politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Endgame. The death of the referendum mandate draws near

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Endgame. The death of the referendum mandate draws near

I am just re-reading the @michaelgove Brexit speech of April 2016.

Read the full story here

Beibheirli_C

Three

Beibheirli_C

Two

Beibheirli_C

One - Blunder-birds are go....

HYUFD

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

TOPPING

fpt

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1178934133571162112?s=20

You want a foreign state to overrule our parliament.

TOPPING

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

Beibheirli_C

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

We ARE respecting democracy. We are arguing for our point of view and doing all we can to promote it - just like UKIP and Farage did for decades.

It is up to Leavers to organise the Leaving. It is their party. If your offering is so poor that you cannot persuade Remainers to go for it, that is Leave's problem.

Sell us a workable vision that benefits the country and Remainers will probably start to back it in sufficient numbers. Carry on pushing this nationalistic, xenophobic, Little England approach and you are on your own.

tlg86

To be honest, the moment MPs voted down May's deal they were collectively voting to roll the dice. Neither side can complain if it doesn't go the way they want.

HYUFD

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

HYUFD

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

We ARE respecting democracy. We are arguing for our point of view and doing all we can to promote it - just like UKIP and Farage did for decades.

It is up to Leavers to organise the Leaving. It is their party. If your offering is so poor that you cannot persuade Remainers to go for it, that is Leave's problem.

Sell us a workable vision that benefits the country and Remainers will probably start to back it in sufficient numbers. Carry on pushing this nationalistic, xenophobic, Little England approach and you are on your own.

I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems

TOPPING

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

Philip_Thompson

More self-indulgent complaining by Mr Meeks, which I don't recall when Lisbon was passed without a referendum in actual direct contradiction of the manifesto pledge to have one.

This isn't a post attacking thread header writers, but rather the flagrant hypocrisy and karmic justice of Europhiles reaping what has been sown.

If a new election or referendum is required to get Brexit done then that is because this pathetic Parliament is welching on their pledge to deliver Brexit - not because of some mythical rules of "mandates".

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1179013165323034624

Beibheirli_C

FPT:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Beibheirli_C said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1178934133571162112?s=20

A fine example of a tweet which show how completely bonkers the extremist Leavers have become.

@Richard_Nabavi - How are you feeling in these, your post-party days? Sad? Puzzled? Hugely relieved?

Fine, thanks. Everything that has happened since has confirmed that it was the right decision.

Beibheirli_C

Philip_Thompson said:

More self-indulgent complaining by Mr Meeks, which I don't recall when Lisbon was passed without a referendum in actual direct contradiction of the manifesto pledge to have one.

This isn't a post attacking thread header writers, but rather the flagrant hypocrisy and karmic justice of Europhiles reaping what has been sown.

If a new election or referendum is required to get Brexit done then that is because this pathetic Parliament is welching on their pledge to deliver Brexit - not because of some mythical rules of "mandates".

Or maybe it is because the contradictory promises made by Leave are undeliverable without a level of damage that is simply not acceptable.

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.

Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.

Artist

It doesn't seem fair that leavers have to win two referendums to at best get something which should really have been passed after they had won the first. (May's deal)

HYUFD

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

P35 'We are leaving the EU', page 36 'We continue to believe that No Deal is better than a bad Deal

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.

Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.

Nope. They said they continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. But the commitment was that they:

"will deliver The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union, delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit."

They might prefer whisky to whiskey (or neither!) but they promised to deliver a deal and a smooth, orderly Brexit.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.

Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.

On balance, the Tory manifesto rules out the government agreeing a deal and then leaving without one because it's been rejected by parliament. The key phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" appears only in the context of negotiations with the EU, not negotiations with the opposition in parliament.

Beibheirli_C

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

We ARE respecting democracy. We are arguing for our point of view and doing all we can to promote it - just like UKIP and Farage did for decades.

It is up to Leavers to organise the Leaving. It is their party. If your offering is so poor that you cannot persuade Remainers to go for it, that is Leave's problem.

Sell us a workable vision that benefits the country and Remainers will probably start to back it in sufficient numbers. Carry on pushing this nationalistic, xenophobic, Little England approach and you are on your own.

I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems

If we Leave, we Leave. I am not going to riot in the streets or shoot MPs. If the majority can get their decision through then fair enough. I am still a democrat, not a bl**dy automaton the way you seem to think I should become.

But I will be d*mned if I support Leave's madness or be happy about it.

TGOHF2

Wishful thinking as usual from Mr Meeks.

Scott_P

Artist said:

It doesn't seem fair that leavers have to win two referendums to at best get something which should really have been passed after they had won the first. (May's deal)

https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1177975409704607745

noneoftheabove

Artist said:

It doesn't seem fair that leavers have to win two referendums to at best get something which should really have been passed after they had won the first. (May's deal)

It isnt fair no. Life isnt always fair. Hold accountable the leaders of leave who have failed to compromise, failed to build a majority in parliament (actually managed to spectacularly lose MPs with regularity) and failed to be honest with the leave electorate.

Brom

Blimey that piece is worse than Gove's speech!

Philip_Thompson

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1179013165323034624

Not if its "in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU" its not.

Scott_P

Meanwhile, Tory conference Press room in lockdown right now

TOPPING

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

P35 'We are leaving the EU', page 36 'We continue to believe that No Deal is better than a bad Deal

https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Exactly. No promise there. We continue to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. It wasn't a manifesto promise. This was:

We "will deliver The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union, delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit."

TOPPING

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.

Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.

On balance, the Tory manifesto rules out the government agreeing a deal and then leaving without one because it's been rejected by parliament. The key phrase "no deal is better than a bad deal" appears only in the context of negotiations with the EU, not negotiations with the opposition in parliament.

It was what they believed. So what? The promise was a deal and a smooth, orderly Brexit.

StuartDickson

SunnyJim said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

The decision to go for a complete Revoke policy has presumably done them little harm.

Brexit is binary which is why Labour's stance will fail even though I understand how they've arrived at that position.

Scottish Labour and their chums SLD tried that in Scotland for decades. Didn’t work in the end. SLDs have drifted towards straightforward Unionism, while SLab are swithering about in No Man’s Land.

Voters like clarity.

Richard_Nabavi

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Barnesian

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

🙂

I love PB. It has a number of CCs. Colourful Characters. Creative Constructs. I love it.

TGOHF2

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

TOPPING

HYUFD said:

I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems

Where I am disappointed in you is that as a hitherto long time Conservative you will be as vocal in your advocacy of a Labour government, should the country decide to elect one, and as vehement in your dismissal of all Conservative policies, as you are now of a no deal Brexit.

dr_spyn

If only the rest of the UK had referendum papers with a hand and pencil hovering over vote yes. Of course it was an oversight by a junior member of staff. Lessons will be learned.

The genie is still out if the bottle, if The UK was to remain in the EU, the issues which gave a Leave win need to be addressed. Ever closer union hasn't won hearts and minds, and perhaps the behaviour of the EU negotiators has veered towards intransigence and arrogance. Voters in areas ehich felt left behind need to be listened to.The inability of Leavers to articulate goals and match up achievements borders on the tragic they aren't up to the job.

As for a people's vote or referendum sequel, it reeks of you didn't vote the right way last time, now get it right.

williamglenn

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems

Where I am disappointed in you is that as a hitherto long time Conservative you will be as vocal in your advocacy of a Labour government, should the country decide to elect one, and as vehement in your dismissal of all Conservative policies, as you are now of a no deal Brexit.

If Corbyn managed to win a referendum on implementing communism in the UK, I'm sure HYUFD would want any future Conservative government to be bound by that commitment. He's scrupulously consistent.

Sunil_Prasannan

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

We ARE respecting democracy. We are arguing for our point of view and doing all we can to promote it - just like UKIP and Farage did for decades.

It is up to Leavers to organise the Leaving. It is their party. If your offering is so poor that you cannot persuade Remainers to go for it, that is Leave's problem.

Sell us a workable vision that benefits the country and Remainers will probably start to back it in sufficient numbers. Carry on pushing this nationalistic, xenophobic, Little England approach and you are on your own.

I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems

Why did you refuse to vote Leave in 2016? What was your reasoning?

noneoftheabove

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

"Remainers" on here generally want to either leave with a deal or have a second referendum, if we leave with a deal the future is clear, if we have a referendum at least the current wishes of the country are taken into account.

"Revokers" are a smaller group, and here your question has more relevance. There is a fair chance that revoke=long term no deal style relationship and no deal=long term rejoin as both options are too divisive and unstable in a democracy.

TOPPING

williamglenn said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems

Where I am disappointed in you is that as a hitherto long time Conservative you will be as vocal in your advocacy of a Labour government, should the country decide to elect one, and as vehement in your dismissal of all Conservative policies, as you are now of a no deal Brexit.

If Corbyn managed to win a referendum on implementing communism in the UK, I'm sure HYUFD would want any future Conservative government to be bound by that commitment. He's scrupulously consistent.

A man of honour.

In fact such a man of honour that we can see through the facade of him "supporting" no deal or the current crop of Conservatives and know that he remains a remainer. To his bones. But it's probably not convenient for him to show his true colours in much of the company he keeps.

Richard_Nabavi

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

Yes they can. It will be a disaster, I think pretty much everyone agrees. So what? We are where we are - the country has made a series of bad decisions, which of course means that there will be a bad outcome. That's not a reason to choose an even worse one, if the current best possible option (leaving with a deal, and thus respecting the referendum without trashing the economy too badly) is not available following the trashing of it by the current PM and others.

MarqueeMark

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

The first thing that happens is that Remainers own EVERYTHING that goes wrong. With anything. However tangential. It will be "because we didn't Brexit."

Beibheirli_C

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

We ARE respecting democracy. We are arguing for our point of view and doing all we can to promote it - just like UKIP and Farage did for decades.

It is up to Leavers to organise the Leaving. It is their party. If your offering is so poor that you cannot persuade Remainers to go for it, that is Leave's problem.

Sell us a workable vision that benefits the country and Remainers will probably start to back it in sufficient numbers. Carry on pushing this nationalistic, xenophobic, Little England approach and you are on your own.

I was a Remainer I now respect democracy and the Leave vote and winning Leave platform unlike you it seems

Why did you refuse to vote Leave in 2016? What was your reasoning?

Cameron's policy was to Remain. May (& Johnson's) policy is to Leave.

ralphmalph

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

TOPPING

ralphmalph said:

If the Got had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

The mess we are in has largely, no, wholly been created by the realities of trying to leave the EU without understanding the implications for, say, the island of Ireland. May realised these pretty quickly and hence the WA.

Has Boris realised? Hard to say. I mean he's not stupid, but you have to admit that the current thrashing around as though he is absolutely clueless is convincing.

We shall see soon enough, btw.

surbiton19

Next summer the 2016 referendum will have been 4 years old. About the average time we hold general elections.
It would be time to hold another referendum. This time with a bit more clarity in the questions asked.
If a future government with a manifesto commitment should wish to hold another referendum, good luck to them. Why not ?

Richard_Nabavi

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

TOPPING

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

The first thing that happens is that Remainers own EVERYTHING that goes wrong. With anything. However tangential. It will be "because we didn't Brexit."

The issue with that - and I am a big non-revoker - is that not much will "go wrong" in the sense that "No Queues at Dover" won't (or actually, with them, it might) be the headline in the Mail.

Far more might "go wrong" with no deal than revoke.

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1178965625097588736

MarqueeMark

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

Not Jeremy Corbyn......

Polruan

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

And who can forget the true Leavers queueing up to vote against invoking article 50 as it was so clearly a remainer plot...? They must at least be grateful for Gina Miller’s attempts to give them a voice against the forces of remain then in government.

noneoftheabove

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

David Davis was in charge for the first six months or so of the negotiations. When he made no progress and only met Barnier once every four weeks, May took over in Sept 2017.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1179019485690421248

Fisticuffs, or handbags, allegedly

Sunil_Prasannan

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1178965625097588736

Maybe he meant "no HYUFD"?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1179019644134465537

surbiton19

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.

Polruan

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

The first thing that happens is that Remainers own EVERYTHING that goes wrong. With anything. However tangential. It will be "because we didn't Brexit."

The issue with that - and I am a big non-revoker - is that not much will "go wrong" in the sense that "No Queues at Dover" won't (or actually, with them, it might) be the headline in the Mail.

Far more might "go wrong" with no deal than revoke.

As well as that, after leaving, every bad thing that happens will be the fault of the EU and a deficient Brexit, regardless of the terms on which we leave. It’s a political tactic that adapts to the situation on the ground, not a reaction to the real problems facing the country and their causes.

StuartDickson

New market - next GE

East Dunbartonshire (LD Maj 5,339; Jo Swinson MP)

LD 1/3
SNP 2/1
Con 50/1
Lab 50/1

(Shadsy)

surbiton19

noneoftheabove said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

David Davis was in charge for the first six months or so of the negotiations. When he made no progress and only met Barnier once every four weeks, May took over in Sept 2017.

DD was out of his depth. To think he was once a future Tory PM. Then again, we now have...…...

eristdoof

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

Did you agree 100% on everything that was in the Conservative Manifesto? Maybe you did, but that is very rare.

The point is that 80% of voters voting for parties with Brexit in the Manifesto does not mean 80% want Brexit. Indeed, many of us vote in constituencies where the only likely winner was Conservative or Labour, so to have a realistic influence on the outcome necessitated voting for a pro-Brexit party.

ralphmalph

noneoftheabove said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

David Davis was in charge for the first six months or so of the negotiations. When he made no progress and only met Barnier once every four weeks, May took over in Sept 2017.

David Davis was never in charge of the negotiations, our chief negotiator had two bosses, one being more powerful than the other.

surbiton19

StuartDickson said:

New market - next GE

East Dunbartonshire (LD Maj 5,339; Jo Swinson MP)

LD 1/3
SNP 2/1
Con 50/1
Lab 50/1

(Shadsy)

Worth backing SNP.

MarqueeMark

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1179019644134465537

Boys in Blue v Boys in Blue action?

TOPPING

surbiton19 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.

She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.

surbiton19

Scott_P said:

Artist said:

It doesn't seem fair that leavers have to win two referendums to at best get something which should really have been passed after they had won the first. (May's deal)

https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1177975409704607745

Cummings two part plan actually made sense.

ralphmalph

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

It was in the vote leave articles that Mr Meeks referred to in his header.

surbiton19

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.

She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.

So any PM was right royally fecked !

Richard_Nabavi

From the Guadian live blog:

Addressing a ConservativeHome/Port of Dover fringe event at the conference, transport minister George Freeman confirmed that the government was assuming that disruption would roughly halve - a range of 40-60% - the traffic on Britain’s main trading link for three months.

Doug Bannister, the chief executive of Port of Dover, said that the assumed drop in traffic would cut £1bn a trade every week. He said:

"That’s how critical it is. If there’s a no-deal Brexit, it’s not going to be OK. But people are doing all they can to ensure Britain keeps trading."

It's worth reading the whole section (at 13:39):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/01/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-conservative-conference-interviewed-as-ireland-dismisses-uk-border-plan-as-non-starter-live-news

viewcode

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

It's. Always. Somebody. Else's. Fault.

eek

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

And looking back at the last two months can you really say Boris and his No Dealers could have done any better?

Richard_Nabavi

viewcode said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

It's. Always. Somebody. Else's. Fault.

Yep. It will be Boris's next.

TOPPING

surbiton19 said:

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.

She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.

So any PM was right royally fecked !

Not if they had consulted, formed a Brexit Special Committee, proposed multi-party membership of it and they would have made recommendations. Not guaranteed success but nowhere to hide subsequently for any opposers.

As it is the narrative is it's a "Tory Brexit".

And my long-held belief on (one of the many) errors the Conservative Party committed was that they treated the referendum like a GE - ie winner takes all, sod the losers, instead of a whole country collaborative effort.

And here we are.

ralphmalph

viewcode said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

It's. Always. Somebody. Else's. Fault.

it is both sides fault. It is hard leavers and hard remainers (Peoples vote) not understanding the word compromise and it is all those MPs in the middle that do not have the political courage to make a decision and want a quiet life with somebody else to blame.

timple

noneoftheabove said:

Artist said:

It doesn't seem fair that leavers have to win two referendums to at best get something which should really have been passed after they had won the first. (May's deal)

It isnt fair no. Life isnt always fair. Hold accountable the leaders of leave who have failed to compromise, failed to build a majority in parliament (actually managed to spectacularly lose MPs with regularity) and failed to be honest with the leave electorate.

Its not fair in my golf club that in order to change our constitution I need to get 66% of members to back me....

Richard_Nabavi

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

It was in the vote leave articles that Mr Meeks referred to in his header.

Yes, but when Theresa May finally got round to invoking Article 50, they didn't object, did they? So presumably they were happy that by then we were ready (it's not as though she rushed it - she took nearly a year). So it's not true that "the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it".

ralphmalph

eek said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

And looking back at the last two months can you really say Boris and his No Dealers could have done any better?

He picked up a hospital pass, unlike May who had lots of options open to her as to how to proceed.

ralphmalph

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

It was in the vote leave articles that Mr Meeks referred to in his header.

Yes, but when Theresa May finally got round to invoking Article 50, they didn't object, did they? So presumably they were happy that by then we were ready (it's not as though she rushed it, is it?). So it's not true that "the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it".

Vote Leave was disbanded by the time May made the decision.

Beibheirli_C

ralphmalph said:

viewcode said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

It's. Always. Somebody. Else's. Fault.

it is both sides fault. It is hard leavers and hard remainers (Peoples vote) not understanding the word compromise and it is all those MPs in the middle that do not have the political courage to make a decision and want a quiet life with somebody else to blame.

No. It is ENTIRELY the Leaver's fault. Remainers are under no obligation to accept or buy into a pig-in-a-poke. Remainers are just trying to maintain the status quo

Leave's "vision" is inadequate. It barely appealed to more than 50% of the electorate who voted.

Richard_Nabavi

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

It was in the vote leave articles that Mr Meeks referred to in his header.

Yes, but when Theresa May finally got round to invoking Article 50, they didn't object, did they? So presumably they were happy that by then we were ready (it's not as though she rushed it, is it?). So it's not true that "the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it".

Vote Leave was disbanded by the time May made the decision.

Oh, for God's sake! They were in government, many of them, and every single one of the Vote Leave MPs voted in favour. Not a single figure from either Leave campaign objected, as far as I recall

I mean, I know it is an absolute article of faith that it is always someone else's fault, but you really are scraping the most scraped-out barrel here.

ralphmalph

Beibheirli_C said:

ralphmalph said:

viewcode said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

It's. Always. Somebody. Else's. Fault.

it is both sides fault. It is hard leavers and hard remainers (Peoples vote) not understanding the word compromise and it is all those MPs in the middle that do not have the political courage to make a decision and want a quiet life with somebody else to blame.

No. It is ENTIRELY the Leaver's fault. Remainers are under no obligation to accept or buy into a pig-in-a-poke. Remainers are just trying to maintain the status quo

Leave's "vision" is inadequate. It barely appealed to more than 50% of the electorate who voted.

There is no status quo.

eek

I'm surprised no-one has picked up on this (repeated) announcement
https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/1179010132786716677

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1179023863654563840

ralphmalph

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

It was in the vote leave articles that Mr Meeks referred to in his header.

Yes, but when Theresa May finally got round to invoking Article 50, they didn't object, did they? So presumably they were happy that by then we were ready (it's not as though she rushed it, is it?). So it's not true that "the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it".

Vote Leave was disbanded by the time May made the decision.

Oh, for God's sake! They were in government, many of them.

Correct some Tory MPs joined vote leave, some joined BSIE. When the ref was finished they all went back to being Tory MPs in Govt. The vote leave lot supported May and her Government as is expected, but some of the lot that supported BSIE (Grieve, Soubry, etc) decided to go against the Government. The ERG were good as gold to May until she announced her WA which they had been advising her was unacceptable.

Beibheirli_C

surbiton19 said:

noneoftheabove said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

David Davis was in charge for the first six months or so of the negotiations. When he made no progress and only met Barnier once every four weeks, May took over in Sept 2017.

DD was out of his depth. To think he was once a future Tory PM. Then again, we now have...…...

When I see that phrase, memories of Stephen Milligan come to mind....

Brom

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1179019644134465537

The Independent is still a thing and they employ a 'sketch writer'. wow who knew.

StuartDickson

Richard_Nabavi said:

viewcode said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Also who were the main people in Mays inner circle implementing Brexit, Liddington, Green, Hammond, Clark, Rudd, not a leave brain cell between them. David Davis was constantly undermined by May with the structure that she put in place a DexEU with no power and her own no10 Brexit delivery unit.

The mess we are in has largely been created by May and her remainer mates.

It's. Always. Somebody. Else's. Fault.

Yep. It will be Boris's next.

As surely as night follows day.

rural_voter

surbiton19 said:

Next summer the 2016 referendum will have been 4 years old. About the average time we hold general elections.
It would be time to hold another referendum. This time with a bit more clarity in the questions asked.
If a future government with a manifesto commitment should wish to hold another referendum, good luck to them. Why not ?

Listen to the recent Briefing Room programme on R4. It explained why under an unwritten constitution and representative democracy the type of referendum Cameron held was particularly stupid.

I don't think anyone of six panelists dissented from the view that it has to be annulled. Then another referendum must be held which gives 1) properly worked-out terms for leaving versus 2) staying in.

timple

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

Did you agree 100% on everything that was in the Conservative Manifesto? Maybe you did, but that is very rare.

The point is that 80% of voters voting for parties with Brexit in the Manifesto does not mean 80% want Brexit. Indeed, many of us vote in constituencies where the only likely winner was Conservative or Labour, so to have a realistic influence on the outcome necessitated voting for a pro-Brexit party.

Can we just nail the idea at least on this forum that before the referendum in 2016 it was clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the Single Market (nevermind the CU). It may have been clear in your mind but at the time was the subject of debate. Farage went on relentlessly about "Norway" as an ideal model......! This twitter thread is full of video pre-referendum and how at the point TM decided that leave meant leaving the SM in late 2016 history was rewritten.
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1143227136985260039

Nigel_Foremain

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

The first thing that happens is that Remainers own EVERYTHING that goes wrong. With anything. However tangential. It will be "because we didn't Brexit."

Only for a deranged minority. The same deranged minority that blamed everything on "Europe". The bitter old xenophobic headbangers that gave us a cancer called Brexit. Most people won't give a shit because they are more interested in Britain's Got Talent or Love Island.

david_herdson

On topic, I had an online argument, also with a lawyer notably, on a point similar to the one Alastair makes here:

If the same failure in the verification process had taken place in a float, the directors would have been facing huge financial liability and potentially even a spell in chokey. I’m not at all clear why politicians are given greater leeway.

The reasons why politicians are given greater leeway are that unlike in most mis-selling cases, within the political world, where one set of policies is advanced it's reasonable to assume that rival parties and often the media will scrutinise and criticise those policies in a way that isn't available to a consumer. Voters therefore have access to much wider information on which to take a decision and it's implicit in the power relationship that they use it.

nichomar

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

It was in the vote leave articles that Mr Meeks referred to in his header.

Yes, but when Theresa May finally got round to invoking Article 50, they didn't object, did they? So presumably they were happy that by then we were ready (it's not as though she rushed it - she took nearly a year). So it's not true that "the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it".

But when activating still had no agreement on what they wanted and then wasted time on an election. They then went and had a leadership election wasting more time.

david_herdson

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.

She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.

So any PM was right royally fecked !

Not if they had consulted, formed a Brexit Special Committee, proposed multi-party membership of it and they would have made recommendations. Not guaranteed success but nowhere to hide subsequently for any opposers.

As it is the narrative is it's a "Tory Brexit".

And my long-held belief on (one of the many) errors the Conservative Party committed was that they treated the referendum like a GE - ie winner takes all, sod the losers, instead of a whole country collaborative effort.

And here we are.

That would have meant Corbyn signing up to a Tory Brexit deal.

Chris

Richard_Nabavi said:

From the Guadian live blog:

Addressing a ConservativeHome/Port of Dover fringe event at the conference, transport minister George Freeman confirmed that the government was assuming that disruption would roughly halve - a range of 40-60% - the traffic on Britain’s main trading link for three months.

Doug Bannister, the chief executive of Port of Dover, said that the assumed drop in traffic would cut £1bn a trade every week. He said:

"That’s how critical it is. If there’s a no-deal Brexit, it’s not going to be OK. But people are doing all they can to ensure Britain keeps trading."

It's worth reading the whole section (at 13:39):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/01/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-conservative-conference-interviewed-as-ireland-dismisses-uk-border-plan-as-non-starter-live-news

OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?

Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?

And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?

MarqueeMark

Nigel_Foremain said:

MarqueeMark said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

What happens after Brexit is canned - is a question remainers cannot answer with honesty.

The first thing that happens is that Remainers own EVERYTHING that goes wrong. With anything. However tangential. It will be "because we didn't Brexit."

Only for a deranged minority. The same deranged minority that blamed everything on "Europe". The bitter old xenophobic headbangers that gave us a cancer called Brexit. Most people won't give a shit because they are more interested in Britain's Got Talent or Love Island.

Again, you've read this totally wrong. "Blaming Remainers" will be the new national sport..... You think the Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun and the Express will miss a chance to paly this game?

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/JohnJCrace/status/1179026112585842689

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

Vote Leave won 52% of the vote on a promise to Leave the EU, leave the Customs Union and do our own trade deals and Leave the Single Market and replace free movement with a points system.

It is diehard Remainers who need to back down and respect democracy not Leavers

And since then they withdrew the mandate by not voting in a party which promised no deal. All parties promised an orderly Brexit at the GE and so you are outvoted (literally) by the vast majority of GE voters. Certainly a larger number than 17.4m people.

80% of voters voted for parties promising to deliver Brexit, they have not

I appreciate you voted Remain but you should at least have read the Conservative Party manifesto: "We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union."

Indeed but that doesn't mean we leave with a deal.

Explicitly in the manifesto it stated that we could leave without a deal. If it happens to be we leave without a deal then it should be as smooth and orderly a no deal as possible - which at least this government is seeking to prepare for, even using the overhead signs on motorways now to help get people prepared - rather than May's kick the can but claim we're doing it approach.

Nope. They said they continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. But the commitment was that they:

"will deliver The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union, delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit."

They might prefer whisky to whiskey (or neither!) but they promised to deliver a deal and a smooth, orderly Brexit.

You dropped a critical word. They didn't promise to deliver a deal, they promised to deliver the best possible deal.

If the best possible deal is no deal at all, due to intransigence from Parliament and Europe, then so be it. In that case no deal is the best possible.

rpjs

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1178965625097588736

"No surrender!
No surrender!
No surrender to the high-speed trains!"

Richard_Nabavi

nichomar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

ralphmalph said:

If the Govt had followed the Vote Leave plan then I think it is fair to criticise them, but seeing as the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it, then I think it is unfair to criticise on this point.

Who were these Vote Leave figures arguing against activating Article 50 at the time?

It was in the vote leave articles that Mr Meeks referred to in his header.

Yes, but when Theresa May finally got round to invoking Article 50, they didn't object, did they? So presumably they were happy that by then we were ready (it's not as though she rushed it - she took nearly a year). So it's not true that "the Govt did not follow the plan i.e activating article 50, when VL said do not do it".

But when activating still had no agreement on what they wanted and then wasted time on an election. They then went and had a leadership election wasting more time.

I think that by the time Article 50 was triggered, Theresa May and her immediate team actually had a pretty good take on what they were trying to achieve in the negotiations, and I further think that she did a good job of achieving them, given the circumstances. I also think that she correctly positioned her aims to respect the referendum result without damaging the economy too much. The errors were screwing up the election, and (related to that) failing to carry people with her.

Essentially, though, as soon as she lost her majority she could never deliver a sensible Brexit, as I pointed out at the time. It was an absolutely disastrous result for the country.

williamglenn

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.

She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.

So any PM was right royally fecked !

Not if they had consulted, formed a Brexit Special Committee, proposed multi-party membership of it and they would have made recommendations. Not guaranteed success but nowhere to hide subsequently for any opposers.

As it is the narrative is it's a "Tory Brexit".

And my long-held belief on (one of the many) errors the Conservative Party committed was that they treated the referendum like a GE - ie winner takes all, sod the losers, instead of a whole country collaborative effort.

And here we are.

The problem is that given the contradictions of Brexit, there was a high likelihood that any such Brexit Special Committee would have been unable to form a consensus. Brexiteers would have known this (Vote Leave explicitly steered clear of being too concrete for this reason), so it would have been seen as a way to kick Brexit into the long grass.

ralphmalph

Chris said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

From the Guadian live blog:

Addressing a ConservativeHome/Port of Dover fringe event at the conference, transport minister George Freeman confirmed that the government was assuming that disruption would roughly halve - a range of 40-60% - the traffic on Britain’s main trading link for three months.

Doug Bannister, the chief executive of Port of Dover, said that the assumed drop in traffic would cut £1bn a trade every week. He said:

"That’s how critical it is. If there’s a no-deal Brexit, it’s not going to be OK. But people are doing all they can to ensure Britain keeps trading."

It's worth reading the whole section (at 13:39):

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/01/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-conservative-conference-interviewed-as-ireland-dismisses-uk-border-plan-as-non-starter-live-news

OK, so according to Yellowhammer, 75% of medicines come via that route. So the question is, is it practicable to prioritise medicines over other imports, or do we have to do without 35-40% of medicines for a period of three months (actually, up to 6 months according to Yellowhammer) in the event of No Deal?

Has that information been released, or is it something the public aren't allowed to know?

And if 35-40% of medicines are unavailable for 3-6 months, how many people will die as a result?

It has already been announced that container ports like Immingham are seeing increased trade that used to go via Dover/Calais.

TOPPING

david_herdson said:

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

TOPPING said:

surbiton19 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It is impossible to disagree with Alastair's reasoning. The transition from 'the referendum result must be respected so we must leave the EU' to '... and that means we must reject the orderly exit on offer and instead crash out in maximum chaos in direct contradiction of everything the Leave campaigners said' is a complete absurdity. Some of those making that transition are simply being massively dishonest - the ERGers were never going to support any deal - but most have simply been dragged along into the new position.

Mrs May has a lot to answer for. If she had gone for a Norway + then, she would have got it through minus the ERG. However, she went for the mythical "party unity" and sowed the seeds for the current disarray. All that nonsense about "No Deal is better than a Bad Deal" was simply spouted to convince the nutters that she was one of them. They would never accept her. They probably would not even accept our HYUFD because he has tainted his soul by having voted Remain.

She wouldn't have got anything through parliament - Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, what have you - had she not initially co-opted the opposition into the process. Without that (ok a big move for any PM) the opposition would have voted down anything the incumbent proposed.

So any PM was right royally fecked !

Not if they had consulted, formed a Brexit Special Committee, proposed multi-party membership of it and they would have made recommendations. Not guaranteed success but nowhere to hide subsequently for any opposers.

As it is the narrative is it's a "Tory Brexit".

And my long-held belief on (one of the many) errors the Conservative Party committed was that they treated the referendum like a GE - ie winner takes all, sod the losers, instead of a whole country collaborative effort.

And here we are.

That would have meant Corbyn signing up to a Tory Brexit deal.

Well this is my point about the cross-party committee. Take it out of the party political which then could have made recommendations. All well-publicised and there could have been thereby less scope to party politicise the outcome and those recommendations.

Not infallible by any means and yes Corbyn would have looked to paint it as a Tory Brexit but the facts would have been less clear cut than today.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda...