Whoa! 'Theresa May to call Arlene Foster later today to pitch border deal'?

[Peter]

The Irish method.

You fellas love a bit of the EU though, dont you.

We have never really got on with it here, as an institution. Its basically French, for starters.

[Sir C]

You fellas love a bit of the EU though, dont you.

We have never really got on with it here, as an institution. Its basically French, for starters.

They like it because they leech money from it. Our money.

[Burney]

Yes, to answer the point above first I think it is laughable to accuse me of wanting to abandon democracy. We have a representative, parliamentary democracy that does not necessitate the use of referenda. It is a choice taken by our representatives and is nothing to do with democracy whatsoever. They were perfectly able to take this decision themselves but chose not to do so. One can argue that it is fairer to hold the public vote, and it may well be. But please dont take some moral high ground on democracy. Its unbecoming and irrelevant.

The referendum was an electoral ploy by the PRime Minister to fight the UKIP threat in Tory constituencies. THat is all.

There is arguably as much pressure for a referendum now as there was initially, if not more. THere is plenty of evidence to suggest that people were not aware of the consequences of their vote. Why should we not hold a second referendum on the exit plan?

No, I'm sorry, but your naked contempt for the 'quality' of the electorate is what's unbecoming here. People don't have to fit your idea of what constitutes a properly informed person for their vote to be valid. Your beloved Labour Party was founded on the back of millions of poorly-educated men and women who fancied a somewhat easier life, were promised one by Labour and so voted for them. Their knowledge of the wider repercussions of such a vote was in most cases zero, but that does not invalidate their vote.

Once you attack the electorate - as you have - you are undermining one of the keystones of the democratic system - the sovereignty of the electorate's decision. The 'let's go back and have another go' approach when you don't get the result you like is an essentially anti-democratic one - as deployed by the EU in several cases. It is simply not acceptable to undermine electoral sovereignty in that way. Plus, of course, the last vote on the matter was in 1975. I didn't hear these same people who now claim there has been a change of heart clamouring for another go on that one. It took 41 years, in fact.

Referenda are simply the only way to make certain decisions. You could never take a decision such as taking Scotland out of the Union or the UK into or out of the EU purely by the mechanics of Parliamentary democracy - it would be unthinkable in this day and age, in fact. The decision to drag the nation unwillingly into the EU of ever-closer union via Maastricht and Lisbon were exactly what caused so much resentment in the first place.

Ultimately, there have been 11 referenda in UK political history. The outcome of every single one has been enacted. The idea that this one - the biggest there has ever been - would not be or would be overturned is absurd.

[Burney]

if people wanted Brexit that badly, they should have voted en masse for Farage.

An absurd argument. People vote in general elections for a variety of factors. People didn't want a UKIP government because UKIP is a madhouse and would have screwed up the running of the country. Not voting for UKIP does not invalidate an individual's anti-EU feeling. There was a democratic deficit on the question that the blunt object of a referendum was the only way to meet.

And as for this

Decisions as important as Brexit should be taken by intelligent people on the back of extensive quantitative analysis and consideration of public opinion.

This is an argument for technocracy, not democracy. That is precisely what the Leave vote rejected. Your 'intelligent people' simply means 'people who will agree with me and whose decisions will suit my interests'. That is not democracy.

[Burney]

They like it because they leech money from it. Our money.

It also saves them from the pesky business of having to actually be independent. They had a look at independence for 50-odd years, didn't much like it, so eagerly took refuge under a new imperium that told them what to do and gave them sweeties.

'A Nation Once Again', my fùcking arse.

[Sir C]

It also saves them from the pesky business of having to actually be independent. They had a look at independence for 50-odd years, didn't much like it, so eagerly took refuge under a new imperium that told them what to do and gave them sweeties.

'A Nation Once Again', my fùcking arse.

I wonder how long it will take them to decide they're being oppressed and start writing puke-inducing self-pitying songs about their experiences at the hands of the Evil EU? #professionalvictims

[Burney]

I wonder how long it will take them to decide they're being oppressed and start writing puke-inducing self-pitying songs about their experiences at the hands of the Evil EU? #professionalvictims

I'm afraid that as long as we're around for them to vent their ever-full spleens at, the EU can carry on treating them like a rather amusing colonial possession and they'll just keep tugging their forelocks and saying 'tank you, sor!'

[Peter]

No, I'm sorry, but your naked contempt for the 'quality' of the electorate is what's unbecoming here. People don't have to fit your idea of what constitutes a properly informed person for their vote to be valid. Your beloved Labour Party was founded on the back of millions of poorly-educated men and women who fancied a somewhat easier life, were promised one by Labour and so voted for them. Their knowledge of the wider repercussions of such a vote was in most cases zero, but that does not invalidate their vote.

Once you attack the electorate - as you have - you are undermining one of the keystones of the democratic system - the sovereignty of the electorate's decision. The 'let's go back and have another go' approach when you don't get the result you like is an essentially anti-democratic one - as deployed by the EU in several cases. It is simply not acceptable to undermine electoral sovereignty in that way. Plus, of course, the last vote on the matter was in 1975. I didn't hear these same people who now claim there has been a change of heart clamouring for another go on that one. It took 41 years, in fact.

Referenda are simply the only way to make certain decisions. You could never take a decision such as taking Scotland out of the Union or the UK into or out of the EU purely by the mechanics of Parliamentary democracy - it would be unthinkable in this day and age, in fact. The decision to drag the nation unwillingly into the EU of ever-closer union via Maastricht and Lisbon were exactly what caused so much resentment in the first place.

Ultimately, there have been 11 referenda in UK political history. The outcome of every single one has been enacted. The idea that this one - the biggest there has ever been - would not be or would be overturned is absurd.

Its quite hard to hear you when you are so high up on that horse, b.

I dont want it overturned. I have said that. I dont want a second referendum. I have said that. I dont like referenda- I think you know I have said that.

I dont have contempt for the electorate. I have contempt for people who believe that a referendum is the only way to go when it suits them and oppose it when it isnt. Lets say the bill gets even messier to the point at which the proposed exit looks absolutely nothing like what was sold to us? LEts say opinion polls suggest 70 or 80% of the electorate want a second referendum? Would you support one?

I wouldn't, I dont like them. You, however, believe they are the only way to resolve a constitutional issue as significant as this. Would you really think a 51% win on a now thoroughly repudiated idea of what Brexit might look like is enough?

OBviously once we are out we will have time to discuss the many and varied ideas you have for refining our democracy, the one you are so proud of. A first past the post system that excluded your main issue from the agenda for 41 years.

[World's End Stella]

An absurd argument. People vote in general elections for a variety of factors. People didn't want a UKIP government because UKIP is a madhouse and would have screwed up the running of the country. Not voting for UKIP does not invalidate an individual's anti-EU feeling. There was a democratic deficit on the question that the blunt object of a referendum was the only way to meet.

And as for this



This is an argument for technocracy, not democracy. That is precisely what the Leave vote rejected. Your 'intelligent people' simply means 'people who will agree with me and whose decisions will suit my interests'. That is not democracy.

Really? Yeah, all right, fair enough.

I'll take the whole thing back then.

[Burney]

Its quite hard to hear you when you are so high up on that horse, b.

I dont want it overturned. I have said that. I dont want a second referendum. I have said that. I dont like referenda- I think you know I have said that.

I dont have contempt for the electorate. I have contempt for people who believe that a referendum is the only way to go when it suits them and oppose it when it isnt. Lets say the bill gets even messier to the point at which the proposed exit looks absolutely nothing like what was sold to us? LEts say opinion polls suggest 70 or 80% of the electorate want a second referendum? Would you support one?

I wouldn't, I dont like them. You, however, believe they are the only way to resolve a constitutional issue as significant as this. Would you really think a 51% win on a now thoroughly repudiated idea of what Brexit might look like is enough?

OBviously once we are out we will have time to discuss the many and varied ideas you have for refining our democracy, the one you are so proud of. A first past the post system that excluded your main issue from the agenda for 41 years.

A vote - any vote - is a snapshot of opinion at a certain time and place. We accept that when it is a general election and accept that we'll only have to have another go in a few years' time. We don't look at an opinion poll six months later and decide it's time to go again because some people's minds have changed according to a highly flawed polling system. The precedent for referenda in this country is that our votes are binding and that we will have to wait a long while before we get a chance to change them. That was the case in terms of devolution and Common Market entry and should rightfully be the same on Brexit.

Also, your premise is flawed. I wasn't 'sold' any particular exit from the EU and neither was anyone else. I remember nothing on that ballot that mentioned the details or told us how it was or wasn't going to happen. I and 17.4 million other people voted to leave the EU - that's it. Nothing has been 'thoroughly repudiated' because it hasn't actually happened yet.