“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
While I agree this is a nightmare for Ireland, wasn't it Varadkar who insisted on the backstop?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
Not if May's Deal won a second Leave vote
It does surprise me how many think TM's deal is dead when it is becoming increasingly likely it is the safest way out of this mess.
I would say it is in 'resus' at present
As Nadine Dorries and Mogg are starting to realise the alternative to May's Deal might not be No Deal but permanent Customs Union or even a Deal v Remain referendum now Remain and soft Brexit MPs are flexing their muscles
Something they should very easily have been able to work out a long time ago.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
It is very dire. That is why nobody with an ounce of sense wants a WTO Brexit. Read Sir Ivan Rogers's latest speech. It is clear that No-Deal Brexit is back to the Stone Age compared to what we have now, and unlike the ERG and other swivel-eyed loons, he actually knows what he is talking about.
The EU and most of the Commons (leavers and remainers) seem to disagree with you about how dire no deal would be, they believe it will not be so bad as to be worth compromising for. The Irish seem pretty sanguine about that too.
If there is one thing I am completely sick of it is MPs and the EU treating us all like idiots when their words demonstrate they may not prefer no deal, but they really do not mind it, yet they spew the same dishonesty words about fearing it. It's an insult every time they do that, and incredibly shameless to boot.
Nobody knows how bad it will be, but there is a conspicuous shortage of credible voices indicating that it's actually going to be good.
So, it's not going to be....like, terrible? Thanks.
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
While I agree this is a nightmare for Ireland, wasn't it Varadkar who insisted on the backstop?
No, the negotiating guidelines that made guaranteeing the avoidance of a hard border one of the divorce conditions were set before he was in charge.
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
You seem to regard the fact something is theoretically possible as meaning it has equal potentiality with any other options. Ireland rejected the last Polish suggestion and have to u-turn completely to accept something if they are being worked on behind the scenes, which politically would be very tough to do. Fundamentally the problem with the idea is Ireland has outright stated it would rather no deal than bend, not least because it doesn't seem to think it will face the consequences everyone believes they will. The EU is going to throw Ireland under the bus to avoid something they too have been quite happy to push toward, no deal, because they think we'll crack before they do? It's not very credible is it?
They probably wouldn't need to relocate if we had been able to form free trade links in Asia rather than having been stuck in the backwards looking EU for the past 40 years.
Would this be the same EU that has trade deals with Japan and South Korea?
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
While I agree this is a nightmare for Ireland, wasn't it Varadkar who insisted on the backstop?
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
It is very dire. That is why nobody with an ounce of sense wants a WTO Brexit. Read Sir Ivan Rogers's latest speech. It is clear that No-Deal Brexit is back to the Stone Age compared to what we have now, and unlike the ERG and other swivel-eyed loons, he actually knows what he is talking about.
The EU and most of the Commons (leavers and remainers) seem to disagree with you about how dire no deal would be, they believe it will not be so bad as to be worth compromising for. The Irish seem pretty sanguine about that too.
If there is one thing I am completely sick of it is MPs and the EU treating us all like idiots when their words demonstrate they may not prefer no deal, but they really do not mind it, yet they spew the same dishonesty words about fearing it. It's an insult every time they do that, and incredibly shameless to boot.
Nobody knows how bad it will be, but there is a conspicuous shortage of credible voices indicating that it's actually going to be good.
So, it's not going to be....like, terrible? Thanks.
Sorry Peter. It looks like the UK needs to WTO to finally prove what a bunch of numpties we have around here.
So, either you and I will be in the Numpty brigade with the rest of the Remainers, or the Leavers and their cheerleaders will.
But at least we will finally have an answer.
At least it is quicker than building a computer called Deep Thought and giving it 7.5 million years to think about it....
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
It is very dire. That is why nobody with an ounce of sense wants a WTO Brexit. Read Sir Ivan Rogers's latest speech. It is clear that No-Deal Brexit is back to the Stone Age compared to what we have now, and unlike the ERG and other swivel-eyed loons, he actually knows what he is talking about.
The EU and most of the Commons (leavers and remainers) seem to disagree with you about how dire no deal would be, they believe it will not be so bad as to be worth compromising for. The Irish seem pretty sanguine about that too.
If there is one thing I am completely sick of it is MPs and the EU treating us all like idiots when their words demonstrate they may not prefer no deal, but they really do not mind it, yet they spew the same dishonesty words about fearing it. It's an insult every time they do that, and incredibly shameless to boot.
Nobody knows how bad it will be, but there is a conspicuous shortage of credible voices indicating that it's actually going to be good.
So, it's not going to be....like, terrible? Thanks.
I've not said it was going to be good in the slightest, I think it will be very bad and must be avoided. I think MPs and the EU do not share my view of things, because their actions show very clearly they regard no deal as perfectly acceptable to risk. Sure, not as many are outright seeking it, but their actions show they would be perfectly content if it happened. Think of all those they could blame, for a start.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
Forgive me if you think by my posting of my musings about Sky and Faisal Islam that I want a no deal brexit. Far from it, TM deal or amended deal and if not remain are my positions on this mess
The point I was trying to make is that Faisal Islam's executive class project fear just adds to the anger of the growing number of 'no dealers' in the country, outside of London
BigG , no was aware of your positions, which I agree with. I posted because of the report from Wales, as I know you live there. Was struck by the dire effect of no deal . For some reason for the first time it seemed very real. The report from Hollyhead was stark.
They probably wouldn't need to relocate if we had been able to form free trade links in Asia rather than having been stuck in the backwards looking EU for the past 40 years.
Would this be the same EU that has trade deals with Japan and South Korea?
Back when James Goldsmith was the most prominent Eurosceptic, he used to criticise Brussels for promoting a global free trade agenda and thought we should have regional protectionism instead of allowing countries like China to integrate into the global economy.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
That's one of the weakest attempts to explain away the result of the referendum out there.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
That's one of the weakest attempts to explain away the result of the referendum out there.
It's true though that that's how Cameron positioned it. To him the referendum was merely leverage in negotiations.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Good grief, you are one for putting words in people's mouths! I didn't write that. I didn't even think that.
Yes, of course the first referendum was legitimate, but we are two and a half years on. Much has happened. Much has been learned. It would be perfectly reasonable to ask again - 'You sure, folks, now you know all this and have had the intervening period to reflect?'
If we weren't stuck in a log-jam, it wouldn't be necessary or appropriate, but we are - so it's a way out. It's not entirely satisfactory, I know, but what is? Parliament won't pass The Deal, so there are only three options, as I wrote.
You said a second Leave vote would mean "the ensuing departure from the EU would have unquestionable legitimacy", which does imply you think it doesn't have legitimacy from the first referendum alone.
And you say "now we know all this", but we don't know anything that we didn't know at the time of the first referendum. The only Remain arguments still are dire predictions about what Brexit will mean. They're predictions that I (largely) believe, but for the people who didn't, why would the same predictions that weren't enough to convince them last time be enough this time?
We do know that we cannot have all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides, that we do not hold all the negotiating cards and that a deal will not be the easiest to do in history.
I think it's naive to think the average Leave voter now "knows" all this.
If there's a second referendum with No Deal on the ballot, I guarantee the likes of Boris will be saying things like "it won't really be No Deal, the EU will offer us a deal at the last minute if we really looked like we were going to walk, they need us more than we need them, we just haven't gone in tough enough yet".
It would be all be bullshit of course, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be believed. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance with some of the "People's Vote" crew where they believe the first referendum was only won with bullshit, yet a similar brand of bullshit somehow wouldn't be effective the second time.
I think that makes the case for a referendum very well. Let Johnson & co say what they want about a No Deal. Then let them own all the consequences of that if they are believed.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
While I agree this is a nightmare for Ireland, wasn't it Varadkar who insisted on the backstop?
No, the negotiating guidelines that made guaranteeing the avoidance of a hard border one of the divorce conditions were set before he was in charge.
The Common Travel Area on the island of Ireland has been in existence since the 1920’s so stopping freedom of movement which means we exit the SM is not a cause for a hard border. On the exit from CU, the EU refusing to negotiate trade is at least as responsible for the Hard Border as May’s commitment to negotiating trade deals outside the EU.
Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?
Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?
I was a student in Liverpool during the power cuts in the early 70s. One day I met a fellow student, whom I knew to be fairly militant atheist, coming out of the Catholic Cathedral which was opposite the Students Union. When I asked him what he'd been up to, he said the Cathedral was a really good source of candles.
So there you are. Top tip for the coming blackouts - move near a RC Church.
By chance I found a load of candles at the bottom of a drawer just yesterday. So in one respect at least I am prepared for no deal. Just the food, bottled water and shotgun to go....
Make sure you get food that can be cooked by a candle, of course.
Camping stove, pasta and tinned tomatoes all in the garage, next to the tinned rice pudding.
Rice pudding is probably my least favourite food in the whole world !
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
While I agree this is a nightmare for Ireland, wasn't it Varadkar who insisted on the backstop?
No, the negotiating guidelines that made guaranteeing the avoidance of a hard border one of the divorce conditions were set before he was in charge.
The Common Travel Area on the island of Ireland has been in existence since the 1920’s so stopping freedom of movement which means we exit the SM is not a cause for a hard border. On the exit from CU, the EU refusing to negotiate trade is at least as responsible for the Hard Border as May’s commitment to negotiating trade deals outside the EU.
That's clearly false. Our position of leaving the CU and SM means a political solution for Northern Ireland is unavoidable.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
Forgive me if you think by my posting of my musings about Sky and Faisal Islam that I want a no deal brexit. Far from it, TM deal or amended deal and if not remain are my positions on this mess
The point I was trying to make is that Faisal Islam's executive class project fear just adds to the anger of the growing number of 'no dealers' in the country, outside of London
BigG , no was aware of your positions, which I agree with. I posted because of the report from Wales, as I know you live there. Was struck by the dire effect of no deal . For some reason for the first time it seemed very real. The report from Hollyhead was stark.
I am pleased I have clarified my position to you as I accept my comments could have been a complaint from a brexiteer, the views of which I totally reject
As far as Holyhead and Anglesey are concerned this has been a bitter week over the suspension of the 16 billion Wylfa nuclear power station by Hitachi resulting in devastation for so many high skill jobs in North Wales. If follows the absolute fears for Holyhead over disruption to Irish freight traffic in a no deal case.
There were even some posters who delight at the idea the Irish freight HGV's would be kept of our roads notwithstanding the Irish freight 85% through the UK, and 60% remain here
Another poster couldn't understand why passengers to Ireland didn't fly there but it is a bit difficult to get a few more seats on an aircraft to accommodate your car, let alone if you have a caravan as well
The lack of knowledge in this whole debate is frightening and no more so than that demonstrated by the brexiteers who sadly belong to my party which I increasingly do not recognise
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Elimination of politicians’ ability to blame “Europe” for their own failures
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
The EU have dropped a great big problem into the brexit negotiations and Ireland are in a panic and will be constantly challenged over their solution, as the declaration by the EU was a public statement to the world's press and unequivocal
Maybe Poland and others are working behind the scenes with the EU to move Ireland towards a compromise.
Conspiracy theory yes, possible yes, who knows yes
While I agree this is a nightmare for Ireland, wasn't it Varadkar who insisted on the backstop?
No, the negotiating guidelines that made guaranteeing the avoidance of a hard border one of the divorce conditions were set before he was in charge.
The Common Travel Area on the island of Ireland has been in existence since the 1920’s so stopping freedom of movement which means we exit the SM is not a cause for a hard border. On the exit from CU, the EU refusing to negotiate trade is at least as responsible for the Hard Border as May’s commitment to negotiating trade deals outside the EU.
That's clearly false. Our position of leaving the CU and SM means a political solution for Northern Ireland is unavoidable.
Think I have a solution to the Brexit dilemma: 2nd referendum, which remain will win. Then, since we have established the principle that referendums are to be ignored, we go ahead and leave anyway.
OK, it doesn't solve much, but Grayling and Adonis would explode, so well worth it.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Elimination of politicians’ ability to blame “Europe” for their own failures
No, that will still be there: "Europe are not giving us a fair deal" etc.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
“Even in no deal there will not be a return to the border”
Great. Let’s have some constructive discussions
Isn't the whole point of the "backstop" to avoid a border. If you can avoid a border in the event of no deal, then what is the purpose of the backstop?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Elimination of politicians’ ability to blame “Europe” for their own failures
Europe will always have a large influence on us, due to proximity and size, so some people will still use Europe as a catch-all excuse I fear.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
By the way, is there any earthly reason why parliament is spending another week doing sweet F. All about Brexit, rather than cracking on with the votes following May's latest wibble?
What was the point of demanding a statement within 3 days?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that. I certainly did not vote in favour of a reckless, damaging fall over the cliff edge, which is what May has brought us to. I was confident that Remain would win comfortably.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Because we love you
Now I am lost for words.
Which is something of a disadvantage on a web forum.
PS I may not be quite as fulsome as Big_G but I do love your posts (mostly).
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
That's one of the weakest attempts to explain away the result of the referendum out there.
It's true though that that's how Cameron positioned it. To him the referendum was merely leverage in negotiations.
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Nine quarters of expansion, three quarters of a million extra jobs, 2% higher productivity, more affordable houses without neggy eggy, Boeing factory, Chanel HQ and Starbucks HQ coming to the UK, net FDI up 10%.
If you want the soundbite, here it is, and it's been the same through UK accession and joining the ERM and leaving it and Maastricht and the Euro and Greece: forecasts voted remain, realities vote leave.
That's the story so far, and I imagine the future contains, as an example, trade deals struck for the nation's comparative advantage, not the union's. I'm sure you're not a fan of tariffs, and you're a fan of sustainable transport, and so you'll be a bit peeved to hear the Commission put a 61% tariff on electric bikes from the PRC this week. Justified by the fact that there's no arbing in the Chinese aluminium market, apparently.
And you reject too lightly the value of a state being able to govern itself. The public's ability to shape and determine policy, and hold to account the executive, is a critical part of the nation's social contract.
By the way, is there any earthly reason why parliament is spending another week doing sweet F. All about Brexit, rather than cracking on with the votes following May's latest wibble?
What was the point of demanding a statement within 3 days?
It's a cunning plan slowly coming to fruition.
The cracks are opening up in the EU's united front now.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
Forgive me if you think by my posting of my musings about Sky and Faisal Islam that I want a no deal brexit. Far from it, TM deal or amended deal and if not remain are my positions on this mess
The point I was trying to make is that Faisal Islam's executive class project fear just adds to the anger of the growing number of 'no dealers' in the country, outside of London
BigG , no was aware of your positions, which I agree with. I posted because of the report from Wales, as I know you live there. Was struck by the dire effect of no deal . For some reason for the first time it seemed very real. The report from Hollyhead was stark.
I am pleased I have clarified my position to you as I accept my comments could have been a complaint from a brexiteer, the views of which I totally reject
As far as Holyhead and Anglesey are concerned this has been a bitter week over the suspension of the 16 billion Wylfa nuclear power station by Hitachi resulting in devastation for so many high skill jobs in North Wales. If follows the absolute fears for Holyhead over disruption to Irish freight traffic in a no deal case.
There were even some posters who delight at the idea the Irish freight HGV's would be kept of our roads notwithstanding the Irish freight 85% through the UK, and 60% remain here
Another poster couldn't understand why passengers to Ireland didn't fly there but it is a bit difficult to get a few more seats on an aircraft to accommodate your car, let alone if you have a caravan as well
The lack of knowledge in this whole debate is frightening and no more so than that demonstrated by the brexiteers who sadly belong to my party which I increasingly do not recognise
As I posted before, the weekend before last I went to Dublin and back via the Holyhead ferry; in my case because I took the dog along for the ride. At this time of year the traffic on the ferries (there are two companies on the route and the ships follow each other across back and forth) was almost all lorries and there was only a sprinkling of train/foot passengers such as myself. I can't see it would be economic to maintain the service at current levels out of the holiday season if the lorry traffic disappeared. Which would be bad news for the people employed on the ships and in the ports at either end.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
Why do you reject what the executive has come up with, baring in mind that parliament voted to ensure they couldn't do anything that would imply border infrastructure or checks in Ireland?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
If the Govt, can overturn the Brexit verdict of the voters, then Sturgeon can invite the Govt. to implement Scottish Independence. Hey, who need worry about a referendum result that goes against you?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Elimination of politicians’ ability to blame “Europe” for their own failures
Europe will always have a large influence on us, due to proximity and size, so some people will still use Europe as a catch-all excuse I fear.
They may use it as an excuse, but they would have to propose real world solutions since the previous magic bullet solution (ie. leave the EU) will no longer be available.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Because we love you
Now I am lost for words.
I just wanted to be kind - we all need kindness
In all my trips to New Zealand and Canada the one thing that stood out is how many people just want a 'hug'
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
But what's the point of a post like that?
We aren't the people you need to persuade, and simply stating it as fact isn't the least persuasive in any case.
Go ahead and predict what you think will happen, and why, by all means. But simply telling us it shouldn't happen when you don't have any influence over the decision and we can all see a significant number of people and politicians pushing for a deal v Remain vote is wasting your time. And ours.
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Elimination of politicians’ ability to blame “Europe” for their own failures
Europe will always have a large influence on us, due to proximity and size, so some people will still use Europe as a catch-all excuse I fear.
They may use it as an excuse, but they would have to propose real world solutions since the previous magic bullet solution (ie. leave the EU) will no longer be available.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
Fair comment - also honoured.
There is a fairly obvious difference. The result of all previous referendums re-affirmed the status quo. There are people who argue that a second referendum would justify the SNP securing a second referendum in Scotland. The counter argument is that it would ensure that any referendum future vote for independence would not be final.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
Fair comment - also honoured.
There is a fairly obvious difference. The result of all previous referendums re-affirmed the status quo.
In the case of the Welsh Assembly, Theresa May felt at liberty to vote against implementing the result of a referendum.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
Forgive me if you think by my posting of my musings about Sky and Faisal Islam that I want a no deal brexit. Far from it, TM deal or amended deal and if not remain are my positions on this mess
The point I was trying to make is that Faisal Islam's executive class project fear just adds to the anger of the growing number of 'no dealers' in the country, outside of London
BigG , no was aware of your positions, which I agree with. I posted because of the report from Wales, as I know you live there. Was struck by the dire effect of no deal . For some reason for the first time it seemed very real. The report from Hollyhead was stark.
I am pleased I have clarified my position to you as I accept my comments could have been a complaint from a brexiteer, the views of which I totally reject
As far as Holyhead and Anglesey are concerned this has been a bitter week over the suspension of the 16 billion Wylfa nuclear power station by Hitachi resulting in devastation for so many high skill jobs in North Wales. If follows the absolute fears for Holyhead over disruption to Irish freight traffic in a no deal case.
There were even some posters who delight at the idea the Irish freight HGV's would be kept of our roads notwithstanding the Irish freight 85% through the UK, and 60% remain here
Another poster couldn't understand why passengers to Ireland didn't fly there but it is a bit difficult to get a few more seats on an aircraft to accommodate your car, let alone if you have a caravan as well
The lack of knowledge in this whole debate is frightening and no more so than that demonstrated by the brexiteers who sadly belong to my party which I increasingly do not recognise
As I posted before, the weekend before last I went to Dublin and back via the Holyhead ferry; in my case because I took the dog along for the ride. At this time of year the traffic on the ferries (there are two companies on the route and the ships follow each other across back and forth) was almost all lorries and there was only a sprinkling of train/foot passengers such as myself. I can't see it would be economic to maintain the service at current levels out of the holiday season if the lorry traffic disappeared. Which would be bad news for the people employed on the ships and in the ports at either end.
Yes absolutely correct and of course in the summer cars, sometimes with caravans cross, from both countries and is great for tourism
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
Fair comment - also honoured.
There is a fairly obvious difference. The result of all previous referendums re-affirmed the status quo.
In the case of the Welsh Assembly, Theresa May felt at liberty to vote against implementing the result of a referendum.
Really? It was a post-legislative referendum, wasn't it? ie. the legislation had been past pending the approval of the people. It couldn't be stopped after the vote had happened.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
It's the voting for it that forces the resignations
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Elimination of politicians’ ability to blame “Europe” for their own failures
Europe will always have a large influence on us, due to proximity and size, so some people will still use Europe as a catch-all excuse I fear.
Come on, don't you all just feel a little tinge of excitement about where Brexit is heading? Politics in this country is a load of stagnated old wank, and sometimes, you just have to roll the dice.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Grieve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be deadlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
It seems realistic I just wonder about the chances of some Conservative MPs being driven to insanity at some point...
Edit: That being to do stuff they wouldn't previously consider like bringing down the government rather than having crazy views.
If you were wondering why almost all of the OECD, BoE and HMT predictions about the post-referendum economy were wrong, here's a paper by some tab dons who have had a look at the institutions' assumptions and workings-out.
tldr; they probably weren't even trying to get it right. Each of the two dozen or so schoolboy macroeconomic assumption fails was in the direction of pessimism about leaving the EU, and HMT wouldn't even release its sums until pulled up in Parliament about it.
Like David Cameron, I'm mildly surprised that the economic effect of the referendum vote hasn't been more severe. We have however seen a hefty devaluation of sterling, and a knock to our credit rating. There have also been a number of business departures which may or may not have been wholly or in part due to the referendum result. We haven't seen much coming in the other direction.
Is that enough damage for you, or do we have to see people dying in the street? Personally I don't think it will get that bad, but then I cannot imagine how it actually gets better.
Come on, I need cheering up. Tell me the upsides - I mean real, practical stuff, no abstactions please. (Sorry but if one more person talks to me about 'Sovereignity' they may get a punch.)
Sure, no problem.
Increased choice in the cross channel ferry market with regular sailings from Ramsgate.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it will be whipped against by the Govt; ministers voting against the Govt resign by convention.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it is an attempt to stop no deal that splits the cabinet
And I would say no deal is focussing minds in the EU, Poland and causing real problems for Ireland, for the first time
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
Why do you reject what the executive has come up with, baring in mind that parliament voted to ensure they couldn't do anything that would imply border infrastructure or checks in Ireland?
The deal’s not great, but if I had a vote then I’d grudgingly vote for it.
First gig of the year tonight for me. At Rock City in Nottingham to watch Nathaniel Rateliffe and the Night Sweats. A welcome break from politics... except I am posting this on PB. I must really like you lot.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it will be whipped against by the Govt; ministers voting against the Govt resign by convention.
That makes sense but it implies resignations will occur even if the Cooper amendment doesn't succeed. It only needs to be selected by the Speaker for a vote (which is presumably a given).
Come on, don't you all just feel a little tinge of excitement about where Brexit is heading? Politics in this country is a load of stagnated old wank, and sometimes, you just have to roll the dice.
I voted remain just. However it took a major struggle not to vote leave, to give Cameron what he deserved for dividing the country and my family over the referendum. Many in my work office at the time felt the same. It was purely about how he managed the Conservative party and nothing to do with national interest.He is a diminished figure because of his gamble.
First gig of the year tonight for me. At Rock City in Nottingham to watch Nathaniel Rateliffe and the Night Sweats. A welcome break from politics... except I am posting this on PB. I must really like you lot.
Rock City is a great venue, and you get a surprising number of big acts there. Jimmy Eat World tomorrow for me!
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
But what's the point of a post like that?
We aren't the people you need to persuade, and simply stating it as fact isn't the least persuasive in any case.
Go ahead and predict what you think will happen, and why, by all means. But simply telling us it shouldn't happen when you don't have any influence over the decision and we can all see a significant number of people and politicians pushing for a deal v Remain vote is wasting your time. And ours.
It’s a classical rhetorical argument in written format if you must know.
But it was a discussion about the merits of a second referendum involving Remain as one option not a prediction of the future
You may have seen that some people on this board have such discussions?
Come on, don't you all just feel a little tinge of excitement about where Brexit is heading? Politics in this country is a load of stagnated old wank, and sometimes, you just have to roll the dice.
If I wanted excitement I'd take up hand gliding. And I doubt the recession-hit masses will find much of it during the fortnightly trudge to sign on either.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
Come on, don't you all just feel a little tinge of excitement about where Brexit is heading? Politics in this country is a load of stagnated old wank, and sometimes, you just have to roll the dice.
If I wanted excitement I'd take up hand gliding. And I doubt the recession-hit masses will find much of it during the fortnightly trudge to sign on either.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it will be whipped against by the Govt; ministers voting against the Govt resign by convention.
That makes sense but it implies resignations will occur even if the Cooper amendment doesn't succeed. It only needs to be selected by the Speaker for a vote (which is presumably a given).
Yep. I think that’s the the case.
I think if either Cooper or Grieve amendments succeed (and I’m not entirely sure they will), then May has to call a GE.
Come on, don't you all just feel a little tinge of excitement about where Brexit is heading? Politics in this country is a load of stagnated old wank, and sometimes, you just have to roll the dice.
If I wanted excitement I'd take up hand gliding. And I doubt the recession-hit masses will find much of it during the fortnightly trudge to sign on either.
Cheer up, fella, we get recessions and depressions every 10 years or so anyway, at least this one'll be of our own making!
There seems to have been very little discussion of the unholy mess that is the EU. It has been an uncalled busted flush for years now. At the risk of mixing metaphors, we need to take a lesson from the rats and just leave and be thankful that we can hardly do worse than we would have done by sticking with the sinking ship.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it will be whipped against by the Govt; ministers voting against the Govt resign by convention.
That makes sense but it implies resignations will occur even if the Cooper amendment doesn't succeed. It only needs to be selected by the Speaker for a vote (which is presumably a given).
Convention says you resign before voting against the whip, not after.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
Fair comment - also honoured.
There is a fairly obvious difference. The result of all previous referendums re-affirmed the status quo. There are people who argue that a second referendum would justify the SNP securing a second referendum in Scotland. The counter argument is that it would ensure that any referendum future vote for independence would not be final.
Hard to see a referendum taking place at all if there was no question or perceived desire about changing the status quo. As someone who values the Union and doesn’t want to see it broken up, I’d find it hard to justify not giving Scotland its independence if a subsequent referendum voted Yes.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it will be whipped against by the Govt; ministers voting against the Govt resign by convention.
That makes sense but it implies resignations will occur even if the Cooper amendment doesn't succeed. It only needs to be selected by the Speaker for a vote (which is presumably a given).
Yep. I think that’s the the case.
I think if either Cooper or Grieve amendments succeed (and I’m not entirely sure they will), then May has to call a GE.
Interesting view. Time will tell I guess - I think it's probable that at least one of those two will pass.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
Electorate: I want you to do this
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it will be whipped against by the Govt; ministers voting against the Govt resign by convention.
That makes sense but it implies resignations will occur even if the Cooper amendment doesn't succeed. It only needs to be selected by the Speaker for a vote (which is presumably a given).
Convention says you resign before voting against the whip, not after.
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short. 2. Labour's proposals are falling short. 3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop? 4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy. 5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
If the Cooper amendment succeeds in achieving multiple ministerial resignations, its impact on the minutiae of Brexit is immaterial.
Help me here, why would the Cooper amendment cause multiple ministeral resignations?
Because it will be whipped against by the Govt; ministers voting against the Govt resign by convention.
That makes sense but it implies resignations will occur even if the Cooper amendment doesn't succeed. It only needs to be selected by the Speaker for a vote (which is presumably a given).
Convention says you resign before voting against the whip, not after.
By the way, is there any earthly reason why parliament is spending another week doing sweet F. All about Brexit, rather than cracking on with the votes following May's latest wibble?
What was the point of demanding a statement within 3 days?
Parliamentary chicanery and theatrics. Gov and opposition (including the Griever opposition) are doing it to make it look like they are doing things.
I have no idea why there need to be such delays. If the gov was achieving things in talks with other parties or the EU that'd justify it, but they are not even really trying the former, and they've already tried the latter so know it is pointless on the specific point in question.
Come on, don't you all just feel a little tinge of excitement about where Brexit is heading? Politics in this country is a load of stagnated old wank, and sometimes, you just have to roll the dice.
If I wanted excitement I'd take up hand gliding. And I doubt the recession-hit masses will find much of it during the fortnightly trudge to sign on either.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
Electorate: I want you to do this
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
Fair comment - also honoured.
There is a fairly obvious difference. The result of all previous referendums re-affirmed the status quo. There are people who argue that a second referendum would justify the SNP securing a second referendum in Scotland. The counter argument is that it would ensure that any referendum future vote for independence would not be final.
Hard to see a referendum taking place at all if there was no question or perceived desire about changing the status quo. As someone who values the Union and doesn’t want to see it broken up, I’d find it hard to justify not giving Scotland its independence if a subsequent referendum voted Yes.
Of course you would, you are arguing against another referendum on remaining in the EU for the same reasons. I'm just saying that if the campaign to have another referendum on the EU succeeded, the consequence would be that any future yes vote on Scottish Independence would potentially face the same outcome if the promises made during the vote (eg "keep the pound") had to be abandoned in the light of opposition from the UK government.
Comments
So, it's not going to be....like, terrible? Thanks.
So, either you and I will be in the Numpty brigade with the rest of the Remainers, or the Leavers and their cheerleaders will.
But at least we will finally have an answer.
At least it is quicker than building a computer called Deep Thought and giving it 7.5 million years to think about it....
I posted because of the report from Wales, as I know you live there.
Was struck by the dire effect of no deal .
For some reason for the first time it seemed very real.
The report from Hollyhead was stark.
Varadkar declares that in the circumstances of a no deal a bi-lateral deal would be needed between the UK and Ireland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2015-32575443/election-2015-david-cameron-interview-in-full
The Common Travel Area on the island of Ireland has been in existence since the 1920’s so stopping freedom of movement which means we exit the SM is not a cause for a hard border. On the exit from CU, the EU refusing to negotiate trade is at least as responsible for the Hard Border as May’s commitment to negotiating trade deals outside the EU.
Say 'Go!'
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/22/oecd-chief-says-wto-brexit-will-seamless-low-cost/
As far as Holyhead and Anglesey are concerned this has been a bitter week over the suspension of the 16 billion Wylfa nuclear power station by Hitachi resulting in devastation for so many high skill jobs in North Wales. If follows the absolute fears for Holyhead over disruption to Irish freight traffic in a no deal case.
There were even some posters who delight at the idea the Irish freight HGV's would be kept of our roads notwithstanding the Irish freight 85% through the UK, and 60% remain here
Another poster couldn't understand why passengers to Ireland didn't fly there but it is a bit difficult to get a few more seats on an aircraft to accommodate your car, let alone if you have a caravan as well
The lack of knowledge in this whole debate is frightening and no more so than that demonstrated by the brexiteers who sadly belong to my party which I increasingly do not recognise
The U.K. has had two previous referenda - on staying in the EUin 1975 and on Scottish Independence. Both results were honoured. The EU referendum result might have been advisory but both major parties committed to accept it. Your argument is therefore false and no referendum question was going to spell out a deal in detail before any negotiations.
What was the point of demanding a statement within 3 days?
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Which is something of a disadvantage on a web forum.
PS I may not be quite as fulsome as Big_G but I do love your posts (mostly).
"Give me what I want or I'll call a referendum and campaign to Remain"?
If you want the soundbite, here it is, and it's been the same through UK accession and joining the ERM and leaving it and Maastricht and the Euro and Greece: forecasts voted remain, realities vote leave.
That's the story so far, and I imagine the future contains, as an example, trade deals struck for the nation's comparative advantage, not the union's. I'm sure you're not a fan of tariffs, and you're a fan of sustainable transport, and so you'll be a bit peeved to hear the Commission put a 61% tariff on electric bikes from the PRC this week. Justified by the fact that there's no arbing in the Chinese aluminium market, apparently.
And you reject too lightly the value of a state being able to govern itself. The public's ability to shape and determine policy, and hold to account the executive, is a critical part of the nation's social contract.
The cracks are opening up in the EU's united front now.
Just you wait til the 19th March!
In all my trips to New Zealand and Canada the one thing that stood out is how many people just want a 'hug'
1. The 2nd referendum push is falling short.
2. Labour's proposals are falling short.
3. The Brexiteers are crumbling at the edges, but I wonder if enough will accept a "solemn declaration" or the like on the backstop?
4. If May embraces the amendment time-limiting the backstop, the EU will tell her to forget it - an insurance policy that expires is not an insurance policy.
5. I think Gireve will fall short. The Cooper amendment may succeed, perhaps triggering more resignations - but that just delays the outcome until one of 1-4 succeeds.
I think May will probably get hers through in the end, to general disgruntlement, as everyone blocks everyone else's ideas. We'll then have two years of wrangling over the next stage, which will no doubt be desdlocked for about 711 days before May staggers over the line again.
Fun.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
We aren't the people you need to persuade, and simply stating it as fact isn't the least persuasive in any case.
Go ahead and predict what you think will happen, and why, by all means. But simply telling us it shouldn't happen when you don't have any influence over the decision and we can all see a significant number of people and politicians pushing for a deal v Remain vote is wasting your time. And ours.
“Why did you do X”
“Brussels!”
Doesn’t work as well
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
Edit: That being to do stuff they wouldn't previously consider like bringing down the government rather than having crazy views.
Increased choice in the cross channel ferry market with regular sailings from Ramsgate.
And I would say no deal is focussing minds in the EU, Poland and causing real problems for Ireland, for the first time
May produced a withdrawal agreement that honours that vote. We would leave the EU.
Brexiteers in Parliament said "this is not the Brexit we voted for"
It would not be undemocratic to ask people the same question.
"Is this deal, which means we leave the EU, what you voted for?"
If they say no, then they are entitled to further options.
"Is crashing out of the EU with no deal in place, the leave you voted for?"
If they say no to that, then we must ask the original question again.
Democracy, isn't it a wonderful thing...
However it took a major struggle not to vote leave, to give Cameron what he deserved for dividing the country and my family over the referendum.
Many in my work office at the time felt the same.
It was purely about how he managed the Conservative party and nothing to do with national interest.He is a diminished figure because of his gamble.
But it was a discussion about the merits of a second referendum involving Remain as one option not a prediction of the future
You may have seen that some people on this board have such discussions?
I think if either Cooper or Grieve amendments succeed (and I’m not entirely sure they will), then May has to call a GE.
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?
I have no idea why there need to be such delays. If the gov was achieving things in talks with other parties or the EU that'd justify it, but they are not even really trying the former, and they've already tried the latter so know it is pointless on the specific point in question.