Labour's attempts to differentiate their position on Brexit and specifically

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166767]

What we didn't want was the question at issue, though. It was a binary choice in that sense. People are entitled in such a vote to reject the status quo without offering a detailed alternative. They voted to ditch the EU and try something else and it is the duty of any government to pursue future avenues only in the context of that rejection.

What people do want is always the same: peace, prosperity and a quiet life.

Funny that the overwhelming majority of them never get it

[Sir C]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166770]

Funny that the overwhelming majority of them never get it

I can only surmise that you refer to Africa, p. Things are improving rapidly there as well. Fear not, capitalism is continuing to save the world.

[Peter]

1) I was referring to Labour's attempts to differentiate themselves from the Tories in terms of the kind of deal they want and how they would attain it. And you know that.
2) But they did not oppose it on this basis. They opposed it as it was "an attack on pensioners"
3) See above
4) Thank you

1) You said they campaigned on Hard Brexit. I just put you right and pointed out that there was more than just a semantic distinction. Neither side has a clear view of their own position.
2) Nope, they opposed it as 'uncosted and of extreme concern'. The concern being that the process would cost time and money and would inevitably delay payments to those who need it.
3) See my original response. Again, this was attacked for so many reasons. You are ascribing it to one specific in order to construst a narrative that enables you to laugh at the stupidity of others.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Sir C;4166776]

I can only surmise that you refer to Africa, p. Things are improving rapidly there as well. Fear not, capitalism is continuing to save the world.

As Metallica said, 'to secure peace is to prepare for war'.

No idea what that means but I think it says it all

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166768]

Unfortunately, it isn't what they were asked. They were asked yes or no, they voted no. Some of us pointed out beforehand that it was a little silly to ask people to vote for something they weren't allowed to see but that is what we got.

While its dangerous to interpret too much from a yes or no vote I find it absurd that anyone could deny that freedom of movement was a key issue within the no vote.

Anything other than a binary choice would have been meaningless, though. It was first necessary to establish democratically that we no longer wished to be in the EU and only from there could we work out what form that would take. To have hedged the vote about with various options would have been to dilute it to the point of worthlessness. Equally, the vote that took us in was binary and offered no nuance (to the point of dishonesty, in fact), so it was only fair that the vote to take us equally simple.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166784]

Anything other than a binary choice would have been meaningless, though. It was first necessary to establish democratically that we no longer wished to be in the EU and only from there could we work out what form that would take. To have hedged the vote about with various options would have been to dilute it to the point of worthlessness. Equally, the vote that took us in was binary and offered no nuance (to the point of dishonesty, in fact), so it was only fair that the vote to take us equally simple.

Funnily enough, I thought the question was unfair on the leave campaign. Obviously you cant spell out a deal but issues like the single market and free movement are big enough to have been pulled out from the detail. I would argue they are almost implicit anyway.

The vote to go in was to join a completely different institution. It lost any legitimacy decades ago.

[Burney]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166789]

Funnily enough, I thought the question was unfair on the leave campaign. Obviously you cant spell out a deal but issues like the single market and free movement are big enough to have been pulled out from the detail. I would argue they are almost implicit anyway.

The vote to go in was to join a completely different institution. It lost any legitimacy decades ago.

What would be the point on voting for those things without first knowing whether people want to remain in the EU or not? Equally, us voting unilaterally to keep things that the EU isn't likely to grant is pretty meaningless.

Also, people are always going to say that - if they can - they'd prefer to be in the single market. At the same time, though, they will generally vote against free movement if it means high levels of immigration, without recognising the fact that those two wishes are incompatible.

[Peter]

[QUOTE=Burney;4166796]

What would be the point on voting for those things without first knowing whether people want to remain in the EU or not? Equally, us voting unilaterally to keep things that the EU isn't likely to grant is pretty meaningless.

Also, people are always going to say that - if they can - they'd prefer to be in the single market. At the same time, though, they will generally vote against free movement if it means high levels of immigration, without recognising the fact that those two wishes are incompatible.

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

[Monty92]

[QUOTE=Peter;4166797]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

This was explained, endlessly.

[Ash]

Its just a case of explaining that, fundamentally, leaving the EU means leaving the single market and ending freedom of movement. It would have solved some of the silly discussions happening now.

It would have helped if the people that decided to call the referendum had formulated a plan to enact in the event of the outcome being Leave, and to have explained that plan. As it was it never occurred to them that they could lose.

A soft (fake) Brexit where we remain in the single market, keep freedom of movement, retain the large net contribution but are politically excluded wouldn't be much of a brexit, imo. More of a vassalisation, perhaps.