict the maximum damage on the country
Much as it appeals to my Remainer heart Beverley, here's my concern with that scenario:
What do the 17.4m who voted Leave think if we end up Remaining. What do they do next?
It would be like sticking a plaster over a huge abcess and saying "there, that's that sorted".
The only way to Remain now is for a 2nd vote to be won convincingly by Remain - I mean 60/40 - and I doubt that will happen. If either side wins narrowly we are in no better place than now.
If Remain won 51% to 49% in am EUref2 before March we would stay in and never actually Leave at all with Article 50 cancelled.
And you think that would be the end of it??? Hahahahahaha!
Yes. That would be the end of it. You might want to indulge your mania until the End Days, but most people would have had more than enough. Add to that the fact the the Leave Constituency is composed of older voters who are dying off and it is not hard to see that this is Leave's one and only chance.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
Like I said, deluded. You would tear down the democratic system of this country and incite a massive extremist backlash all because you can't stay in your little club.
So the violent extremists are on your side? Brexit is to be delivered by menacing the fabric of society?
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
He does not want it on in case it wins. Apparently that is not democracy.
Definition of democracy 1a : government by the people, especially : rule of the majority
1b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
Which has to involve the Government actually enacting the wishes of the people. Something they have so far failed to do. Thick Remainers once again failing to understand the basics.
They have tried to implement the will of the people and not been able to achieve what was asked for. So it is time to revisit and re-ask the people. Thick Leavers fail to understand that.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
When we have enacted the first referendum feel free to press for a rejoin. Until then you have no credibility.
Leave won the first referendum on a central lie - one that was pointed out at the time, and ignored. As such, it is essentially undeliverable - which is why we're in this mess now.
Continuing with something so fatally flawed could be seen as silly, if not insane given the damage it could do.
No they didn't. Much as you might wish it to be true it is still rubbish no matter how many times you might repeat it.
Brexiteers can complain about many, many things. But in the middle of the worst political crisis in over 50 years, complaining about others causing chaos is not one of them.
Nope. This is down to you I am afraid.
Did I take back control and didn't notice? I am sure I voted against this nonsense. The fact the Brexiteers have failed to come up with a credible, workable plan is no-ones fault but their own.
In case you missed it this whole affair has been run by a Remainer.
Yes this government is spectacularly useless. There is only one thing weaker. The Brexiters who put it there, supported it, led the negotiations and currently carp and complain about it, but when push comes to shove can't even find 48 people to back their cause.
Nope. Remain should not get another shot. Well, unless you think we should revisit the same question again every 2 years for ever more. Of course the EU and the Remainiacs only want to repeat the question until they win as you showed earlier. You really must hate this country that you would plunge it into such chaos.
On the other hand, remain is an obvious option in a referendum, and one that is wanted by a significant proportion of people (indeed, 48-odd% voted for it just two years ago). Not having it as an option could be seen as obviously undemocratic.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
When we have enacted the first referendum feel free to press for a rejoin. Until then you have no credibility.
Leave won the first referendum on a central lie - one that was pointed out at the time, and ignored. As such, it is essentially undeliverable - which is why we're in this mess now.
Continuing with something so fatally flawed could be seen as silly, if not insane given the damage it could do.
No they didn't. Much as you might wish it to be true it is still rubbish no matter how many times you might repeat it.
Comments
ROFL
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/1064577834298089472
They are now the poster children for incompetent fuckups. Like Brexit.
Every time one them pops up on TV to wail about the EU, they can be gently reminded of their inability to count to 48, or realise we are an island, let alone understand the complex working of International trade.
They have Ratnered their own brand.
Which is nice.
* Dominic Raab has discovered Britain is an island off the coast of France.
* Nadine Dorries has learned leaving the EU means having no MEPs
* David Davis and Owen Paterson have tried to negotiate a trade deal with Oklahoma.
* ERG can't count
Anyway, I must be off. Play nicely, everyone.
We have leavers telling us they would prefer remain to no deal and leavers telling us that they prefer remain to Mrs May's deal. It is probable that neither Brexit option commands a majority as I have yet to hear a remainer say they now prefer either Brexit option over remaining.
I can understand why you would want to restrict the choice but I can't see the justification for it. Trying to pretend there is a majority for either of the Brexit options by restricting the options won't resolve the issue.
The Brexit sold by Leave is unobtainable.
I think Leave cheer leaders in the media, parliament and on here dramatically overplay the 2016 result. Much of what was promised has evaporated, I don't think Leavers have much credibility. The Tory press is responsible for much of this as they feed their anti-European agenda to the public on a daily basis. Interestingly, I wonder if German or French media have as much success in feeding such an agenda?
6 wickets in hand and 41 runs needed. Pakistan's lose. Hmm...
Corbyn will be a disaster, but I can't vote for my local Brexiter MP.
Of course if the headbangers piss off and join UKIP, they won't be Tories anymore
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1064584179491500032
He had
4810 angry menHe marched them out to College Green
And he marched them back in again.
Please God we're now at peak Mogg following this risible display.
And counted back down again
Threatening 48 letters and not achieving them might means fewer votes against the deal than otherwise might be had.
He's another loon.. "Brexit betrayal"
'Bad Boy of Brexit' Arron Banks arrives back in UK from Bermuda as the National Crime Agency probes 'Russia links' to £8million funding of campaign group Leave.EU
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6348871/Bad-Boy-Brexit-Arron-Banks-arrives-UK-Bermuda.html
The May-Barnier plan will pass, and the wounded PM will limp on.
Also.. polite remainers who are willing to go along with this “because democracy” will go full-on ERG-in-reverse-apeshit if this gets voted down.
But as I've said before, I have doubts if the EU would really want us to remain given all the sh*t and trouble the Europhobes have caused them.
Also, I hate the idea of a three-way referendum, and cannot see it producing a result that would be conclusive.
And remain or leaver, that's what we need from another referendum: a definite conclusion, one way or the other.
Which probably explains the vehemence of many Leavers towards any suggestion that the whole project should be stopped.
As it is we are are going to get a Brexit that would have been defeated had we known the outcome 2 years ago. You might thing that's smart and fair, I believe it's a gigantic con trick and will fail because the country was never behind it in the first place.
The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
They behave as if "democracy" is some weird game where you're stuck with something even when it becomes evident it will be a tragic misjudgement. The idea of democracy is that those who govern us respond to public opinion; if people change their mind then so must those in power.
Except our Leader has a tin ear....
"democracy noun - de·moc·ra·cy | \di-ˈmä-krə-sē \
plural democracies
Definition of democracy
1a : government by the people, especially : rule of the majority
1b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
Continuing with something so fatally flawed could be seen as silly, if not insane given the damage it could do.
https://twitter.com/flatmarsalex/status/1064593378061488130