Looks like May's having to cave on the amendments to the trade bill.

[Burney]

So that means Chequers is in effect a dead duck. The EU will reject it, May has no mandate for it and even the Remainers are now tactically rejecting it.

[Peter]

So that means Chequers is in effect a dead duck. The EU will reject it, May has no mandate for it and even the Remainers are now tactically rejecting it.

Its great fun isn't it. I thought it would be the referendum that split the tories but its actually Brexit itself. Party in crisis, defunct government and Corbyn waiting in the wings with his little lefty beard.

Great fun

[Burney]

Its great fun isn't it. I thought it would be the referendum that split the tories but its actually Brexit itself. Party in crisis, defunct government and Corbyn waiting in the wings with his little lefty beard.

Great fun

Actually, yes it is. Looks like it’s going to come down to a diamond-hard Brexit or no Brexit at all. Only one of those options has any democratic legitimacy.

Bring it on.

[eastgermanautos]

Actually, yes it is. Looks like it’s going to come down to a diamond-hard Brexit or no Brexit at all. Only one of those options has any democratic legitimacy.

Bring it on.

Perhaps you are actually a traitor. I think, after our US president's antics today, that it's possible to ask the question. You are a traitor to the UK, even if your loyalty to AWIMB does not seem in question.

[Peter]

Actually, yes it is. Looks like it’s going to come down to a diamond-hard Brexit or no Brexit at all. Only one of those options has any democratic legitimacy.

Bring it on.

And even that a hugely tenuous one. The argument that 17 million people understood what they were voting for has been largely undermined by the rather obvious fact that nobody really has a clue how to do any of this or what it will look like.

But as discussed, the legitimacy of a democratic process is irrelevant as long as it is a British one.

[Monty92]

Actually, yes it is. Looks like it’s going to come down to a diamond-hard Brexit or no Brexit at all. Only one of those options has any democratic legitimacy.

Bring it on.

Are you sure a soft Brexit is out of the question?

No Deal would be voted down by Parliament and the government would almost certainly be forced to ask for more time to negotiate, which the EU is likely to accept. This would force May out and would probably prompt a GE. Labour would campaign on the promise that they'll honour the referendum result by negotiating a soft Brexit.

[WES]

Are you sure a soft Brexit is out of the question?

No Deal would be voted down by Parliament and the government would almost certainly be forced to ask for more time to negotiate, which the EU is likely to accept. This would force May out and would probably prompt a GE. Labour would campaign on the promise that they'll honour the referendum result by negotiating a soft Brexit.

Had Cameron been a little less thick, he would have structured the referendum such that there was no lack of clarity as to what was being voted for. Which basically means it would have had to have been a Remain or Hard Brexit choice only.

I suspect he didn't do that because he would have been accused of setting it up in a way that didn't give the public enough flexibility in their vote but the reality is that, especially with hindsight, that was the only sensible thing to do.

I'm up for a hard Brexit now, should be great fun either way.

[Burney]

And even that a hugely tenuous one. The argument that 17 million people understood what they were voting for has been largely undermined by the rather obvious fact that nobody really has a clue how to do any of this or what it will look like.

But as discussed, the legitimacy of a democratic process is irrelevant as long as it is a British one.

I'm sorry, but that is a canard. One could question the legitimacy of any vote on the basis that people didn't know what they were voting for. When people voted for Tony Blair, were they voting for invading Iraq? When they voted for David Cameron were they voting for gay marriage? Of course not. No vote is specific or comprehensive in its meaning, but - whether you like them or not - votes are the only legitimate means of democratic expression we have.
All that was on the ballot was to remain in or leave the EU. The vote was to leave. Everything else is detail.

[Monty92]

Had Cameron been a little less thick, he would have structured the referendum such that there was no lack of clarity as to what was being voted for. Which basically means it would have had to have been a Remain or Hard Brexit choice only.

I suspect he didn't do that because he would have been accused of setting it up in a way that didn't give the public enough flexibility in their vote but the reality is that, especially with hindsight, that was the only sensible thing to do.

I'm up for a hard Brexit now, should be great fun either way.

Well he did do that in a sense by explicitly stating (along with Osborne, et al) that a vote to leave would be a vote to leave the single market and customs union

[Monty92]

And even that a hugely tenuous one. The argument that 17 million people understood what they were voting for has been largely undermined by the rather obvious fact that nobody really has a clue how to do any of this or what it will look like.

But as discussed, the legitimacy of a democratic process is irrelevant as long as it is a British one.

Which part of every single significant campaigner on both sides explicitly stating that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union do you think those 17 million failed to understand?