Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Sounds like every time we elect a Labour Government. A dangerous line to take I would suggest.
I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.
I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.
Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.
A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.
I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
With their treatment of Greece I just can't see the EU acting any differently towards us.
Come come, you know very well that the EUs need to sell us prosecco and BMWs means that they will give us everything we want before we have even asked for it. The easiest trade deal in human history......
OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.
Raab and the others in the ERG display an IQ of the kindergarten
Going round saying this is worse than remain invites 48% of the Country saying we have told you so for the last two years so let's agree to remain
Indeed almost guaranteeing a substantial remain vote in a referendum
It's only a poor idea if they are doing it as a tactic. If they believe it they should welcome a remain vote to save them from this deal.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
For the same reason that one respects any election result. It's better to face one's opponents on the hustings than on the battlefield/
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.
Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
Will this come down to a technicality? As I understand it the offence is that the NIP form was filled in incorrectly. If the prosecution can not prove that she had knowledge of the filling in of the form has she not broken that law?
Being really dumb is not a crime in most instances I get, as that appeared to be her defence
Or we could listen to the evil genius behind Vote Leave
Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave wrote in The Spectator in January 2017 on "how the Brexit referendum was won"
"Leave won because 1) three big forces [the immigration crisis, the 2008 financial crisis and the euro crisis] created conditions in which the contest was competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND 3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is very likely IN would have won."
"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No.
Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No."
"If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘Turkey/NHS/£350 million’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost."
OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.
Raab and the others in the ERG display an IQ of the kindergarten
Going round saying this is worse than remain invites 48% of the Country saying we have told you so for the last two years so let's agree to remain
Indeed almost guaranteeing a substantial remain vote in a referendum
It's only a poor idea if they are doing it as a tactic. If they believe it they should welcome a remain vote to save them from this deal.
ERG do not seem to have a clue what they are doing. If it ends up remain with big margin it will be so ironic
This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.
Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
Will this come down to a technicality? As I understand it the offence is that the NIP form was filled in incorrectly. If the prosecution can not prove that she had knowledge of the filling in of the form has she not broken that law?
She is legally responsible for what is on the form so she would be guilty of an offence about that but I agree that the much more serious charge requires her to be shown to have had knowledge about what was allegedly declared on her behalf or at the very least recklessly indifferent to what was said.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Sounds like every time we elect a Labour Government. A dangerous line to take I would suggest.
Malpractice and illegality from either campaign would be sufficient reason to rerun it. The main reason to run it though is that there is significant new information about the choice. A second vote would be far better informed.
But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.
A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.
I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
The best negotiating tactic is to be extremely nice, while being very clearly prepared to walk away. We instead went for nasty but unprepared. We got everyone's back up in the EU at the beginning of the process, while doing exactly nothing to be ready for a situation where we left the EU without a deal. We probably shouldn't even have triggered Article 50 until we had agreed replacements for the EU's existing arrangements - but sadly politics came first.
I think the government - and particularly Dr Liam Fox - was also staggered to discover that other (non-EU) countries saw this as an opportunity to get one over the UK. British Airways and Virgin are going to end up losing a ton of transatlantic Heathrow slots as that is the price that is being demanded by the US to get an aviation deal concluded before 1 May next year. Which sucks for those of us have to regularly cross the Atlantic, and who hate flying United or Delta.
Nevertheless, for the reasons articulated by @DavidL below, I think this deal is much better than a No Deal scenario. It respects the referendum result, as far as both leaving the political project that is the EU and ending Free Movement, while also minimising economic disruption.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Sounds like every time we elect a Labour Government. A dangerous line to take I would suggest.
Malpractice and illegality from either campaign would be sufficient reason to rerun it. The main reason to run it though is that there is significant new information about the choice. A second vote would be far better informed.
Again : Sounds like every time we elect a Labour Government. A dangerous line to take I would suggest
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Sounds like every time we elect a Labour Government. A dangerous line to take I would suggest.
Malpractice and illegality from either campaign would be sufficient reason to rerun it. The main reason to run it though is that there is significant new information about the choice. A second vote would be far better informed.
We'll be even better I formed for the third one then.
I back one but mostly on the grounds that it seems likely Mps will refuse to positively make a decision one way or another.
Or we could listen to the evil genius behind Vote Leave
Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave wrote in The Spectator in January 2017 on "how the Brexit referendum was won"
"Leave won because 1) three big forces [the immigration crisis, the 2008 financial crisis and the euro crisis] created conditions in which the contest was competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND 3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is very likely IN would have won."
"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No.
Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No."
"If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘Turkey/NHS/£350 million’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost."
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
For the same reason that one respects any election result. It's better to face one's opponents on the hustings than on the battlefield/
Or we could listen to the evil genius behind Vote Leave
Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave wrote in The Spectator in January 2017 on "how the Brexit referendum was won"
"Leave won because 1) three big forces [the immigration crisis, the 2008 financial crisis and the euro crisis] created conditions in which the contest was competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND 3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is very likely IN would have won."
"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No.
Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No."
"If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘Turkey/NHS/£350 million’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost."
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Sounds like every time we elect a Labour Government. A dangerous line to take I would suggest.
Malpractice and illegality from either campaign would be sufficient reason to rerun it. The main reason to run it though is that there is significant new information about the choice. A second vote would be far better informed.
Again : Sounds like every time we elect a Labour Government. A dangerous line to take I would suggest
Not at all, in BAU politics we get to vote on experience after 5 years when we have more information.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
I do think the line about the ignorance and corrupt practices is the remainer's mangra to try to discredit the referendum. I doubt the vast majority of those voting care too much for that argument
Mr. NorthWales, saw some good footage of miscreants being introduced to the pavement on the news earlier. Amused it was preceded by a rather unnecessary warning that some viewers might find it disturbing.
This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.
Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
Of course. Only this afternoon, this bloke who said his name was Sergei knocked on my door. He said he was an DPD delivery driver and could he borrow my car and mobiles for the afternoon, so he could finish his rounds.
Should I be getting worried he hasn't returned yet?
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
If a General Election took place at the beginning of 2019, and a party was elected with a majority favouring a Remain referendum, then we'd have to respect that.
I don't see it happening, but we can't ban voters from choosing things we don't like. They are allowed to change their minds.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
If a General Election took place at the beginning of 2019, and a party was elected with a majority favouring a Remain referendum, then we'd have to respect that.
I don't see it happening, but we can't ban voters from choosing things we don't like. They are allowed to change their minds.
Hmm. Only if staying in was in their manifesto, I’d suggest.
It turns out that pandering to xenophobia to win a referendum leads to suboptimal outcomes. Who would have guessed that?
During one of the referendum press conferences someone asked Gove whether "the choice for Vote Leave was to lose with a technocratic argument, or win with an ethnic appeal to the English nation".
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.
I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.
So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
The principal decision that people would want to be taken here is deciding who can come here. For many, "sovereignty" was just code for immigration.
You of all people have no idea why people voted for Brexit. You are utterly removed from any understanding of normal everyday motivations.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
If a General Election took place at the beginning of 2019, and a party was elected with a majority favouring a Remain referendum, then we'd have to respect that.
I don't see it happening, but we can't ban voters from choosing things we don't like. They are allowed to change their minds.
Hmm. Only if staying in was in their manifesto, I’d suggest.
Surely "only if having a referendum was in their manifesto"?
If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
It is called democracy. Maybe we should just ignore any election result we don't like. Or have an election every time a Government falls behind in the polls. The principles would be exactly the same.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
I do think the line about the ignorance and corrupt practices is the remainer's mangra to try to discredit the referendum. I doubt the vast majority of those voting care too much for that argument
Agreed. I was just reminding TSE. He mentioned, umm, "respect".
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
If a General Election took place at the beginning of 2019, and a party was elected with a majority favouring a Remain referendum, then we'd have to respect that.
I don't see it happening, but we can't ban voters from choosing things we don't like. They are allowed to change their minds.
Hmm. Only if staying in was in their manifesto, I’d suggest.
Surely "only if having a referendum was in their manifesto"?
Or we could listen to the evil genius behind Vote Leave
Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave wrote in The Spectator in January 2017 on "how the Brexit referendum was won"
"Leave won because 1) three big forces [the immigration crisis, the 2008 financial crisis and the euro crisis] created conditions in which the contest was competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND 3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is very likely IN would have won."
"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No.
Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No."
"If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘Turkey/NHS/£350 million’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost."
But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.
A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.
I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
The best negotiating tactic is to be extremely nice, while being very clearly prepared to walk away. We instead went for nasty but unprepared. We got everyone's back up in the EU at the beginning of the process, while doing exactly nothing to be ready for a situation where we left the EU without a deal. We probably shouldn't even have triggered Article 50 until we had agreed replacements for the EU's existing arrangements - but sadly politics came first.
I think the government - and particularly Dr Liam Fox - was also staggered to discover that other (non-EU) countries saw this as an opportunity to get one over the UK. British Airways and Virgin are going to end up losing a ton of transatlantic Heathrow slots as that is the price that is being demanded by the US to get an aviation deal concluded before 1 May next year. Which sucks for those of us have to regularly cross the Atlantic, and who hate flying United or Delta.
Nevertheless, for the reasons articulated by @DavidL below, I think this deal is much better than a No Deal scenario. It respects the referendum result, as far as both leaving the political project that is the EU and ending Free Movement, while also minimising economic disruption.
How does the withdrawal agreement end free movement?
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
If a General Election took place at the beginning of 2019, and a party was elected with a majority favouring a Remain referendum, then we'd have to respect that.
I don't see it happening, but we can't ban voters from choosing things we don't like. They are allowed to change their minds.
Hmm. Only if staying in was in their manifesto, I’d suggest.
Surely "only if having a referendum was in their manifesto"?
Where was the mandate for the AV referendum? Based on the same precedent all that is needed is a deal between the parties.
It turns out that pandering to xenophobia to win a referendum leads to suboptimal outcomes. Who would have guessed that?
During one of the referendum press conferences someone asked Gove whether "the choice for Vote Leave was to lose with a technocratic argument, or win with an ethnic appeal to the English nation".
Oh a question at a press conference- that proves that the minds of the 17.4 million were at one then.
If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
People like Soubry should never have voted to trigger A50, if they could not accept the result of the referendum.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.
I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.
So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
The principal decision that people would want to be taken here is deciding who can come here. For many, "sovereignty" was just code for immigration.
You of all people have no idea why people voted for Brexit. You are utterly removed from any understanding of normal everyday motivations.
There are 17.4 million answers to the question "why did you vote for Brexit?" That is the nub of the problem - everyone has a different view of what Brexit means and so it is impossible to find a way forward which satisfies more than a small minority of voters. As Theresa May is now learning.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
I don't support a second referendum, but your logic there is utterly rotten.
If 75% of the public regularly said they wanted a second referendum, would you still deny it them?
You are clinging on to the fact that any second referendum is, like the first one, unlikely to be conclusive one way or another.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
I don't support a second referendum, but your logic there is utterly rotten.
If 75% of the public regularly said they wanted a second referendum, would you still deny it them? .
That would depend if They vote for a party promising to hold one or not. They might support one but due to other reasons back parties which don't promise one. The public would then in effect deny itself one.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
I don't support a second referendum, but your logic there is utterly rotten.
If 75% of the public regularly said they wanted a second referendum, would you still deny it them?
You are clinging on to the fact that any second referendum is, like the first one, unlikely to be conclusive one way or another.
Not at all.
If a poll indicated that 75% of the population wanted a referendum, politics would come into play. One party would offer one. Or a new party promising one would come into play.
If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
People like Soubry should never have voted to trigger A50, if they could not accept the result of the referendum.
And some did not. More should have if they were this opposed. Not saying thatwpukd be politically easy but if some managed it so could others.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
It is called democracy. Maybe we should just ignore any election result we don't like. Or have an election every time a Government falls behind in the polls. The principles would be exactly the same.
Totally agree - but if in the impasse we might have another referendum is offered it would be legal and I would certainly vote Remain again.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
You haven't answered the question Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from?
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Not refuting opposition to democracy I see. Quelle surprise.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Perpetuating another myth there Barnesian. It is an internet meme which has no basis in fact. There is absolutely no evidence of it even existing before 2000.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
You haven't answered the question Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from?
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
You haven't answered the question Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from?
Generally happens at General Elections
I suppose we should excuse supporters of parties that have never won a majority from understanding how the process works
But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.
A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.
I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
The best negotiating tactic is to be extremely nice, while being very clearly prepared to walk away. We instead went for nasty but unprepared. We got everyone's back up in the EU at the beginning of the process, while doing exactly nothing to be ready for a situation where we left the EU without a deal. We probably shouldn't even have triggered Article 50 until we had agreed replacements for the EU's existing arrangements - but sadly politics came first.
I think the government - and particularly Dr Liam Fox - was also staggered to discover that other (non-EU) countries saw this as an opportunity to get one over the UK. British Airways and Virgin are going to end up losing a ton of transatlantic Heathrow slots as that is the price that is being demanded by the US to get an aviation deal concluded before 1 May next year. Which sucks for those of us have to regularly cross the Atlantic, and who hate flying United or Delta.
Nevertheless, for the reasons articulated by @DavidL below, I think this deal is much better than a No Deal scenario. It respects the referendum result, as far as both leaving the political project that is the EU and ending Free Movement, while also minimising economic disruption.
How does the withdrawal agreement end free movement?
It removes us from the single market and allows us to set our own migration policy. The Political Document includes an aspiration to visa free travel but that is not part of the WA.
If Anna votes down the deal then she too is part of the problem, I hope she realises this.
Part of Mays problem is people are planning to vote it down while claiming it's not their fault they voted it down. Which is not quite the same thing as voting it down for good reasons, if which there are some.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
People like Soubry should never have voted to trigger A50, if they could not accept the result of the referendum.
And some did not. More should have if they were this opposed. Not saying thatwpukd be politically easy but if some managed it so could others.
They should have followed the example of Kenneth Clarke, and voted against the legislation.
Voting in favour of it, while agitating for a new referendum, is a bit despicable.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
He almost certainly never said that.
After all, he's unlikely to have spent five minutes talking to the average voter.
There are no new circumstances that would justify a second referendum.
The only purpose of a second referendum (if it occurs) is to dig the Commons out of the hole it dug for itself.
Your second sentence refutes your first.
Headbanging Leavers have no right to drive the rest of us off a cliff without a further mandate. The only mandate they sought was to spunk money on the NHS and to be unpleasant to foreigners. They need more before they can follow through on their mad project.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
No. You need to enact a decision before you ask people again.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from? It seems to have been conjured up out of nowhere.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
Poltics is not marriage or business.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
You haven't answered the question Where does this "principle" that "you need to enact a decision before you ask people again" come from?
Look you are embarrassing yourself with these anti-democratic arguments. They show a disdain for the voters which you should be ashamed of. If Parliament , which is sovereign opts for a second referendum that would be legitimate but not on the basis that you lack any respect for the choices of your fellow citizens.
There are no new circumstances that would justify a second referendum.
The only purpose of a second referendum (if it occurs) is to dig the Commons out of the hole it dug for itself.
Your second sentence refutes your first.
Headbanging Leavers have no right to drive the rest of us off a cliff without a further mandate. The only mandate they sought was to spunk money on the NHS and to be unpleasant to foreigners. They need more before they can follow through on their mad project.
If so, the Commons can revoke A50, and request agreement from the EU.
There are no new circumstances that would justify a second referendum.
The only purpose of a second referendum (if it occurs) is to dig the Commons out of the hole it dug for itself.
I agree - but we are where we are and if the deal falls it will be because of the DUP and the right wing of the Tory party primarily. A referendum would be legitimate and I would shed no tears if the vote was to stay in the EU.
Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
Contempt for democracy is such an ugly look.
I take it you are in favour of an informed referendum on the actual deal. That's democracy in action, - not the perverse imitation of 23 June 2016.
But without the first we'd never have a deal to put to people in the first place.
I’ve had the democracy discussion with @Barnesian several times. We always come back to variations on the theme of the electorate don’t know what’s good for ‘em. Not a good look for those involved in politics since the 19th century.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Perpetuating another myth there Barnesian. It is an internet meme which has no basis in fact. There is absolutely no evidence of it even existing before 2000.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Barnesian
Right. I'm off to the pub with neighbours at 5:30pm. I'm going to try my democracy sucks shtick on them. I've rehearsed my arguments here and am forewarned with the counter arguments.
I don’t actively support a second referendum, but I can’t see how else there can be any clarity on where to go from here. So what is the solution? There is no mandate from the country for no deal, there seems to be no mandate in Parliament for May’s deal, there’s no mandate anywhere for a referendum or to Remain. We need a solution.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?
There are no new circumstances that would justify a second referendum.
The only purpose of a second referendum (if it occurs) is to dig the Commons out of the hole it dug for itself.
Your second sentence refutes your first.
Headbanging Leavers have no right to drive the rest of us off a cliff without a further mandate. The only mandate they sought was to spunk money on the NHS and to be unpleasant to foreigners. They need more before they can follow through on their mad project.
If so, the Commons can revoke A50.
It's very doubtful that they can in theory and they also have no mandate to do that either.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyd-5iEvrE
OGH will disagree no doubt.
Dominic Cummings, Campaign Director of Vote Leave wrote in The Spectator in January 2017 on "how the Brexit referendum was won"
"Leave won because 1) three big forces [the immigration crisis, the 2008 financial crisis and the euro crisis] created conditions in which the contest was competitive, AND 2) Vote Leave exploited the situation imperfectly but effectively, AND 3) Cameron/Osborne made big mistakes. If just one of these had been different, it is very likely IN would have won."
"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No.
Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No."
"If Boris, Gove, and Gisela had not supported us and picked up the baseball bat marked ‘Turkey/NHS/£350 million’ with five weeks to go, then 650,000 votes might have been lost."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexit-referendum-won/
I think the government - and particularly Dr Liam Fox - was also staggered to discover that other (non-EU) countries saw this as an opportunity to get one over the UK. British Airways and Virgin are going to end up losing a ton of transatlantic Heathrow slots as that is the price that is being demanded by the US to get an aviation deal concluded before 1 May next year. Which sucks for those of us have to regularly cross the Atlantic, and who hate flying United or Delta.
Nevertheless, for the reasons articulated by @DavidL below, I think this deal is much better than a No Deal scenario. It respects the referendum result, as far as both leaving the political project that is the EU and ending Free Movement, while also minimising economic disruption.
Excellent news
I back one but mostly on the grounds that it seems likely Mps will refuse to positively make a decision one way or another.
When we’ve left, I have no objection to a rejoin referendum in, say, 45 years time.
https://twitter.com/chrishanretty/status/1066010948597678081
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mays-brexit-deal-the-legal-verdict/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-46321715/thieves-knocked-off-mopeds-by-police-in-london
I don't see it happening, but we can't ban voters from choosing things we don't like. They are allowed to change their minds.
In real life, in business or personally, one often makes a joint decision (to acquire a company or buy a house) but as more information emerges, and before you enact the decision, you change your mind.
"I know we agreed to acquire this company but having looked at the books it's crap. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
"Look dear - I know we agreed to buy this house but the survey is awful. Oh we've got to buy it first before we can change our mind."
After the last general Election , without the DUP agreement, we would have had another election...
This government have had 2 years to secure a deal, and they have manifestly failed.
Another vote would be entirely constitutional, and many would argue imperative at this point.
It's also why, I suspect, plenty of Tories argued not to bring it to parliament at all, to avoid any responsibility, good or bad, for voting it down.
But Soubry at least is transparent that she is prepared to risk it all in pursuit of a goal of remain, so any arguments are in context to justifying that.
You disagree with the decision. Fine. But you lost. Acceptance of that is the grown up thing to do.
It's up to the Commons to decide whether the want it, and if not, what they want in its place.
Winston Churchill
If 75% of the public regularly said they wanted a second referendum, would you still deny it them?
You are clinging on to the fact that any second referendum is, like the first one, unlikely to be conclusive one way or another.
It's an important distinction even if the latter is still a big failure.
If a poll indicated that 75% of the population wanted a referendum, politics would come into play. One party would offer one. Or a new party promising one would come into play.
This is the beauty of democracy.
There are no new circumstances that would justify a second referendum.
The only purpose of a second referendum (if it occurs) is to dig the Commons out of the hole it dug for itself.
"End of freedom of movement, but both sides will ‘aim to provide’ visa-free travel.
UK not able to discriminate between member states.
Arrangements on temporary entry for business.
Specific schemes covering research, study, training and youth exchanges, as well as social security coordination to be negotiated."
A great deal of the problems with this debate is that people confuse the transition period with what follows it.
The deal is about secure as the job of Brexit secretary...
Voting in favour of it, while agitating for a new referendum, is a bit despicable.
Headbanging Leavers have no right to drive the rest of us off a cliff without a further mandate. The only mandate they sought was to spunk money on the NHS and to be unpleasant to foreigners. They need more before they can follow through on their mad project.
Barnesian
Right. I'm off to the pub with neighbours at 5:30pm. I'm going to try my democracy sucks shtick on them. I've rehearsed my arguments here and am forewarned with the counter arguments.
The sensible, grown-up way out would be for both sides to tear up Article 50 and begin a proper FTA negotiation while the UK remained inside the EU. That would enable proper No Deal planning and give much needed time and space. Obviously, though, that won’t happen. So what will?