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

williamglenn 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.

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.

Labour slipping in the polls would have ensured that they didn't want that Special Committee to come to a consensus. They'd have feared getting a kicking in the upcoming election (which they would then have had no legimtimate argument to block).

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

That's bollocks though.

The set of "best possible deals" does not include none.

If you promised your kids the best possible dinner, or holiday, then gave them nothing, you wouldn't get far with "it was the best I could get"

BBC reports that 'High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.'

Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.

Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!

Scott_P said:

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

Whether relevent or not I don't know, but the top news feature on his website is him visiting the Cirencester Beer Fesival....

https://www.cliftonbrown.co.uk/

Scott_P said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

That's bollocks though.

The set of "best possible deals" does not include none.

If you promised your kids the best possible dinner, or holiday, then gave them nothing, you wouldn't get far with "it was the best I could get"

Where 'best' is not conditional it is a meaningless statement. The set of best possible deals can include no deal or revoke. Depends on your starting point really.

The main difficulty with a second referendum is that there has been a total breakdown of trust amongst the electorate. I envisage this scenario.
Interviewer- So will you implement the result THIS time?
Politician-eyes burning with sincerity-Of course. We will honour and respect it.
17 million people vomit with disgust.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Chris said:

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?

I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.

After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.

Is that based on anything more than what you've just said?

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.

On balance it does absolutely no such thing. Negotiations with the EU aren't over since negotiations with the EU are only over when everything irs ratified. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, hence why the government is currently negotiating with the EU.

If no deal is possible then no deal is possible and the best possible deal is none at all.

williamglenn 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.

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.

Also true. But a better risk to have taken imo.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Chris said:

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?

I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.

After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.

The Pharmaceutical Journal, read by the people who deal with these things on an hour-by-hour basis, reports that people are worried.

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_P said:

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

Whether relevent or not I don't know, but the top news feature on his website is him visiting the Cirencester Beer Fesival....

https://www.cliftonbrown.co.uk/

He represents the Cotswolds constituency, which is adjacent to mine. It is one of the few non-metropiltan constituncies to have voted Remain.

philiph said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

OldKingCole said:

BBC reports that 'High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.'

Thought there were likely to be surpluses of farm products, due to inability of farmers to export after Brexit. Where does Greggs get it's pork from now, I wonder.

Piece also says that 20% of a sausage roll is pork!

Vegan sausage rolls are 0% pork

Should be 0% p0rk, typed in the PB time honoured way.

*titter*

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

On balance it does absolutely no such thing. Negotiations with the EU aren't over since negotiations with the EU are only over when everything irs ratified. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, hence why the government is currently negotiating with the EU.

If no deal is possible then no deal is possible and the best possible deal is none at all.

The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK. But we will enter the negotiations in a spirit of sincere cooperation and committed to getting the best deal for Britain.

The Conservative government declared May's deal the best possible deal. How does this section provide a justification to reject that deal and leave without one?

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Chris said:

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?

I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.

After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.

The Pharmaceutical Journal, read by the people who deal with these things on an hour-by-hour basis, reports that people are worried.

Change does that.

If they have put effort into anything, one assumes it is medicines.

philiph said:

OldKingCole said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Chris said:

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?

I'm actually not too worried on that score. I think it is fairly straightforward to prioritise medicines and to use other ports, or air-freight. A lot of planning has gone into it, made easier by the fact that there is already a centralised NHS organisation for ensuring supplies don't get disrupted by other issues.

After all, medicines are relatively low-bulk, high-value items. You can fly them in if necessary.

The Pharmaceutical Journal, read by the people who deal with these things on an hour-by-hour basis, reports that people are worried.

Change does that.

If they have put effort into anything, one assumes it is medicines.

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/no-deal-brexit-pharmacy-bodies-question-the-uk-governments-readiness/20207055.article?firstPass=false

It doesn't reassure.

FPT.

I agree with Nick Palmer's assessment regarding Portsmouth South having the potential to allow the Tories to come through the middle. However, I can't agree with Nick's view that "the Conservatives merely have to lose a couple of dozen seats to be underwater, even after those frightful leftists like Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd are replaced by loyalists".

Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined, including nearly all of those which are the lowest hanging fruit for the Tories. The potential for Remainer tactical voting is being overstated outside the minority of seats where Remainers are untypically a majority of the electorate but there will still be a lot of churn. Assuming that the Tories could potentially lose 30-40 seats in total, this would not however destroy Johnson's chances.

Leave seats, particularly Labour ones, are those with the potential for a highest swing towards the Tories, based on what we know from the Opinium crossbreaks of Leave supporters. The "Bolsolver strategy" of 2017 may have narrowly failed but it did bring a number of these within range and Labour majorities in the low teen percentages won't all be safe. Seats like Bassetlaw (majority 9%, Leave 68%) would be in the balance even before John Mann's departure. As things stand the Tories have a fair chance of picking up 40 or so seats to offset those they lose elsewhere.

Generally, there seems to be a tsunami of changes in previous voter loyalties in all sorts of directions and as such the amount of churn in seats is going to be at the high range of expectations.

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't often say nice things about Boris Johnson, but this does show some panache:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1179033252641722368

Betting the cup is empty though

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1179032215952314368

Crush the saboteurs

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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.

Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.

Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.

So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1179035026953949191

nichomar said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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.

Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.

Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.

So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.

There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1179035026953949191

Lol. Clash of the intellectual titans

Scott_P said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't often say nice things about Boris Johnson, but this does show some panache:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1179033252641722368

Betting the cup is empty though

Not as empty as the moral vacuum next to it.

Popcorn alert!

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1179035026953949191

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1179032215952314368

THAT LOGIC IN FULL
* It is OK for the Government to know about it
* It is OK for the EU to know about it
* It is not OK for the British public to know about it

TGOHF2 said:

Brom said:

nichomar said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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.

Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.

Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.

So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.

There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.

There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.

Agreed, and besides it's not a great idea to campaign for another one after spending years trying to convince the British public that the referendum result was non binding, the winning side were corrupt, the campaign ill-informed and the effect on society negative.

Does anyone have any figures for Brexit Party voting intention decomposed into 2015 vote recall?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Chris said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Carnyx said:

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/features/no-deal-brexit-pharmacy-bodies-question-the-uk-governments-readiness/20207055.article?firstPass=false

It doesn't reassure.

Actually, that article is quite reassuring. Those quoted in the article who are best placed to know seem confident. Those who raise concerns are not saying there's likely to be significant shortages, they are mostly talking about secondary problems.

If you find that reassuring, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought.

You probably will want to delete that having reflected. I suggest your read the Box on 'unanswered questions' in the article to help your understanding.

If he changes his mind, you're suggesting he unilaterally revoke?

Recidivist said:

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.

At least it is possible to implement communism.

Hard communism or soft communism? Can it be achieved before every other country embraces communism?

Mr. Foremain, there are legitimate problems with the EU and it's perfectly valid not to be in favour of the UK's membership. Nobody would argue the matter has been handled well, however.

Lumping everyone on the other side together as xenophobes isn't going to help us get to a lasting settlement.

TGOHF2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

TGOHF2 said:

Brom said:

nichomar said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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.

Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.

Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.

So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.

There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.

There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.

'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'

Pointless - the establishment ignore the results of referendums if they don’t like the way we voted.

"Ignore". It's filled the entire political capacity of this country for the past three years+.
"Ignore". Jesus wept.

Hi from Halifax, Nova Scotia and note that Boris who may still be pm when we return next tuesday even though he is being attacked from all quarters. I expect the real action will take place mid october. Must go as the ship sails shortly for our 6 day North Atlantic crossing

My best wishes to everyone no matter which side of the argument you are on

Be with you all again soon

TGOHF2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

TGOHF2 said:

Brom said:

nichomar said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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.

Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.

Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.

So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.

There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.

There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.

'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'

Pointless - the establishment ignore the results of referendums if they don’t like the way we voted.

If only! The establishment has become paralysed trying to deliver the referendum result, and therefore failed not just to deliver the result but do anything else either. That is worse than either implementing or ignoring the referendum result.

Noo said:

Scott_P said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't often say nice things about Boris Johnson, but this does show some panache:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1179033252641722368

Betting the cup is empty though

Not as empty as the moral vacuum next to it.

I think he means his free cup from costa that he had been queuing all day for

rpjs said:

williamglenn said:

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

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

Must be one of the Glasgow Rangers Inter City Firm

Vote Leave did come out with oceans of drivel. No doubt whatsoever about that.

However when talking about 'Deal' in the excerpts quoted the meaning is often not exit terms but the ultimate Future Relationship.

And indeed this is what counts. Whether we get soft Brexit or hard Brexit or whatever Brexit will depend on negotiations which will take several years and could easily span multiple general elections and serious changes in political climate.

But those negotiations can only start after we leave. And that event - leaving - was mandated by the 2016 referendum.

Such remains the case.

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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.

Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.

Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.

The referendum has already been ignored - by Brexiteers. It was a very narrow "victory" for them, but they behaved as though it was overwhelming.

They have tried to obtain something that was not mandated. they are the ones that have not "respected" the result.

PaulM said:

Noo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined

Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?

According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...

Tell me this isn't happening.

Noo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined

Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?

Because I read the polling crossbreaks.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Hi from Halifax, Nova Scotia and note that Boris who may still be pm when we return next tuesday even though he is being attacked from all quarters. I expect the real action will take place mid october. Must go as the ship sails shortly for our 6 day North Atlantic crossing

My best wishes to everyone no matter which side of the argument you are on

Be with you all again soon

Have a great time!

dyedwoolie said:

TGOHF2 said:

Brom said:

nichomar said:

TGOHF2 said:

Richard_Nabavi 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.

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.

Any impact on the economy by leaving will likely have been recovered with bells on as long as Jezza doesnt become PM.

Ignoring a referendum will trash our democracy for a generation- and not a SNP generation either.

So a few leavers won’t vote tough that’s their problem.

There's not going to be a referendum, that much is fairly clear. The People's Vote campaign has died and even the Lib Dems have abandoned it.

There won’t be another referendum on any topic for 20-30 years after this.

'Do you approve or disapprove of the annexation of Calais as a constituent part of the UK?'

Re-annexation. The Ghost of Bloody Mary coming to hand us.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Noo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined

Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?

Because I read the polling crossbreaks.

Data

PaulM said:

Noo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined

Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?

According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...

Anecdote....

https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/1179044045471064065

PaulM said:

Noo said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Once Scotland and London have been removed from the equation, the great majority of seats in England as well as Wales are Leave inclined

Why do you think the Conservatives are likelier to pick those up now than in 2017? Do you think the people who didn't vote Tory in 2017 are rushing to endorse the way the Tories have been handling everything in the past 28 months?

According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...

In the reliability stakes, hopefully your friend's name is not Martin Day.

PaulM said:

According to a friend of mine who is a Tory canvasser, Boris Johnson is turning out to be much more popular than the somewhat dour Mrs May. He had been canvassing in a Northern Labour marginal last weekend and claims multiple people in Labour wards said things along the lines of "I've never voted Tory in my life but would vote for Boris Johnson". To be fair my friend was surprised himself as he much preferred Hunt and doesn't rate Johnson, but he wonders whether there is a celebrity aspect that cuts through. I'm still sceptical but...

People said much the same about Theresa May.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/08/15/theresa-may-more-popular-jeremy-corbyn-among-tradi

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-conservatives-popularity-ratings-public-support-a7327726.html

More Meeks' bullshit trying to defend the indefensible. Trying to second guess the result in favour of Remain and put interpretations on the vote which are completely unjustified thtough partial and warped rewriting of history.