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

[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.

[redgunamo]

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.

What did you imagine would happen if all your sort voluntarily cut your own bollócks off, P?

[Peter]

What did you imagine would happen if all your sort voluntarily cut your own bollócks off, P?

I thought the point was that 'my sort' never had any *******s to begin with?

[redgunamo]

I thought the point was that 'my sort' never had any *******s to begin with?

That's the thing, isn't it; you used to

[Burney]

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.

1. Your first point illustrates perfectly why the EU has turned this country's politics into such a mess. We haven't been given any choice on this fundamental issue since 1975 and that denial of choice or political diversity on the subject has built resentment, not lessened it. 82% of the populace (including 80% of Labour voters) wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but Labour ran away from its promise to deliver one because it knew it'd lose and lose heavily. That sowed the seeds of Brexit. Had there been a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there's a strong case for saying Brexit would never have happened. In other words: that democratic deficit has brought us to where we are now. Moral: deny the people a voice at your peril.

2. There is a mandate for getting out of the EU. The nature of that withdrawal is a matter for the politicians and their success or failure will be judged by the voters. However, what is certain is that there is NO mandate whatsoever for remaining in the EU.

3. I know no such thing and neither do you. Some voted to remain because they actually believe in the happy horsesh1t about ending the nation state and subsuming ourselves within a Federal Europe. Others because they didn't like the EU but were worried about the financial impact of leaving. Others still because they believed the lies about the EU not seeking to create an EU army or because they didn't like Nigel Farage; or because they liked Mr Siddiqi next door and didn't want to vote with the nasty Brexit racists; or because they believed the stuff about the sky falling in on June 24th; or (in the case of my parents - which they now regret) because they thought it was a decision for younger people and younger people seemed to want to stay in; or because they work abroad a lot and the EU suits them; or because, or because, or because...
In other words, a multiplicity of reasons - just the same as Leavers. For you to try and claim 'they all just wanted things the same' with no nuance is exactly the same as me saying 'they all voted to leave the EU' - it is what the referendum was about, but it ignores individual motivations. However, what is clear is that on neither side does the fact that there was a range of reasons for voting justify ignoring their vote.

4. You simply aren't able to drag yourself away from the poisonous paradigm that millions who voted for Brexit were stupid and believed in a land of milk and honey. They didn't. They just wanted to get out of the EU and many of them felt they had nothing to lose by doing so. Again, however, there is no reason to ignore their vote.