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

[Burney]

No.

The logic of that position is that we had vote for full time representatives to make these complex decisions for us.

As you know full well. And which you'd fully support were Jezza's MPs to rebel on a manifesto commitment to steal all your money and send you to a gulag. Were that to happen, you'd be praising our representative democracy as you have on here many times in the past.

It is perfectly legitimate that, on the questions of sovereignty and self-determination, people should be offered a referendum. There are clear precedents for this - not least in the 1975 vote to stay in the Common Market, the devolution referenda and the Scottish vote to remain in the Union. There was precisely zero outcry about the dangers of direct democracy after those results precisely because the results went the way the establishment wanted them to.
Afterwards, precisely no-one questioned their legitimacy even - as in the case for Welsh devolution - the margin of victory was infinitesimally small. Nobody said people didn't know what they were voting for or suggested that it was for elected representatives to fudge, delay and frustrate their outcomes. Why not? Because they went the 'right' way.
The Brexit vote did not go the 'right' way. And now suddenly the establishment and its slavish adherents (like you) are out in force saying it can't happen because it threatens representative democracy - having never made the argument about any other referendum we've ever had.
In other words, your sudden concern for representative over direct democracy is nothing more than hypocritical, self-serving cant that is manifesting purely because you didn't get your own way.

[Peter]

It is perfectly legitimate that, on the questions of sovereignty and self-determination, people should be offered a referendum. There are clear precedents for this - not least in the 1975 vote to stay in the Common Market, the devolution referenda and the Scottish vote to remain in the Union. There was precisely zero outcry about the dangers of direct democracy after those results precisely because the results went the way the establishment wanted them to.
Afterwards, precisely no-one questioned their legitimacy even - as in the case for Welsh devolution - the margin of victory was infinitesimally small. Nobody said people didn't know what they were voting for or suggested that it was for elected representatives to fudge, delay and frustrate their outcomes. Why not? Because they went the 'right' way.
The Brexit vote did not go the 'right' way. And now suddenly the establishment and its slavish adherents (like you) are out in force saying it can't happen because it threatens representative democracy - having never made the argument about any other referendum we've ever had.
In other words, your sudden concern for representative over direct democracy is nothing more than hypocritical, self-serving cant that is manifesting purely because you didn't get your own way.

As is your devotion to democracy and the will of ordinary people. And quite sickening it is too.

We had a vote in 1975 and voted to stay in. Everyone knew what they were voting for. It was done and dusted.

[Burney]

As is your devotion to democracy and the will of ordinary people. And quite sickening it is too.

We had a vote in 1975 and voted to stay in. Everyone knew what they were voting for. It was done and dusted.

No. It isn't. You like to think it is, but you're wrong. You assume the persona I adopt on here has always reflected my actual views. Since you don't actually know me in real life, that's fair enough. In the nicest possible way, though, I don't really care if you think I'm being hypocritical, since it's not germane.

What is increasingly clear is that this debate is breaking down along the lines of those who actually care about the fundamental democratic principle that people ought to decide how and by whom they are governed and those who give lip service to the idea, but really just see it as just a convenient figleaf for technocracy. I think you fall into the latter category.

[Peter]

No. It isn't. You like to think it is, but you're wrong. You assume the persona I adopt on here has always reflected my actual views. Since you don't actually know me in real life, that's fair enough. In the nicest possible way, though, I don't really care if you think I'm being hypocritical, since it's not germane.

What is increasingly clear is that this debate is breaking down along the lines of those who actually care about the fundamental democratic principle that people ought to decide how and by whom they are governed and those who give lip service to the idea, but really just see it as just a convenient figleaf for technocracy. I think you fall into the latter category.

I like to consider myself a friend of your persona on here. The real you I know nothing about whatsoever. If you have conflated the two on here that is your fault.

I shall keep pointing out that the persona is wrong on so many levels and a hypocrite. THe real Burney, I am assured, is a delight

I care about how and by whom I am governed. You know my persona well enough to know that I am a pragmatist who will dance with the devil that offers me the best hope of what I want. I have enough experience of the political world to know there are no real good guys and bad guys. I am still naive enough to believe that there are good ideas and bad ideas.

Brexit is, was and will always be a bad idea. However, people voted for it and I have accepted that. You dont hear me calling for a second referendum.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It is perfectly legitimate that, on the questions of sovereignty and self-determination, people should be offered a referendum. There are clear precedents for this - not least in the 1975 vote to stay in the Common Market, the devolution referenda and the Scottish vote to remain in the Union. There was precisely zero outcry about the dangers of direct democracy after those results precisely because the results went the way the establishment wanted them to.
Afterwards, precisely no-one questioned their legitimacy even - as in the case for Welsh devolution - the margin of victory was infinitesimally small. Nobody said people didn't know what they were voting for or suggested that it was for elected representatives to fudge, delay and frustrate their outcomes. Why not? Because they went the 'right' way.
The Brexit vote did not go the 'right' way. And now suddenly the establishment and its slavish adherents (like you) are out in force saying it can't happen because it threatens representative democracy - having never made the argument about any other referendum we've ever had.
In other words, your sudden concern for representative over direct democracy is nothing more than hypocritical, self-serving cant that is manifesting purely because you didn't get your own way.

It is also perfectly legitimate that, on the questions of sovereignty and self-determination, people aren't.

We didn't vote on Charles II's execution, the Glorious Rev, the Great Reform Act etc etc etc.

We didn't vote on giving up India or entering the EEC or the change to the EU or on EU enlargement.

B - you're not stupid. You know full well that the 52% voted for many different things, none of which would command a majority on its own. You know why both parties and politics in general has been completely hamstrung by this fact.

So you're either just basically trolling the remainers, or you simply don't want to admit this because it could lead to the Greening solution.

I was chatting with a rabid Brexiter on the Times yesterday but both agreed we need another referendum. There was no vote for any type of Brexit, the Tory leadership campaign meant, as last woman standing, she didn't even have a mandate from her party. And the country refused to give her one at the GE the next year.

As such, there is no mandate and no-one knows what to do, leading the two wings of the Tory party ever closer to civil war.

The chap on the Times and I both agreed we need one last vote, with AV, as suggested. Then whatever wins, even by 1 vote, we all just shut up cos it's getting tedious now.

[Peter]

It is also perfectly legitimate that, on the questions of sovereignty and self-determination, people aren't.

We didn't vote on Charles II's execution, the Glorious Rev, the Great Reform Act etc etc etc.

We didn't vote on giving up India or entering the EEC or the change to the EU or on EU enlargement.

B - you're not stupid. You know full well that the 52% voted for many different things, none of which would command a majority on its own. You know why both parties and politics in general has been completely hamstrung by this fact.

So you're either just basically trolling the remainers, or you simply don't want to admit this because it could lead to the Greening solution.

I was chatting with a rabid Brexiter on the Times yesterday but both agreed we need another referendum. There was no vote for any type of Brexit, the Tory leadership campaign meant, as last woman standing, she didn't even have a mandate from her party. And the country refused to give her one at the GE the next year.

As such, there is no mandate and no-one knows what to do, leading the two wings of the Tory party ever closer to civil war.

The chap on the Times and I both agreed we need one last vote, with AV, as suggested. Then whatever wins, even by 1 vote, we all just shut up cos it's getting tedious now.

THe civil war in the Conservativeparty needs to happen. Even b acknowledged this before the referendum. It has been simmering away for30 years. I thoroughly welcome it. We now have two major parties that are completely ****ed and whose leaders struggle to command a majority in their own party, let alone in parliament.

The EU are finding this tremendously funny. And it is, in a way.

Also very serious, of course.....

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

THe civil war in the Conservativeparty needs to happen. Even b acknowledged this before the referendum. It has been simmering away for30 years. I thoroughly welcome it. We now have two major parties that are completely ****ed and whose leaders struggle to command a majority in their own party, let alone in parliament.

The EU are finding this tremendously funny. And it is, in a way.

Also very serious, of course.....

More like 170 years.

Peel split the party over free trade vs protection in 1846.

Joe Chamberlain did it again c. 1900.

They always do this. {Peel - good. JC/JRM - bad.}

[Burney]

It is also perfectly legitimate that, on the questions of sovereignty and self-determination, people aren't.

We didn't vote on Charles II's execution, the Glorious Rev, the Great Reform Act etc etc etc.

We didn't vote on giving up India or entering the EEC or the change to the EU or on EU enlargement.

B - you're not stupid. You know full well that the 52% voted for many different things, none of which would command a majority on its own. You know why both parties and politics in general has been completely hamstrung by this fact.

So you're either just basically trolling the remainers, or you simply don't want to admit this because it could lead to the Greening solution.

I was chatting with a rabid Brexiter on the Times yesterday but both agreed we need another referendum. There was no vote for any type of Brexit, the Tory leadership campaign meant, as last woman standing, she didn't even have a mandate from her party. And the country refused to give her one at the GE the next year.

As such, there is no mandate and no-one knows what to do, leading the two wings of the Tory party ever closer to civil war.

The chap on the Times and I both agreed we need one last vote, with AV, as suggested. Then whatever wins, even by 1 vote, we all just shut up cos it's getting tedious now.

You're the one being wilfully stupid if you think the precedent set in 1975 and continued on various matters of self-determination ever since can simply be set aside because its outcome is inconvenient. Every single referendum since then has been honoured - so must this one be if any outcome is ever to be seen as legitimate.

There was a vote to leave the EU. Leave the EU we must - the only question is how. Your talk of 'no mandate' is utter, utter b0llocks and you know it. There was one key thing that everyone who voted Leave voted for - leaving the EU. Trying to obscure and frustrate that by splitting the vote or telling outright lies about 'what people voted for' simply won't wash. It's nothing more than a cynical attempt to reverse the outcome of the vote.

The electorate was asked and it made it clear it wants to leave the EU. Our political system is wrecked by this very simple fact for the very simple reason that it has been allowed to be dominated by a self-serving and self-perpetuating elite that sees EU membership as positive regardless of the feelings of the people who voted for them/pay their wages. Europhilia became a sine qua non for virtually everyone who wanted to rise within the Civil Service, Politics, Academia or the BBC and it's only now that the foundations have been shaken that we've come to realise how infested by these awful fvcking parasites we are. And all this has been allowed to occur regardless of public opinion. That situation was never sustainable, however, and now the chickens have come home to roost. You don't like it, but there it is.

Had the vote gone the other way, would we be talking about the different reasons people voted to remain and whether those differing reasons constituted a legitimate mandate for remaining in the EU? You know damn well we wouldn't and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. A remain vote would have been seen by the establishment as a single, coherent legitimisation of our membership of the European project and it would have been full steam ahead. Given which, the reverse must apply to a leave vote.

And what if you got your ludicrous and corrupt second vote? What do you think that would solve? The fact is that at least half of this country does not want to be part of the EU. If the only way you can get them to vote otherwise is by threatening them with financial ruin if they don't, do you seriously imagine that is sustainable or that the problem will simply go away? What you are suggesting is that tens of millions of people in this country resentfully remain part of an supra-national organisation that has no legitimacy and which they have had to be threatened, intimidated, lied to and press-ganged into accepting. How do you imagine that ends? With Europeans joining hands across the continent? I don't fvcking think so.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

You're the one being wilfully stupid if you think the precedent set in 1975 and continued on various matters of self-determination ever since can simply be set aside because its outcome is inconvenient. Every single referendum since then has been honoured - so must this one be if any outcome is ever to be seen as legitimate.

There was a vote to leave the EU. Leave the EU we must - the only question is how. Your talk of 'no mandate' is utter, utter b0llocks and you know it. There was one key thing that everyone who voted Leave voted for - leaving the EU. Trying to obscure and frustrate that by splitting the vote or telling outright lies about 'what people voted for' simply won't wash. It's nothing more than a cynical attempt to reverse the outcome of the vote.

The electorate was asked and it made it clear it wants to leave the EU. Our political system is wrecked by this very simple fact for the very simple reason that it has been allowed to be dominated by a self-serving and self-perpetuating elite that sees EU membership as positive regardless of the feelings of the people who voted for them/pay their wages. Europhilia became a sine qua non for virtually everyone who wanted to rise within the Civil Service, Politics, Academia or the BBC and it's only now that the foundations have been shaken that we've come to realise how infested by these awful fvcking parasites we are. And all this has been allowed to occur regardless of public opinion. That situation was never sustainable, however, and now the chickens have come home to roost. You don't like it, but there it is.

Had the vote gone the other way, would we be talking about the different reasons people voted to remain and whether those differing reasons constituted a legitimate mandate for remaining in the EU? You know damn well we wouldn't and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. A remain vote would have been seen by the establishment as a single, coherent legitimisation of our membership of the European project and it would have been full steam ahead. Given which, the reverse must apply to a leave vote.

And what if you got your ludicrous and corrupt second vote? What do you think that would solve? The fact is that at least half of this country does not want to be part of the EU. If the only way you can get them to vote otherwise is by threatening them with financial ruin if they don't, do you seriously imagine that is sustainable or that the problem will simply go away? What you are suggesting is that tens of millions of people in this country resentfully remain part of an supra-national organisation that has no legitimacy and which they have had to be threatened, intimidated, lied to and press-ganged into accepting. How do you imagine that ends? With Europeans joining hands across the continent? I don't fvcking think so.

1. A precedent set in 1975? There wasn't for changes including Maastricht and EU enlargement. No-one asked me if i thought a good idea to let in loads of Poles and Romanians. {I do, btw, but there was no vote and many didn't.} If you say 1975 means we can vote on this over and over again, then why not tomorrow?

2. Is Norway in the EU? Is Switzerland, Turkey or Canada? No. Is there a mandate to copy any of them, from the vote, from May's victory as Tory leader or from the GE 2017? No.

3. And you know damn well that all the 48% were voting to wake up on Friday as they went to sleep on Thursday. While some leavers cared most about sovereignty, others immigration, others money/NHS etc. That is why there's been the dispute over what to do. Or do you think both parties and all the MPs have been disagreeing just to annoy you, B? Have you considered we are in this position because there isn't a mandate for any of the options, including me wanting go remain or for the Berni-style Brexit? That's why the country's politics has been a clusterfück for the last 2 years.

4. We are not threatening them with financial ruin. What we are saying is they may well be ruined giving them what they want. Fair play, they are adults. But the Tory party nows owns this and will be punished when poor voters realise the land of milk and honey was a myth and unfortunately my lot are run by a semi-literate Stalinist who will steal all your money, B, and send you to a gulag. Be careful what you wish for.

2.

[Peter]

1. A precedent set in 1975? There wasn't for changes including Maastricht and EU enlargement. No-one asked me if i thought a good idea to let in loads of Poles and Romanians. {I do, btw, but there was no vote and many didn't.} If you say 1975 means we can vote on this over and over again, then why not tomorrow?

2. Is Norway in the EU? Is Switzerland, Turkey or Canada? No. Is there a mandate to copy any of them, from the vote, from May's victory as Tory leader or from the GE 2017? No.

3. And you know damn well that all the 48% were voting to wake up on Friday as they went to sleep on Thursday. While some leavers cared most about sovereignty, others immigration, others money/NHS etc. That is why there's been the dispute over what to do. Or do you think both parties and all the MPs have been disagreeing just to annoy you, B? Have you considered we are in this position because there isn't a mandate for any of the options, including me wanting go remain or for the Berni-style Brexit? That's why the country's politics has been a clusterfück for the last 2 years.

4. We are not threatening them with financial ruin. What we are saying is they may well be ruined giving them what they want. Fair play, they are adults. But the Tory party nows owns this and will be punished when poor voters realise the land of milk and honey was a myth and unfortunately my lot are run by a semi-literate Stalinist who will steal all your money, B, and send you to a gulag. Be careful what you wish for.

2.

Hang on. You cant say one side were all over the place and the other knew what they were doing. People who voted remain would have done so for many different reasons and some of them, me included, would have done so despite having severe reservations about the EU. I wavered on my way to the polling station (mostly ****ing Ash's fault).

Whatever your view on the EU I think it is very, very difficult to defend the results of free movement over the last 15 years. Nobody imagined the sheer volume of young people who would migrate from Poland. THink about that long term- the best and brightest of their young people leaving the country. You end up with a perpetuallyimpoverished, top heavy population in parts of eastern europe and overcrowded and underfunded capitals in the UK, Germany, even Ireland. It is not sustainable and creates a fresh underclass in the economic centres of the EU.

Whatever way you cut that, it isnt working.