AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.

I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.

I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.

If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.

Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.

The million dollar question is why positions hardened.

People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.

It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.

It's been driven by the paranoid mania of Leavers purporting to channel the People's Will.

In this very thread people have rejected the legitimacy of the referendum...

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

History will blame Cameron

In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.

If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different

One fur @david_herdson I think

Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.

Neither did the political elite as a whole

The prime minister carries responsibility.

He resigned

He took the quick and easy way out and added to the mess he created.

He couldn't have stayed. Most of the Leavers berating his dereliction of duty would have been out with pitchforks if he had tried to stay. And his authority was shot anyway.

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.

I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.

I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.

If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.

Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.

The million dollar question is why positions hardened.

People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.

It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.

It arrogantly failed to collapse and deludedly came to a unified position?

No, it arrogantly believed we would change our mind if they were difficult and they were deluded about their importance to the UK economy.

DavidL said:

oxfordsimon said:

DavidL said:

oxfordsimon said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Oxfam is the lead news on the media tonight

This is starting to look terminal.

Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.

Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.

Our Charity sector is corrupt and self indulgent. Oxfam are not the worst but I am struggling to see how they survive this.

I think Oxfam as a name will continue to exist - but with a complete new set of trustees and management board

Would you give money to it after this? Surely it will be easier to start again.

Given the number of projects and properties they already have, I think they have to continue at least as a brand identity and then transition to a new management team/mission statement as quickly as possible.

Even with the bad apples and dreadful management, there are still a lot of good people doing good work in the name of Oxfam - work that people are relying on. You can't just shut that down.

I so misread this for a moment.

https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/962423527147270146

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.

I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.

I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.

If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.

Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.

The million dollar question is why positions hardened.

People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.

It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.

As someone whose professional work since June 24th 2016 has been focussed largely on Brexit, I humbly disagree.

If you want the epitome of arrogance and delusion, try dealing with David Davis and Liam Fox on a regular basis.

Those two morons couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped them into the Atlantic Ocean.

They are prats and I have no time for either of them. But once we had decided to leave the imperative for both sides was to find a deal that minimised disruption and worked for the benefit of both sides. So far the EU has shown remarkably little interest in doing so.

AlastairMeeks said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Jonathan said:

Charles said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

History will blame Cameron

In resigning he made it inevitable that his replacement would have to pledge themselves to the Brexiteers.

If he had stated on to implement Brexit and then gracefully stepped back history might have been very different

One fur @david_herdson I think

Getting the legal basis wrong for who has the power to trigger A50 was another critical oversight by Cameron. He never gave any serious thought to losing.

Neither did the political elite as a whole

The prime minister carries responsibility.

He resigned

He took the quick and easy way out and added to the mess he created.

He couldn't have stayed. Most of the Leavers berating his dereliction of duty would have been out with pitchforks if he had tried to stay. And his authority was shot anyway.

May stayed after her authority was shattered .

Not sure if it has been pointed out already, but thinking it was wrong to leave the EU and wanting to ignore the referendum are different things.

I am a Labour voter, I think it was wrong to leave the EU, but I still think we should leave the EU because that was the result of the referendum. On reflection, I think Corbyn has played an absolute blinder and the constructive ambiguity is genius.

If Corbyn's stance on the EU was a problem for the labour party members, Owen Smith would have beaten him in the last leadership election. The whole leadership election occured because of his lukewarm stance on the EU in the referendum.

oxfordsimon said:

DavidL said:

oxfordsimon said:

DavidL said:

oxfordsimon said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Oxfam is the lead news on the media tonight

This is starting to look terminal.

Anything that shakes up our charity sector and makes them focus on core services rather than being fronts for political campaigns has to be a good thing.

Also, there needs to be a shift in their internal cultures whereby huge salaries are no longer the norm. Working in the charity sector should be adequately rewarded - but choosing to be part of it always used to be motivated by something other than money.

Our Charity sector is corrupt and self indulgent. Oxfam are not the worst but I am struggling to see how they survive this.

I think Oxfam as a name will continue to exist - but with a complete new set of trustees and management board

Would you give money to it after this? Surely it will be easier to start again.

Given the number of projects and properties they already have, I think they have to continue at least as a brand identity and then transition to a new management team/mission statement as quickly as possible.

Even with the bad apples and dreadful management, there are still a lot of good people doing good work in the name of Oxfam - work that people are relying on. You can't just shut that down.

But you can rebrand it. If that work is to be saved (and I agree some of it is good work) I think that is necessary.

oxfordsimon said:

MarqueeMark said:

oxfordsimon said:

AndyJS said:

What happens if the LDs hold the balance of power after the next election? Will they put Corbyn into Downing Street?

If that is looking like a realistic possibility, you can already imagine the ads saying 'Vote Cable, Get Corbyn'

I somehow can't imagine the LDs going into any formal coalitions for at least a generation. They might do a temporary deal for a year to provide stability. But nothing longer lasting

Even if it's not looking like a realistic possibility.... ;-)

But they are going to be in a queue, behind the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein.....

EDIT: Would Corbyn put forward legislation to change the oath to allow SF to take their seats?

Of course he would. And in all honesty, I don't have a problem with that. If they are the elected, they should take their seats. The oath could easily be modified to accommodate differing views.

+1 the same principle that led to the right to affirm rather than tak a religious oath.

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.

I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.

I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.

If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.

Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.

The million dollar question is why positions hardened.

People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.

It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.

It arrogantly failed to collapse and deludedly came to a unified position?

No, it arrogantly believed we would change our mind if they were difficult and they were deluded about their importance to the UK economy.

In what sense have they been difficult? They've done most of the work in creating an orderly exit plan.

Their refusal to discuss the future relationship for more than a year was completely ridiculous. Their desperation for our money for their future expenditure was pitiful. But there is still time.

The_Apocalypse said:

Mortimer said:

justin124 said:

I have been looking at the regional crossbreaks of the last three YouGov polls - and found the results quite interesting.

Early Jan Late Jan Early Feb

London Lab +20 Lab +28 Lab +6

South Con +21 Con +23 Con +22

Midland &Wales Con + 2 Con + 8 Con +6

North Lab + 21 Lab + 22 Lab +20

Scotland Lab + 7 Lab +6 Con +3

From the data, the better Tory polling performance appears to come from changes in London - and Scotland - in recent weeks. Is there any obvious explanation for that?

Absolutely. London and Scotland are the most Remain-concentrated parts of the country. And remainers have twigged that Corbz is, to channel @MarqueeMark, Brexit's bezzy mate...

Tbf, the likes of Opinum, ICM, and YouGov (their model was different to the polls they produced) told us the Tories were on track for majority during the GE.

I have no confidence in the individual pollsters, or their headline outputs, frankly - but the trend is revealing, providing they're not tinkering with methodology between polls....

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.

I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.

I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.

If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.

Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.

The million dollar question is why positions hardened.

People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.

It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.

As someone whose professional work since June 24th 2016 has been focussed largely on Brexit, I humbly disagree.

If you want the epitome of arrogance and delusion, try dealing with David Davis and Liam Fox on a regular basis.

Those two morons couldn't find a cup of water if you dropped them into the Atlantic Ocean.

They are prats and I have no time for either of them. But once we had decided to leave the imperative for both sides was to find a deal that minimised disruption and worked for the benefit of both sides. So far the EU has shown remarkably little interest in doing so.

Because the EU keep on asking us what do we want, and Mrs May keeps on mouthing platitudes with no specifics.

Heck even Frau Merkel is laughing at Mrs May, that's how bad it is.

May has been clear what we wanted in her Florence speech and elsewhere. She wants free trade without unlimited immigration. She wants minimal trade friction. She wants close cooperation on security and policing. She wants us to have a close and constructive relationship with the EU. The EU think this is pick and mix and would set a dangerous precedent. But it is the only deal in town.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.

I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.

I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.

If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.

Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.

The million dollar question is why positions hardened.

People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.

It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.

It arrogantly failed to collapse and deludedly came to a unified position?

No, it arrogantly believed we would change our mind if they were difficult and they were deluded about their importance to the UK economy.

In what sense have they been difficult? They've done most of the work in creating an orderly exit plan.

Their refusal to discuss the future relationship for more than a year was completely ridiculous. Their desperation for our money for their future expenditure was pitiful. But there is still time.

The British government has done absolutely nothing to make the EU approach the problem in anything other than transactional terms.

Not so. We offered them a generous deal on respective citizens rights, for example.

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

DavidL said:

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Jonathan said:

Leavers seem to go out if their way to avoid reaching a consensus with those that didn't back Brexit. It appears " we won, we have licence and to do whatever we want" is the preferred approach , despite prominent leavers like Gove before the vote selling things like the Customs Union.

Tragedy is, I suspect a consensus and healing was possible.

You might have a better point if Remainer concensus on healing is essentially, not really leaving the EU.

I really think the onus is on the Leavers to reach out.

I am happy to reach out to a soft Brexit. I am not willing to reach out to subvert the vote.

If the conversation now was the same as it was before the referendum when leavers were talking EEA. customs union and single market access, I really think we would be in a very different situation.

Positions hardened. It's a mess. The onus is still on the leavers to find some kind of consensus.

The million dollar question is why positions hardened.

People are keen to blame Theresa May and Nick Timothy, but I don't think that's a satisfactory explanation. Ultimately it's driven by the internal logic of Brexit itself.

It has been driven by the arrogance and delusion of the EU. But there is still time.

It arrogantly failed to collapse and deludedly came to a unified position?

No, it arrogantly believed we would change our mind if they were difficult and they were deluded about their importance to the UK economy.

In what sense have they been difficult? They've done most of the work in creating an orderly exit plan.

Their refusal to discuss the future relationship for more than a year was completely ridiculous. Their desperation for our money for their future expenditure was pitiful. But there is still time.

The British government has done absolutely nothing to make the EU approach the problem in anything other than transactional terms.

Not so. We offered them a generous deal on respective citizens rights, for example.

No, the government used EU citizens as bargaining chips till it painfully obviously and belatedly realised that was counterproductive.

Mr Meeks,

Thank you for your answer.

It seems highly subjective or vague. Who defines who is a flatulent fossil? Coherent to whom? Who defines an open inclusive immigration policy? The elected UK government or some unelected body?

Mrs May has already stated she wants a long-term relationship with the EU, but it takes two to tango - that will depend on the EU. Finally who defines what is an ageing xenophobe? To some Remainers that is everyone who voted Leave.

Do you or anyone else really believe that membership of the CU and single market is compatible without FOM etc? The EU couldn't offer this even if Barnier wanted to (and he doesn't).

For information, I voted for the single market in 1975 and I still think it's a good idea as long as it doesn't eventually come with a United state of Europe. I suspect we'll never agree on this, but thanks for taking the time to reply.

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

May has been clear what we wanted in her Florence speech and elsewhere. She wants free trade without unlimited immigration. She wants minimal trade friction. She wants close cooperation on security and policing. She wants us to have a close and constructive relationship with the EU. The EU think this is pick and mix and would set a dangerous precedent. But it is the only deal in town.

But she doesn't go into specifics.

She's had 18 months to form a view on the specifics.

What does minimal trade friction mean?

What does minimal mean? Does it mean 'a' customs union with the EU?

As someone I saw somewhere nailed it, it's "make me an offer" negotiation.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

May has been clear what we wanted in her Florence speech and elsewhere. She wants free trade without unlimited immigration. She wants minimal trade friction. She wants close cooperation on security and policing. She wants us to have a close and constructive relationship with the EU. The EU think this is pick and mix and would set a dangerous precedent. But it is the only deal in town.

But she doesn't go into specifics.

She's had 18 months to form a view on the specifics.

What does minimal trade friction mean?

What does minimal mean? Does it mean 'a' customs union with the EU?

Yes it does. It means we work together to ensure that the free flow of goods and services between us continues with as little paperwork and bureaucracy as possible, recognising that we already have the same standards and that all we need to work out is the VAT and what to do with third party imports. We are getting there now but the time that has been wasted in posturing and the naive belief we were going to change our minds is regrettable.

But what happens when those standards diverge in the future?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/opiniumresearch/status/962422989198450688

Can’t say I’m surprised. Our vote is solid, and the prospect of Corbyn actually running the country, combined with his passive support for Brexit, will help to push a few votes from Labour to the Liberals.

May should make the vote in October binary; the deal is approved, or if rejected, the next vote is for an early dissolution. Labour’s studied ambiguity on Brexit would come crashing down.

Can’t wait for a December General Election!

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

May has been clear what we wanted in her Florence speech and elsewhere. She wants free trade without unlimited immigration. She wants minimal trade friction. She wants close cooperation on security and policing. She wants us to have a close and constructive relationship with the EU. The EU think this is pick and mix and would set a dangerous precedent. But it is the only deal in town.

But she doesn't go into specifics.

She's had 18 months to form a view on the specifics.

What does minimal trade friction mean?

What does minimal mean? Does it mean 'a' customs union with the EU?

Yes it does. It means we work together to ensure that the free flow of goods and services between us continues with as little paperwork and bureaucracy as possible, recognising that we already have the same standards and that all we need to work out is the VAT and what to do with third party imports. We are getting there now but the time that has been wasted in posturing and the naive belief we were going to change our minds is regrettable.

But what happens when those standards diverge in the future?

The goods or services that are made or regulated to different standards will not be capable of being sold in the other jurisdiction. Simple.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

May has been clear what we wanted in her Florence speech and elsewhere. She wants free trade without unlimited immigration. She wants minimal trade friction. She wants close cooperation on security and policing. She wants us to have a close and constructive relationship with the EU. The EU think this is pick and mix and would set a dangerous precedent. But it is the only deal in town.

But she doesn't go into specifics.

She's had 18 months to form a view on the specifics.

What does minimal trade friction mean?

What does minimal mean? Does it mean 'a' customs union with the EU?

Yes it does. It means we work together to ensure that the free flow of goods and services between us continues with as little paperwork and bureaucracy as possible, recognising that we already have the same standards and that all we need to work out is the VAT and what to do with third party imports. We are getting there now but the time that has been wasted in posturing and the naive belief we were going to change our minds is regrettable.

But what happens when those standards diverge in the future?

The goods or services that are made or regulated to different standards will not be capable of being sold in the other jurisdiction. Simple.

But that's something our government can't seem to agree on.

They want to still sell stuff to the EU on current terms even if the standards change.

Mr Eagles,

"But what happens when those standards diverge in the future?"

We do as we always did when members. We join up with the Germans and the Scandinavians to outvote the French. The Mediterranean countries agree to everything but don't enforce the rules in their own country.

That's one of problems of having 27 countries and why they want to unify them into one country. At the moment, it's one gang against another gang.

RoyalBlue said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/opiniumresearch/status/962422989198450688

Can’t say I’m surprised. Our vote is solid, and the prospect of Corbyn actually running the country, combined with his passive support for Brexit, will help to push a few votes from Labour to the Liberals.

May should make the vote in October binary; the deal is approved, or if rejected, the next vote is for an early dissolution. Labour’s studied ambiguity on Brexit would come crashing down.

Can’t wait for a December General Election!

I think they’ll make it till 2022 tbh, the Tories seem rather keen to not let May lead them into another GE. Certainly can’t see a December GE, I doubt anyone will want to campaign during Christmas time especially with the evenings being dark and all.

Even in these polls, however one takes them, there seems to be little sign of a LD bounce.

Mr Meeks,

"Fascist notions of the Will of the People," as you put it does sound a little like democracy., but you pinpoint a modern problem.

fascist = something I don't agree with but is generally popular with people I look down on.

It's a risk we take if we want democracy.

AlastairMeeks said:

stevef said:

AlastairMeeks said:

CD13 said:

Mr Meeks,

What compromise do you think would satisfy the small proportion of Remainers who keep complaining? Remember this would still have to honour the referendum. If the compromise is to re-run the referendum until they win, I wouldn't call that a compromise.

For a start, the government could put the flatulent fossils who are competing to hate the EU in their place. It could address Remain supporters' fears that Brexit Britain is going to be a paradise for ageing xenophobes by setting out an open, inclusive immigration policy. It could coherently set out the long term relationship it seeks with the EU. All this could be done consistently with a very hard Brexit, never mind something more economically sane.

But Leavers prefer to hate than try to bring Britain together.

Flatulent Fossils. Aging xenophobes. Leavers prefer to hate.

And you think that my use of the word remoaner is not conducive to civil debate?

If I'm upsetting those who want Britain to be run by fascist notions of the Will of the People, I'm upsetting the right people.

Upsetting presumes they care what you think. Calling people xenophobes, racists and morons unceasingly tends to make them filter you out.

CD13 said:

Mr Meeks,

"Fascist notions of the Will of the People," as you put it does sound a little like democracy., but you pinpoint a modern problem.

fascist = something I don't agree with but is generally popular with people I look down on.

It's a risk we take if we want democracy.

I meant the phrase literally. @Stevef claims to be able to interpret the referendum result to a precise set of policy positions and that anything else is a betrayal of the Will of the People.

New thread!

NEW THREAD

AlastairMeeks said:

RoyalBlue said:

justin124 said:

RoyalBlue said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/opiniumresearch/status/962422989198450688

Can’t say I’m surprised. Our vote is solid, and the prospect of Corbyn actually running the country, combined with his passive support for Brexit, will help to push a few votes from Labour to the Liberals.

May should make the vote in October binary; the deal is approved, or if rejected, the next vote is for an early dissolution. Labour’s studied ambiguity on Brexit would come crashing down.

Can’t wait for a December General Election!

It would be far less certain - given the changed arithmetic - that the Commons would support a Dissolution motion.

I think opposition parties, Government ministers and the ERG gets you well over the required 434 MPs.

Labour wouldn't vote for a dissolution. They would seek to take over without an election.

I am sure they would. We cant have democracy can we? Jeremy Corbyn would be the first Leaver in British history to be prime minister. Be careful what you wish for....