As mistakes go, I think this one needs a bit more than a 'Whoops! Soz! Lol!'

[Burney]

I thought he handled the interview questions around the referendum terribly. There was an obvious answer there- if you have a second referendum on the deal, and people reject it, where does it leave us? At that point, remain has to be a discussion at the very least. He would prefer that discussion to be resolved through a general election.

It isnt ****ing rocket science.

It leaves us going out with no deal. It means there would be a mandate for no deal.

Anyway, he isn't going to allow a vote to remain because he'd lose millions of votes. He wants to pay lip service to the idea of a second referendum in order to keep his members quiet, but the last thing he wants is an actual referendum.

Besides, McCluskey and McDonnell have ruled out a remain vote and they run the Labour Party now, so everyone else can whistle for all the good it does.

[Burney]

Ta

I wouldn't touch her means of production with yours, mate.

[Peter]

It leaves us going out with no deal. It means there would be a mandate for no deal.

Anyway, he isn't going to allow a vote to remain because he'd lose millions of votes. He wants to pay lip service to the idea of a second referendum in order to keep his members quiet, but the last thing he wants is an actual referendum.

Besides, McCluskey and McDonnell have ruled out a remain vote and they run the Labour Party now, so everyone else can whistle for all the good it does.

I dont think it does give a mandate. It merely rejects that deal. Its a terrible referendum question which is why it mustn't happen. And it wont.

The most interesting point is what happens if parliament rejects the deal.... that will be interesting.

[Monty92]

I dont think it does give a mandate. It merely rejects that deal. Its a terrible referendum question which is why it mustn't happen. And it wont.

The most interesting point is what happens if parliament rejects the deal.... that will be interesting.

I would be amazed if the ERG camp voted down a deal, given it would very, very likely precipitate a Labour government. I tend to assume at that point they'll take the view that a bad Brexit is better than no Brexit and a Labour government.

[Burney]

I would be amazed if the ERG camp voted down a deal, given it would very, very likely precipitate a Labour government. I tend to assume at that point they'll take the view that a bad Brexit is better than no Brexit and a Labour government.

I wouldn't bet on that. I also wouldn't bet on Labour winning a subsequent election.

[Peter]

I wouldn't bet on that. I also wouldn't bet on Labour winning a subsequent election.

THe immediate effect of parliament voting down the deal would be May losing the leadership. It wouldnt precipitate an election as a vote of no confidence wouldnt carry the House.

If the aftermath was the need for an election the Tories would fight it with a new leader.

I honestly cant see Labour winning an election. Not in a million years, even in the strangest political climate in living memory.

[WES]

I dont think it does give a mandate. It merely rejects that deal. Its a terrible referendum question which is why it mustn't happen. And it wont.

The most interesting point is what happens if parliament rejects the deal.... that will be interesting.

I would argue that the only outcome for which there is a mandate is no deal. Anyone who voted Leave and didn't understand that there was a possibility of no deal is so thick they don't deserve the right to vote in the first place.

Any other outcome can be debated with regard to whether or not it honours the Leave vote, no deal cannot.

[Burney]

THe immediate effect of parliament voting down the deal would be May losing the leadership. It wouldnt precipitate an election as a vote of no confidence wouldnt carry the House.

If the aftermath was the need for an election the Tories would fight it with a new leader.

I honestly cant see Labour winning an election. Not in a million years, even in the strangest political climate in living memory.

Nor me. For all Sir C moaning about it, their polling performance against a Tory government in complete turmoil is utterly, utterly pathetic. People forget that Ed fùcking Miliband led the tories by 13 points in 2013 and STILL got his arse handed to him two years later. Corbyn can't even achieve a regular lead. That is genuinely awful.

[Peter]

I would argue that the only outcome for which there is a mandate is no deal. Anyone who voted Leave and didn't understand that there was a possibility of no deal is so thick they don't deserve the right to vote in the first place.

Any other outcome can be debated with regard to whether or not it honours the Leave vote, no deal cannot.

The only thing there is a mandate for is leaving. THat is all we were asked and all we answered. It is nothing to do with being thick or not.

To respect that mandate, we have to leave whatever the cost, whatever the manner, deal or no deal.

[WES]

Nor me. For all Sir C moaning about it, their polling performance against a Tory government in complete turmoil is utterly, utterly pathetic. People forget that Ed fùcking Miliband led the tories by 13 points in 2013 and STILL got his arse handed to him two years later. Corbyn can't even achieve a regular lead. That is genuinely awful.

I'll tell you what scares me with regard to the possibility of a Labour government - the youth of this country.

Someone wrote in the Times this morning that we're far enough away from nationalization of industry that a large number of voters can't remember how appalling it was. And that the youth are actually looking for dramtic change; with no point of reference to understand how dangerous that might be because since they've been alive there has been very little difference between what has been considered left or right wing.

Uncle Jeremy offering them some free money might have the work shy f*ckwits out in droves.