My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Is this a fucking joke? I just can't tell. My level of functional satire detection has been brexited down to zero.
It isn't quite a stupid as it looks. While it would only keep out the tiny minority of honest terrorrists, the question has a function.
If someone is later found out to have been a war criminal etc, they can be legally deprived of their passport on the grounds of making a false statement on the application.
It is similar to the question on the US ESTA application web form for the same reason. When you think about it, it's a sensible question.
Many a reputation has been destroyed by Brexit, but surely none more so than Hannan's. He's gone from 'rock star' to national figure of fun in a couple of years. The Leave community need a new saint.
If there are EU elections will Hannan stand again and more interestingly would he be re-elected? I am not sure very many Tory supporters will even be voting for their party let alone dipping into their pockets for the campaign or knocking on doors.
Does anyone have a clue what will happen if and when the European elections are held? I'm not sure that I do. Best guess is that the Conservatives come first in a heavily splintered field: that part of the Eurosceptic vote that was going to defect from both them and Labour probably already went in its entirety in 2014, when Ukip came first - but this time around its vote share is liable to be partitioned between the Batten and Farage factions.
Effectively, it's arguable that the Tories thus have no new competitors to contend with, whereas TIG has appeared on the progressive wing and, if it achieves any kind of success, this is likely to have a disproportionate effect on Labour.
So, in short, if he stands again and is high enough up their list then he ought to get back in without too much trouble. But I stand to be disproved by events.
TIG only a threat to Labour? In the South East? Maybe. But the train carriage home from the march was full of people you'd expect to vote Tory full of admiration for the speech Anna Soubry had given.
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy, because the person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
Many a reputation has been destroyed by Brexit, but surely none more so than Hannan's. He's gone from 'rock star' to national figure of fun in a couple of years. The Leave community need a new saint.
If there are EU elections will Hannan stand again and more interestingly would he be re-elected? I am not sure very many Tory supporters will even be voting for their party let alone dipping into their pockets for the campaign or knocking on doors.
Does anyone have a clue what will happen if and when the European elections are held? I'm not sure that I do. Best guess is that the Conservatives come first in a heavily splintered field: that part of the Eurosceptic vote that was going to defect from both them and Labour probably already went in its entirety in 2014, when Ukip came first - but this time around its vote share is liable to be partitioned between the Batten and Farage factions.
Effectively, it's arguable that the Tories thus have no new competitors to contend with, whereas TIG has appeared on the progressive wing and, if it achieves any kind of success, this is likely to have a disproportionate effect on Labour.
So, in short, if he stands again and is high enough up their list then he ought to get back in without too much trouble. But I stand to be disproved by events.
But the train carriage home from the march was full of people you'd expect to vote Tory full of admiration for the speech Anna Soubry had given.
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy
OK, here is, not an analogy, but a genuine example from the most successful direct democracy of which we have records, of debating the same thing one afternoon and then again the following morning, the second vote overturning the first before it had been implemented (fortunately, cos it involved killing people)
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy, because the person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
We dont know if the prospective bride/groom has changed their mind, because they have not been asked.
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy
OK, here is, not an analogy, but a genuine example from the most successful direct democracy of which we have records, of debating the same thing one afternoon and then again the following morning, the second vote overturning the first before it had been implemented (fortunately, cos it involved killing people)
The person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
It's the flip side of seeing the EU as an oppressive superstate. They thought Brexit would be like the fall of the Berlin wall.
I think this is key to understanding the most passionate of the Brexiteers such as Mark François and Andrew Bridgen. To them this truly is a liberation struggle to rank with some of the greatest examples in all of history. Mandela, Walesa, Castro, Spartacus, Rees Mogg. Birds of a feather. Easy to snigger at this but a mistake to do so because the more empathy one can develop with them the better placed one is to counter their influence.
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy, because the person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
We dont know if the prospective bride/groom has changed their mind, because they have not been asked.
Why would you assume anything other than they meant what they said?
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy
OK, here is, not an analogy, but a genuine example from the most successful direct democracy of which we have records, of debating the same thing one afternoon and then again the following morning, the second vote overturning the first before it had been implemented (fortunately, cos it involved killing people)
The person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
So just to establish the truth of that, let's ask the person getting married.
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy, because the person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
We dont know if the prospective bride/groom has changed their mind, because they have not been asked.
Why would you assume anything other than they meant what they said?
So why does the officiant ask at the ceremony “Do you...?”
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy
OK, here is, not an analogy, but a genuine example from the most successful direct democracy of which we have records, of debating the same thing one afternoon and then again the following morning, the second vote overturning the first before it had been implemented (fortunately, cos it involved killing people)
The person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
So just to establish the truth of that, let's ask the person getting married.
Why? The fact they are engaged, when they were told they could not go back on the decison no matter what, despite the other people constantly telling them they arent suited, demonstrates they are happy to proceed
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy, because the person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
We dont know if the prospective bride/groom has changed their mind, because they have not been asked.
Why would you assume anything other than they meant what they said?
So why does the officiant ask at the ceremony “Do you...?”
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy
OK, here is, not an analogy, but a genuine example from the most successful direct democracy of which we have records, of debating the same thing one afternoon and then again the following morning, the second vote overturning the first before it had been implemented (fortunately, cos it involved killing people)
The person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
So just to establish the truth of that, let's ask the person getting married.
Why? The fact they are engaged, when they were told they could not go back on the decison no matter what, despite the other people constantly telling them they arent suited, demonstrates they are happy to proceed
What a stupid hole you have dug yourself into. A bit like the government tbh.
Perceptive article David. If we do leave without a deal it'll be worth the cost to see the supercilious Sir John Redwood explain why he couldn't tell the difference between someone 'outrageously ramping up the rhetoric' and just knowing what they were talking about
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
FWIW, here is what the manifestos on which the Conservatives and Labour stood for the last General Election had to say about their responses to the 2016 referendum:
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
My point is that people clamouring for a second referendum before the first result has been implemented are pitiful. If the cap fits, wear it, if it doesn't, dont.
OK. So if you are engaged to someone and decide you aren't suited, you can't decide to break off the engagement, because that would be "pitiful". You have to go ahead with the wedding and then get divorced.
Got it.
No that's just a crap analogy
OK, here is, not an analogy, but a genuine example from the most successful direct democracy of which we have records, of debating the same thing one afternoon and then again the following morning, the second vote overturning the first before it had been implemented (fortunately, cos it involved killing people)
The person engaged to be married hasn't decided they aren't suited, it's people who were telling them that they weren't suited before the engagement still shouting at them.
So just to establish the truth of that, let's ask the person getting married.
Why? The fact they are engaged, when they were told they could not go back on the decison no matter what, despite the other people constantly telling them they arent suited, demonstrates they are happy to proceed
What a stupid hole you have dug yourself into. A bit like the government tbh.
Not at all. I am right. Some remainers are desperate and flailing. Even @TheScreamingEagles agrees that any Tory trying to overturn the result should be deselected, and he is by no means a Leaver.
And that's why compromise becomes ever more difficult.
On the contrary. Our relationship with Europe is a big and important issue and should be debated at the highest level on both sides. I have nothing but respect for a well made case even if I don't personally agree with it. Indeed it obliges me to think the issue over again. E.g.,
Well that pretty much rules out the entirety of the furriners / harlipool / refugee-camps-at-Dover / the-crops-are-rotting-in-the-fields / there-are-no-strawberries-at-Wimbledon / the-City-is-moving-to-Frankfurt / no-its-happening-behind-the-scenes / I-know-people-who-have-been-redundant / there-will-be-an-immediate-recession / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2017 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2018 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2019 / fishfingers-will-be-5p-more-expensive claims which have dominated the Remainer side of the debate since the Referendum.
The BBC website has the following . Apparently a couple have received two different passports even though they applied at the same time .
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
As opposed to being 'truly appalled' when you get a perfectly legally valid new passport without the words European Union at the top and going to the Guardian and on twitter to make a big fuss about it.
Maybe he would have liked a new blue passport - but was he 'truly appalled' he didn't get one?
Mr. Doethur, as an aside, that's a reference to Robert Cecil, who I think took over his father William's work.
One suspects they'd be making a better fist of leaving the EU than the frontbench charlatans.
Actually it's a reference to Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, and his unabashed promotion of his nephew Arthur Balfour (who eventually replaced him as PM in 1902).
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
FWIW, here is what the manifestos on which the Conservatives and Labour stood for the last General Election had to say about their responses to the 2016 referendum:
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
FWIW, here is what the manifestos on which the Conservatives and Labour stood for the last General Election had to say about their responses to the 2016 referendum:
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
Those seem like relatively minor things compared with EU membership, especially since that was subject to a referendum.
There is no reason to have one no matter what I think the result would be.
If Remain had won the last one I would be campaigning for a party to put another one/leaving without one in their manifesto, but wouldnt expect one because of the opinion of a panel of political geeks
So you believe in enacting the will of the people, but are opposed to establishing what that will actually is.
Not at all, it was established in June 2016, after we were promised the result would be final.
I see, and you never change your mind on any subject, not even after three years during which your knowledge of that subject had increased tenfold? And even if you haven't changed your mind where is the harm in asking?
As for "We were told, " you must not believe smarmy old Etonians who con you into thinking they can rewrite the constitution by press release. They can't.
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
Just get over it
~I "got over it" on 24 June 2016, because I didn't then and don't now see much to choose between remaining and a properly organised brexit. It's just that it now seems impossible for the latter to happen. So if your point is that I am just a disappointed europhile, it fails.
There are multiple ways to a properly organised Brexit.
The WDA agreement is one and the WDA+CU is another.
More extreme would be a CM2 or a properly organised No Deal exit.
The problem is that our politicians aren't willing to pick any of them.
The BBC website has the following . Apparently a couple have received two different passports even though they applied at the same time .
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
Maybe we should take European Union off the passports and make them blue even after we have revoked. That will probably be enough to keep quite a few Leavers happy.
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
FWIW, here is what the manifestos on which the Conservatives and Labour stood for the last General Election had to say about their responses to the 2016 referendum:
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
Those seem like relatively minor things compared with EU membership, especially since that was subject to a referendum.
Fair enough - I would prefer we didn't Revoke without another referendum (which I think May's Deal would have a very good chance of winning btw). But the ERG may drive us to an emergency Revoke.
The Tories, and Labour for that matter, have made clear manifesto commitments mean **** all.
In a hung parliament it is impossible to honour them in full. But if the Tories were to win properly on a promise to implement a Canada style free trade deal with the EU then one could be fairly confident that they would.
Well unless Boris Johnson was leader of course. Could not be confident of anything in that case.
The BBC website has the following . Apparently a couple have received two different passports even though they applied at the same time .
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
Maybe we should take European Union off the passports and make them blue even after we have revoked. That will probably be enough to keep quite a few Leavers happy.
The EU didn't stop us from having blue passports all the time.
The BBC website has the following . Apparently a couple have received two different passports even though they applied at the same time .
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
Maybe we should take European Union off the passports and make them blue even after we have revoked. That will probably be enough to keep quite a few Leavers happy.
The EU didn't stop us from having blue passports all the time.
Indeed, and having European Union on them is not legally required.
The BBC website has the following . Apparently a couple have received two different passports even though they applied at the same time .
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
Maybe we should take European Union off the passports and make them blue even after we have revoked. That will probably be enough to keep quite a few Leavers happy.
The EU didn't stop us from having blue passports all the time.
The Tories, and Labour for that matter, have made clear manifesto commitments mean **** all.
In a hung parliament it is impossible to honour them in full. But if the Tories were to win properly on a promise to implement a Canada style free trade deal with the EU then one could be fairly confident that they would.
Well unless Boris Johnson was leader of course. Could not be confident of anything in that case.
The Tories could have got May's WA through if it weren't for the ERG hard-liners.
Mr. Doethur, that's interesting because the audio history I was listening to a short time ago indicated the Cecil connection I mentioned. However, as said history also got wrong the apparent attendance of Geoffrey of Brittany at the death of Henry II (unlike, given Geoffrey had died three years earlier) I'm inclined to take your word for it.
Mr. Doethur, that's interesting because the audio history I was listening to a short time ago indicated the Cecil connection I mentioned. However, as said history also got wrong the apparent attendance of Geoffrey of Brittany at the death of Henry II (unlike, given Geoffrey had died three years earlier) I'm inclined to take your word for it.
Maybe Geoffrey of Brittany made a ghostly appearance - it happened a lot during the middle ages according to that well-known historian Wm. Shakespeare.
Mr. Pointer, I was particularly amused by the additional information that Geoffrey was 'loyal', given the other stuff I've read indicated he was even more scheming than John (although probably also more competent).
The BBC website has the following . Apparently a couple have received two different passports even though they applied at the same time .
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
Maybe we should take European Union off the passports and make them blue even after we have revoked. That will probably be enough to keep quite a few Leavers happy.
Let people choose a blue passport marked UK or a blue passport with yellow stars marked EU as well. That makes us all happy!
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
FWIW, here is what the manifestos on which the Conservatives and Labour stood for the last General Election had to say about their responses to the 2016 referendum:
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
Since neither party managed to get a majority on their manifestos, I'd say in our glorious fptp democracy there's little point in complaining about precise enactments of these manifestos (standard fast & loose approaches to manifesto promises notwithstanding).
The BBC website has the following . Apparently a couple have received two different passports even though they applied at the same time .
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
Maybe we should take European Union off the passports and make them blue even after we have revoked. That will probably be enough to keep quite a few Leavers happy.
Let people choose a blue passport marked UK or a blue passport with yellow stars marked EU as well. That makes us all happy!
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
FWIW, here is what the manifestos on which the Conservatives and Labour stood for the last General Election had to say about their responses to the 2016 referendum:
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
Since neither party managed to get a majority on their manifestos, I'd say in our glorious fptp democracy there's little point in complaining about precise enactments of these manifestos (standard fast & loose approaches to manifesto promises notwithstanding).
One of those where half the runners have pretty much no chance - but it’s a good frivlolous betting opportunity. After losing I can always take solace in my all green Next Tory Leader market...
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
There are no excuses in this case. Con+Lab constitute the vast bulk of the current Parliament. They both said that we would leave the EU. Consequently we should be leaving. Indeed, we ought already to have left by now: it goes without saying that they have the votes to make it happen.
Nor is the fact that they cannot agree on the future relationship an excuse for all of this stalling. They should vote to pass the Withdrawal Agreement; they can always have a General Election to try to break the impasse concerning the shape of the future relationship afterwards. Norway Plus, an FTA and various points inbetween can all be achieved from the starting point of the Deal.
The hardcore ERG No Dealers and the DUP are partly to blame for the failure to get out, but mainly it's down to the fact that most MPs voted for a referendum that contained an option that horrified them, that they did not expect to be voted for, and which they were wholly unprepared (and, as it turns out, unwilling) to implement. They don't want to leave, they never have, and the 2017 manifesto commitments aren't at risk of being ditched for some very good reason, such as a vast change of circumstances that means they can no longer possibly be achieved. It's happening because they weren't honestly made in the first place.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
There are no excuses in this case. Con+Lab constitute the vast bulk of the current Parliament. They both said that we would leave the EU. Consequently we should be leaving. Indeed, we ought already to have left by now: it goes without saying that they have the votes to make it happen.
Nor is the fact that they cannot agree on the future relationship an excuse for all of this stalling. They should vote to pass the Withdrawal Agreement; they can always have a General Election to try to break the impasse concerning the shape of the future relationship afterwards. Norway Plus, an FTA and various points inbetween can all be achieved from the starting point of the Deal.
The hardcore ERG No Dealers and the DUP are partly to blame for the failure to get out, but mainly it's down to the fact that most MPs voted for a referendum that contained an option that horrified them, that they did not expect to be voted for, and which they were wholly unprepared (and, as it turns out, unwilling) to implement. They don't want to leave, they never have, and the 2017 manifesto commitments aren't at risk of being ditched for some very good reason, such as a vast change of circumstances that means they can no longer possibly be achieved. It's happening because they weren't honestly made in the first place.
Leave now reaping the bitter harvest of appealing to a very broad euro-sceptic church - if it had settled on any one flavour of leave it would never have won.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
It's not even worth arguing about. Every major politician (most of whom were campaigning for Remain) said that the 2016 decision was final and there would be no going back, and so it is.
The advantage of living under the rule of law, as we do, is that that makes no difference. Try Africa if you want the law to be rewritten on the fly by Big Men giving interviews on the telly.
FWIW, here is what the manifestos on which the Conservatives and Labour stood for the last General Election had to say about their responses to the 2016 referendum:
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
Dementia tax, Hunting Act repeal? There are always things in manfestos which governments don't implement. As for Labour, they aren't in power, so not much of their manifesto has been implemented.
So your position is that it is perfectly acceptable for both individual politicians and parties to tell whatever lies are necessary to get themselves elected. Well that is certainly going to be a message that will enhance people's view of democracy going forward. If the referendum result is reversed or ignored then democracy is dead in this country and there will be plenty of people out there who will try and make sure it is properly buried.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
They should be ashamed of themselves now but of course they have no shame - or principles.
Tbh that sounds a bit “Don’t believe it until it’s been officially denied”.
“He acknowledged there was increasing frustration at the Brexit process within the EU27, particularly among countries that were less dependent on trade links with the UK and wanted to focus on other key issues affecting the bloc, such as migration and the next EU budget.”
And the rest of the article is a barely veiled “we’ll never forgive them if they stitch us up”.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
The Leave campaign leaders are in no position to decide anything. In case you missed it both the people currently negotiating with each other about the form of Leave voted Remain and Parliament is controlled by those whose aim all along has been to reverse the referendum result by any means necessary.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
No. You need to be betting on Cambridge tomorrow, in all 4 races. Not much value available though probably. Conditions are looking to be quite quick, but not quick enough for a record.
Quite. And Leavers wonder why Remainers know them to be imbecilic.
A fatuous comment given how many Leavers were saying exactly the same thing.
Several people who spoke about the Norway option only days before the referendum are now promoting No Deal.
Only because the alternative they fought for has been denied by the moron leading the country. Like me they still believe that a No Deal is better than remain even though it was never our first choice.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
Not really. A Brexit that eased us out of the EU over (for example) 6 years or so, with two years to agree a consensus desired outcome within the U.K, an Art 50 trigger with a subsequent two years to seek to negotiate that desired outcome, and then a two year transition, would have been far more likely to be successfully implemented and difficult to challenge by Remainers - many of whom may have been won round. That may be hopelessly naive but it stood a far better chance of working. I certainly would have been open to persuasion as I was at least mildly Eurosceptic in my younger days.
Instead it was sold as a revolutionary change that had to be implemented quickly and at all costs. Article 50 was triggered precipitously with huge cheering and clapping from many of those who now decry it as being done too soon. Brexit was, and is, sold as a political revolution against the “elites” but, as with nearly all revolutions, ultimately there will be a reaction. That reaction is what we are seeing now.
And that's why compromise becomes ever more difficult.
On the contrary. Our relationship with Europe is a big and important issue and should be debated at the highest level on both sides. I have nothing but respect for a well made case even if I don't personally agree with it. Indeed it obliges me to think the issue over again. E.g.,
Well that pretty much rules out the entirety of the furriners / harlipool / refugee-camps-at-Dover / the-crops-are-rotting-in-the-fields / there-are-no-strawberries-at-Wimbledon / the-City-is-moving-to-Frankfurt / no-its-happening-behind-the-scenes / I-know-people-who-have-been-redundant / there-will-be-an-immediate-recession / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2017 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2018 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2019 / fishfingers-will-be-5p-more-expensive claims which have dominated the Remainer side of the debate since the Referendum.
no-its-happening-behind-the-scenes / I am making preparations to move operations to the continent, but nobody else in the company knows about it because I don't want to alarm them until I really have to do it.
I-know-people-who-have-been-redundant / - try for example Honda in Swindon
there-will-be-an-immediate-recession / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2017 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2018 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2019 / - what do you think is going to happen when businesses stop stockpiling and start destocking
fishfingers-will-be-5p-more-expensive claims - not heard that one. It is pretty likely food costs will indeed go up in event of no deal.
Right, so Tiger Roll will not be looking too short about 15 mins from now when he trots up by 10 lengths. Not bothering with any others. Or the place. All in.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
They should be ashamed of themselves now but of course they have no shame - or principles.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
Bet you anything you like this guy won't be ashamed.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
They should be ashamed of themselves now but of course they have no shame - or principles.
Absolutely
Shame is an emotion that should be felt by Leavers who enthusiastically fell in behind xenophobic lies.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
Im the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
Not really. A Brexit that eased us out of the EU over (for example) 6 years or so, with two yen won round. That may be hopelessly naive but it stood a far better chance of working. I certainly would have been open to persuasion as I was at least mildly Eurosceptic in my younger days.
Insng done too soon. Brexit was, and is, sold as a political revolution against the “elites” but, as with nearly all revolutions, ultimately there will be a reaction. That reaction is what we are seeing now.
The Brexit process would never have survived a change of government. If we put aside for the moment the behaviour of the leavers, and look at the remainers. There was no buy in whatsoever. There was no acceptance of the result. It was fight tooth and nail to undermine the deal with some people who should no better begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
Not really. A Brexit that eased us out of the EU over (for example) 6 years or so, with two years to agree a consensus desired outcome within the U.K, an Art 50 trigger with a subsequent two years to seek to negotiate that desired outcome, and then a two year transition, would have been far more likely to be successfully implemented and difficult to challenge by Remainers - many of whom may have been won round. That may be hopelessly naive but it stood a far better chance of working. I certainly would have been open to persuasion as I was at least mildly Eurosceptic in my younger days.
Instead it was sold as a revolutionary change that had to be implemented quickly and at all costs. Article 50 was triggered precipitously with huge cheering and clapping from many of those who now decry it as being done too soon. Brexit was, and is, sold as a political revolution against the “elites” but, as with nearly all revolutions, ultimately there will be a reaction. That reaction is what we are seeing now.
There hasn't been a reaction, if by reaction you mean people who were previously for it now being against.
Right, so Tiger Roll will not be looking too short about 15 mins from now when he trots up by 10 lengths. Not bothering with any others. Or the place. All in.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
So could you enunciate the principle which rules out a second vote? I have pointed out that the Athenians had no problem with it. Democracy means giving people choices. I want them to have a choice, you don't. Which of us is democratic?
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
Im the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
Not really. A Brexit that eased us out of the EU over (for example) 6 years or so, with two yen won round. That may be hopelessly naive but it stood a far better chance of working. I certainly would have been open to persuasion as I was at least mildly Eurosceptic in my younger days.
Insng done too soon. Brexit was, and is, sold as a political revolution against the “elites” but, as with nearly all revolutions, ultimately there will be a reaction. That reaction is what we are seeing now.
The Brexit process would never have survived a change of government. If we put aside for the moment the behaviour of the leavers, and look at the remainers. There was no buy in whatsoever. There was no acceptance of the result. It was fight tooth and nail to undermine the deal with some people who should no better begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Remainers were given nothing to buy into. They were left to watch, appalled, as Leavers frotted themselves into steadily more extreme iterations of Brexit. So they opted out of a project that they were never convinced by in the first place.
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
I do indeed. And according to the polls at the time of the referendum so did almost half of those voting leave. Of course you Euro-fanatics just pick those who wanted to end FoM and claim they represent the whole of the Leave campaign. But as many of us on both sides have made clear from the start, a 52:48 result does not mean we should just abide by the wishes of the 26% or so of the total vote who wanted a hard Brexit. It is called compromise - something you seem to be utterly incapable of understanding or doing.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
You're only in this situation because Leave campaign leaders cannot decide between themselves what kind of Brexit they want.
Its nothing to do with them. The PM made the deal and that should be that.
But the ERG won't support it.
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Anyone calling for a second referendum will be ashamed of themselves in years to come.
So could you enunciate the principle which rules out a second vote? I have pointed out that the Athenians had no problem with it. Democracy means giving people choices. I want them to have a choice, you don't. Which of us is democratic?
Me because I want to respect the choice made by the demos
So could you enunciate the principle which rules out a second vote? I have pointed out that the Athenians had no problem with it. Democracy means giving people choices. I want them to have a choice, you don't. Which of us is democratic?
Me because I want to respect the choice made by the demos
How do you propose we respect the choice of Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Nope I just think that is an excuse from sore losers who want to find any way they can to overturn the referendum result. Why try and build bridges with someone like Meeks when he will spit in your face. I am talking about reaching out to reasonable people not lunatic fanatics like those trying to overturn the result.
"Why did the losers not collaborate with us to deny the winners what we promised them?"
It's contemptible and always was.
You are talking even more gibberish than usual William. And I thought that was almost impossible.
Nope, still gibberish from you. How does that tie in with your comment of denying the winners want they want? I think your mind is finally going.
You favour a form of Brexit that keeps free movement of people, do you not?
.
The compromise Leave voters are expected to make seems to be on the result
Not really. A Brexit that eased us out of the EU over (for example) 6 years or so, with two yen won round. That may be hopelessly naive but it stood a far better chance of working. I certainly would have been open to persuasion as I was at least mildly Eurosceptic in my younger days.
Insng done too soon. Brexit was, and is, sold as a political revolution against the “elites” but, as with nearly all revolutions, ultimately there will be a reaction. That reaction is what we are seeing now.
The Brexit process would never have survived a change of government. If we put aside for the moment the behaviour of the leavers, and look at the remainers. There was no buy in whatsoever. There was no acceptance of the result. It was fight tooth and nail to undermine the deal with some people who should no better begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Remainders were given nothing to buy into. They were left to watch, appalled, as Leavers frotted themselves into steadily more extreme iterations of Brexit. So they opted out of a project that they were never convinced by in the first place.
Who? The MPs who never wanted to leave or the members of Opinion Poll Panels who were out of touch in 2015?
The Brexit process would never have survived a change of government. If we put aside for the moment the behaviour of the leavers, and look at the remainers. There was no buy in whatsoever. There was no acceptance of the result. It was fight tooth and nail to undermine the deal with some people who should no better begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
That is simply untrue. It was only when Leavers started trashing the deal which would have implemented Brexit in the orderly way that Leavers themselves had promised that the buy-in started to evaporate. That was perfectly reasonable, perfectly predictable, and explicitly warned of at the time. After all, given that Leavers had suddenly decided that they didn't after all like the Brexit they had campaigned for, saying it was worse than Remaining, why on earth would those who supported Brexit only in order to implement the referendum result be expected not to agree with them?
Comments
Got it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mytilenian_Debate
So where are you getting your rule from?
The man was delighted his passport had no EU logo , the wife upset because hers still had the EU logo.
The husband was happy to have his identity back but bemoaned the fact the passport wasn’t blue .
Good grief . The man in question sadly could have been a poster boy for the Gammon Calendar ! So much venom directed at the EU in his full comments .
Next book's a 1917 edition of The Blue Book of the War, originally released in 1915. Should be interesting.
* Conservative: "We are leaving the European Union. We want to ensure our departure is smooth and orderly and to agree a deep and special partnership with the 27 remaining member states."
* Labour: "We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners."
The parties clearly had different ideas about exactly what kind of relationship they wanted, but one thing that was made expressly clear and completely unambiguous was the commitment to leave the EU. Having palmed off this decision on the electorate it is, therefore, not unreasonable of said electorate to expect them actually to implement it.
If parties can no longer be expected to do what they say in their manifestos - and if the public is told that it does not have the right to expect this, either - then it just renders the whole exercise of voting even more pointless. The basic message that is now being given to voters who query why it is that politicians can't be arsed to do what they said they would is "We are representatives not delegates, so fuck off."
The British political system basically consists of electoral districts in which there is no point in voting because the same party enjoys such vast advantages in terms of support that it always wins, and electoral districts in which there is no point in voting either because all of the candidates who could win lie about virtually everything, so informed choices are therefore impossible. This is no longer a functioning democracy.
Maybe he would have liked a new blue passport - but was he 'truly appalled' he didn't get one?
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-04-05/first-british-passports-with-european-union-printed-on-cover-issued/
The WDA agreement is one and the WDA+CU is another.
More extreme would be a CM2 or a properly organised No Deal exit.
The problem is that our politicians aren't willing to pick any of them.
Maybe we should take European Union off the passports and make them blue even after we have revoked. That will probably be enough to keep quite a few Leavers happy.
Well unless Boris Johnson was leader of course. Could not be confident of anything in that case.
The Tories could have got May's WA through if it weren't for the ERG hard-liners.
Mines being renewed at present. Hope they still have some of the old stock to use up.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/06/ireland-taoiseach-leo-varadkar-says-eu27-unlikely-to-veto-delay-to-brexit
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1114516511702564864?s=21
Nor is the fact that they cannot agree on the future relationship an excuse for all of this stalling. They should vote to pass the Withdrawal Agreement; they can always have a General Election to try to break the impasse concerning the shape of the future relationship afterwards. Norway Plus, an FTA and various points inbetween can all be achieved from the starting point of the Deal.
The hardcore ERG No Dealers and the DUP are partly to blame for the failure to get out, but mainly it's down to the fact that most MPs voted for a referendum that contained an option that horrified them, that they did not expect to be voted for, and which they were wholly unprepared (and, as it turns out, unwilling) to implement. They don't want to leave, they never have, and the 2017 manifesto commitments aren't at risk of being ditched for some very good reason, such as a vast change of circumstances that means they can no longer possibly be achieved. It's happening because they weren't honestly made in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fv7HMD3n8U
just think about that, you were outsmarted by Nigel Farage
and then you call others stupid
Never mind - you'll get your chance in Ref2
Fingers crossed.
“He acknowledged there was increasing frustration at the Brexit process within the EU27, particularly among countries that were less dependent on trade links with the UK and wanted to focus on other key issues affecting the bloc, such as migration and the next EU budget.”
And the rest of the article is a barely veiled “we’ll never forgive them if they stitch us up”.
Instead it was sold as a revolutionary change that had to be implemented quickly and at all costs. Article 50 was triggered precipitously with huge cheering and clapping from many of those who now decry it as being done too soon. Brexit was, and is, sold as a political revolution against the “elites” but, as with nearly all revolutions, ultimately there will be a reaction. That reaction is what we are seeing now.
the-crops-are-rotting-in-the-fields / - this has happened https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-44884882
there-are-no-strawberries-at-Wimbledon / - I think that was leavers extrapolating from the previous story
the-City-is-moving-to-Frankfurt / on its way
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/29/london-to-lose-800bn-to-frankfurt-as-banks-prepare-for-brexit
no-its-happening-behind-the-scenes / I am making preparations to move operations to the continent, but nobody else in the company knows about it because I don't want to alarm them until I really have to do it.
I-know-people-who-have-been-redundant / - try for example Honda in Swindon
there-will-be-an-immediate-recession / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2017 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2018 / there-will-be-a-recession-in-2019 / - what do you think is going to happen when businesses stop stockpiling and start destocking
fishfingers-will-be-5p-more-expensive claims - not heard that one. It is pretty likely food costs will indeed go up in event of no deal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage-calls-for-second-referendum-on-brexit-a3737451.htm