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 :shrug:

[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?

[Burney]

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.

A no-deal brexit (currently the most likely outcome) cannot be voted down by Parliament. It is, by its nature, not a deal and therefore cannot be voted on.

[Peter]

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.

That is nonsense and you know it. You cant compare this with a single, reactive foreign policy issue or a minor civil rights issue within an election manifesto. IF for no other reason than that those decisions were not justified solely by the fact that people voted for them.

This was a single issue vote on one question. Possibly the most incomprehensible and complex question in our constitutional history.

Yes, people voted leave. They didnt vote for specific versions of it and we have no idea what they wanted from it (although we can make a guess in certain areas).

The process since has shown just how complicated it is. Each side is quick to point to a betrayal of the voters on various fairly minor detailed points but its all *******s.

[WES]

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 :shrug:

If it was clear that voting Leave meant a hard Brexit what are we having these negotiations for?

I expect that a large number of Leave voters never believed that a hard Brexit would happen, mostly because so many people kept telling the public that a hard Brexit wasn't in either sides interests.

I'm really struggling to see a way out of this that doesn't at some point involve asking the people if they want a hard Brexit.

[Peter]

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?

Well, if you talk to ordinary people a lot of them will have no clue what any of that means so, in answer to your question, every part.

Those are two things. It is sooo much more complicated than that.

[WES]

That is nonsense and you know it. You cant compare this with a single, reactive foreign policy issue or a minor civil rights issue within an election manifesto. IF for no other reason than that those decisions were not justified solely by the fact that people voted for them.

This was a single issue vote on one question. Possibly the most incomprehensible and complex question in our constitutional history.

Yes, people voted leave. They didnt vote for specific versions of it and we have no idea what they wanted from it (although we can make a guess in certain areas).

The process since has shown just how complicated it is. Each side is quick to point to a betrayal of the voters on various fairly minor detailed points but its all *******s.

Not to worry Peter, if this drags out much longer a significant portion of the Leave vote will be dead and they can have another vote which Remain will win comfortably. :-)

[Burney]

That is nonsense and you know it. You cant compare this with a single, reactive foreign policy issue or a minor civil rights issue within an election manifesto. IF for no other reason than that those decisions were not justified solely by the fact that people voted for them.

This was a single issue vote on one question. Possibly the most incomprehensible and complex question in our constitutional history.

Yes, people voted leave. They didnt vote for specific versions of it and we have no idea what they wanted from it (although we can make a guess in certain areas).

The process since has shown just how complicated it is. Each side is quick to point to a betrayal of the voters on various fairly minor detailed points but its all *******s.

The point is that all votes have obscure and unpredictable consequences that not every voter can be expected to understand. That is not a reason not to have the vote, however.

The logical conclusion of your position would be that, because the matter is simply too complex and obscure for voters to understand, they ought never to have been allowed to make a democratic decision on it.

[Peter]

Not to worry Peter, if this drags out much longer a significant portion of the Leave vote will be dead and they can have another vote which Remain will win comfortably. :-)

Then it would only be fair to have a 'best of three'......

[Peter]

The point is that all votes have obscure and unpredictable consequences that not every voter can be expected to understand. That is not a reason not to have the vote, however.

The logical conclusion of your position would be that, because the matter is simply too complex and obscure for voters to understand, they ought never to have been allowed to make a democratic decision on it.

I said before the referendum that they should not have been given the opportunity to vote for the leap in the dark. We negotiated the terms of staying, we should have set out the issues and requirements of leaving.

The interesting point is where does the legitimacy of parliament sit if it fails to ever agree a brexit deal? What is the shelf life of that referendum? Can it be surpassed by an election where a clear mandate to drop all this nonsense is given?

After all, the sovereignty of parliament is what this is all about isnt it.....

[Burney]

If it was clear that voting Leave meant a hard Brexit what are we having these negotiations for?

I expect that a large number of Leave voters never believed that a hard Brexit would happen, mostly because so many people kept telling the public that a hard Brexit wasn't in either sides interests.

I'm really struggling to see a way out of this that doesn't at some point involve asking the people if they want a hard Brexit.

We're having these negotiations because our leaders are too weak and remain-focused to have negotiated properly. Hard Brexit (ie walking away) should always have been our basic negotiating position, allowing for concessions to be made where both sides could agree. Instead, our government has gone into negotiations trying essentially to remain in the EU in all but name - something for which they had no mandate and which they could never deliver.

[Monty92]

You could make that argument about literally any conceivable vote ever, even something as seemingly binary as for or against the death pelanty.

After all it’s highly unlikely “ordinary people” would truly understand the moral and ethical complexities behind the issue.



Well, if you talk to ordinary people a lot of them will have no clue what any of that means so, in answer to your question, every part.

Those are two things. It is sooo much more complicated than that.

[WES]

We're having these negotiations because our leaders are too weak and remain-focused to have negotiated properly. Hard Brexit (ie walking away) should always have been our basic negotiating position, allowing for concessions to be made where both sides could agree. Instead, our government has gone into negotiations trying essentially to remain in the EU in all but name - something for which they had no mandate and which they could never deliver.

Partly true. But we're also having them because the question in the referendum allows them to. Had it explicitly been a hard Brexit option, as it should have been, this would not have been an issue.

[Monty92]

Ok but while there remains the possibility of a GE before March 19 a soft Brexit can’t be ruled out.


A no-deal brexit (currently the most likely outcome) cannot be voted down by Parliament. It is, by its nature, not a deal and therefore cannot be voted on.

[Burney]

I said before the referendum that they should not have been given the opportunity to vote for the leap in the dark. We negotiated the terms of staying, we should have set out the issues and requirements of leaving.

The interesting point is where does the legitimacy of parliament sit if it fails to ever agree a brexit deal? What is the shelf life of that referendum? Can it be surpassed by an election where a clear mandate to drop all this nonsense is given?

After all, the sovereignty of parliament is what this is all about isnt it.....

It goes a bit deeper than that. Essentially, you're saying is that EU membership has eaten so deeply into the bones of this country's democracy that it is simply too complicated and damaging to separate the two without killing the patient. This rather confirms what every Eurosceptic has been saying for the last 40 years.

If we cannot democratically unhitch ourselves from this monster, we are admitting that our democracy is not just undermined, but actually dead. The inescapable conclusion would be that the people may not govern themselves because the politicians and bureaucrats have sold their democratic birthright for a mess of pottage. The notion of national self-determination would be dead and we would effectively be told we must accept vassalage.

The consequences of such an admission are potentially disastrous - far more so, I would argue, than any negative short-term economic consequences.

[Burney]

Partly true. But we're also having them because the question in the referendum allows them to. Had it explicitly been a hard Brexit option, as it should have been, this would not have been an issue.

Hard and soft Brexit are terms that have only come to exist after the vote, though, as remainers have tried to water down the initial vote into something they prefer. I would argue that there was a vote for a hard Brexit - it's only remainers who pretend there wasn't.

[Sir C]

It goes a bit deeper than that. Essentially, you're saying is that EU membership has eaten so deeply into the bones of this country's democracy that it is simply too complicated and damaging to separate the two without killing the patient. This rather confirms what every Eurosceptic has been saying for the last 40 years.

If we cannot democratically unhitch ourselves from this monster, we are admitting that our democracy is not just undermined, but actually dead. The inescapable conclusion would be that the people may not govern themselves because the politicians and bureaucrats have sold their democratic birthright for a mess of pottage. The notion of national self-determination would be dead and we would effectively be told we must accept vassalage.

The consequences of such an admission are potentially disastrous - far more so, I would argue, than any negative short-term economic consequences.

Have you woken up in 1362, dear chap?

[Burney]

Ok but while there remains the possibility of a GE before March 19 a soft Brexit can’t be ruled out.

Who's going to force a general election? The Tory remainers don't have the numbers and the ERG is currently in control of the party and has no interest in pushing for one.

I'm not ruling it out, but it's far from the most likely scenario. May would literally have to decide to take the entire party down in flames for it to happen - and she doesn't strike me as being that bold.

[Burney]

Have you woken up in 1362, dear chap?

The first one is yer actual King James Bible (as well you know), while the second accurately describes what would be the feudal nature of our relationship with Brussels/Berlin.

[Peter]

You could make that argument about literally any conceivable vote ever, even something as seemingly binary as for or against the death pelanty.

After all it’s highly unlikely “ordinary people” would truly understand the moral and ethical complexities behind the issue.

That example shows you really don't understand what is going on here. Ok, the rest of us don't either but we are self aware enough to know it.

[Peter]

It goes a bit deeper than that. Essentially, you're saying is that EU membership has eaten so deeply into the bones of this country's democracy that it is simply too complicated and damaging to separate the two without killing the patient. This rather confirms what every Eurosceptic has been saying for the last 40 years.

If we cannot democratically unhitch ourselves from this monster, we are admitting that our democracy is not just undermined, but actually dead. The inescapable conclusion would be that the people may not govern themselves because the politicians and bureaucrats have sold their democratic birthright for a mess of pottage. The notion of national self-determination would be dead and we would effectively be told we must accept vassalage.

The consequences of such an admission are potentially disastrous - far more so, I would argue, than any negative short-term economic consequences.

No, I am not saying that. I am asking whether a parliament that continues to frustrate and betray the will of the people was worth fighting for in the first place.

If we want to leave to protect the sovereignty of parliament, where does it leave us if it becomes clear that we cant trust our own parliament to represent us? You talk frequently of the politicians and bureaucrats as though it is some Brexit conspiracy. THat is just how parliament works. It is what 'the likes of me' having been saying for years. You are fighting for the primacy of a backward, insular, self-preserving political elite that kept your biggest issue off the ballot for 40 years.

[Burney]

No, I am not saying that. I am asking whether a parliament that continues to frustrate and betray the will of the people was worth fighting for in the first place.

If we want to leave to protect the sovereignty of parliament, where does it leave us if it becomes clear that we cant trust our own parliament to represent us? You talk frequently of the politicians and bureaucrats as though it is some Brexit conspiracy. THat is just how parliament works. It is what 'the likes of me' having been saying for years. You are fighting for the primacy of a backward, insular, self-preserving political elite that kept your biggest issue off the ballot for 40 years.

Oh, if you're arguing that Brexit has revealed our parliamentary system, party structures and civil service to be wholly unfit for democratic purpose, you have my full agreement. Large-scale restructuring seems inevitable over the coming years, starting (I'm guessing) with the dismantling of the House of Lords and major changes to our parties.

[Monty92]

No, I am not saying that. I am asking whether a parliament that continues to frustrate and betray the will of the people was worth fighting for in the first place.

If we want to leave to protect the sovereignty of parliament, where does it leave us if it becomes clear that we cant trust our own parliament to represent us? You talk frequently of the politicians and bureaucrats as though it is some Brexit conspiracy. THat is just how parliament works. It is what 'the likes of me' having been saying for years. You are fighting for the primacy of a backward, insular, self-preserving political elite that kept your biggest issue off the ballot for 40 years.

It leaves us with the option of punishing them at the ballot box :shrug:

[Ash]

This was a single issue vote on one question. Possibly the most incomprehensible and complex question in our constitutional history.

Yes, people voted leave. They didnt vote for specific versions of it and we have no idea what they wanted from it (although we can make a guess in certain areas).


They wanted the country to be able to spend its own money, manage its own borders and pass its own laws. You can't do that in the EU and you can't do that with a 'soft' (fake) Brexit.

To suggest that they must understand the mechanics and minutiae of trading protocol and arrangements before they can ask for that is bit orf, tbf. We have a large political class and civil service who are paid to grapple with the details, and the fact that this class is claiming that independence is a technical impossibility shows the true technocratic, democracy-phobic soul at the heart of the EU.

[Ash]

If it was clear that voting Leave meant a hard Brexit what are we having these negotiations for?


Because the ruling class was physically sick when the proles refused to obey their orders, and is doing everything it can to overturn the result of the referendum.

They had no plans for implementing a leave vote before the referendum, and they have had no plans for a no-deal scenario even up this point, over two years after the vote. When you have no plans for something, you have no serious intention of doing it.

[Ash]

No, I am not saying that. I am asking whether a parliament that continues to frustrate and betray the will of the people was worth fighting for in the first place.

If we want to leave to protect the sovereignty of parliament, where does it leave us if it becomes clear that we cant trust our own parliament to represent us? You talk frequently of the politicians and bureaucrats as though it is some Brexit conspiracy. THat is just how parliament works. It is what 'the likes of me' having been saying for years. You are fighting for the primacy of a backward, insular, self-preserving political elite that kept your biggest issue off the ballot for 40 years.

"Better a bad Parliament, than a good King". - Tony Benn

Brexit should be just the first step in re-energising democracy and building a new political landscape, with new political parties and everything up for grabs in terms of ideas. And people like you, my friend, should be on the side of this peaceful, democratic revolution. :thumbup:

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

Well, if you talk to ordinary people a lot of them will have no clue what any of that means so, in answer to your question, every part.

Those are two things. It is sooo much more complicated than that.

My sis-in-law, with whom we're staying atm, is the only Leave voter I know.

She voted out to "fück 'em all" and to send some more cash to the NHS where her other sister works.

I'm fairly sure she couldn't define sovereignty and it's not about immigration. She's Cornish so:
1. There are no immigrants here so they don't feel swamped in the slightest.
2. Don't matter if they're from Devon, Romania or Timbuk-fücking-tu, they're from the wrong side of the Temar and should all fück back off up country.

All these articles and letters and posts from Leave voters saying "All 17.4m voted for the exact same reasons I did" are getting on my tits.

There were myriad reasons which is why, given the closeness of the vote, there is no national majority for any outcome.

Which, as we all know, is why this country's political establishment is in the clusterfück it currently is.

This is why JRM feels he can push the govt into a hard Brexit. And why Sourbury, Ken Clarke and the Remainers think this then allows them to overturn the vote.

I reckon I've studied pretty much every govt since Walpole and can't think of it every being this fücked.

When Lord North lost the Septics, we had CJ Fox waiting in the wings which then led within a year to Pitt the Younger.

Suez led to Supermac.

Asquith had DLG, Chamberlain had WC, and the Tories twice had the bøllocks to actually split on the principle of free trade.

Today? Fücked.

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

The point is that all votes have obscure and unpredictable consequences that not every voter can be expected to understand. That is not a reason not to have the vote, however.

The logical conclusion of your position would be that, because the matter is simply too complex and obscure for voters to understand, they ought never to have been allowed to make a democratic decision on it.

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.

[Peter]

It leaves us with the option of punishing them at the ballot box :shrug:

Punishing who? The two main parties?

Who was it who said no matter who you vote for the government always gets in?

[Peter]

They wanted the country to be able to spend its own money, manage its own borders and pass its own laws. You can't do that in the EU and you can't do that with a 'soft' (fake) Brexit.

To suggest that they must understand the mechanics and minutiae of trading protocol and arrangements before they can ask for that is bit orf, tbf. We have a large political class and civil service who are paid to grapple with the details, and the fact that this class is claiming that independence is a technical impossibility shows the true technocratic, democracy-phobic soul at the heart of the EU.

See, there it is. when. Our own politicians refuse to listen to us or are too incompetent or unwilling to do what we ask we blame the EU and its 'democracy-phobic soul'.

Its not them. Its us. It always was.

[Peter]

"Better a bad Parliament, than a good King". - Tony Benn

Brexit should be just the first step in re-energising democracy and building a new political landscape, with new political parties and everything up for grabs in terms of ideas. And people like you, my friend, should be on the side of this peaceful, democratic revolution. :thumbup:

I would be but you know as well as I do that it wont happen. The noble British voters will get their country back and go back to sleep.

You get the government you deserve, and all that.

[Peter]

My sis-in-law, with whom we're staying atm, is the only Leave voter I know.

She voted out to "fück 'em all" and to send some more cash to the NHS where her other sister works.

I'm fairly sure she couldn't define sovereignty and it's not about immigration. She's Cornish so:
1. There are no immigrants here so they don't feel swamped in the slightest.
2. Don't matter if they're from Devon, Romania or Timbuk-fücking-tu, they're from the wrong side of the Temar and should all fück back off up country.

All these articles and letters and posts from Leave voters saying "All 17.4m voted for the exact same reasons I did" are getting on my tits.

There were myriad reasons which is why, given the closeness of the vote, there is no national majority for any outcome.

Which, as we all know, is why this country's political establishment is in the clusterfück it currently is.

This is why JRM feels he can push the govt into a hard Brexit. And why Sourbury, Ken Clarke and the Remainers think this then allows them to overturn the vote.

I reckon I've studied pretty much every govt since Walpole and can't think of it every being this fücked.

When Lord North lost the Septics, we had CJ Fox waiting in the wings which then led within a year to Pitt the Younger.

Suez led to Supermac.

Asquith had DLG, Chamberlain had WC, and the Tories twice had the bøllocks to actually split on the principle of free trade.

Today? Fücked.

Callaghan's government was pretty ****ed :)

[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.

[Ash]

No.

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


So you keep saying, but would you be saying it if all the remain-led main parties give us euro-sceptic MPs to vote for, and if they actually reflected the views of the people?

EDIT : Forget that - it's badly worded and I'm out of time.

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

Callaghan's government was pretty ****ed :)

Much as I hate Maggie, the unions needed a slapping for bringing down Sunny Jim over the Winter of Discontent. {They threw away a 5% Lab lead that autumn so they only have themselves to blame.}

Maggie could and did achieve this.

Corbyn would not be able to unite the country behind any Brexit vision nor could his econ policies make up for the fall in growth a hard brexit would bring.

In short, May, JRM and Jezza make the 1979 situation seem like the Great Reform Act and the emancipation of slaves.

We iz fücked, bruv.

[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.

[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]

Much as I hate Maggie, the unions needed a slapping for bringing down Sunny Jim over the Winter of Discontent. {They threw away a 5% Lab lead that autumn so they only have themselves to blame.}

Maggie could and did achieve this.

Corbyn would not be able to unite the country behind any Brexit vision nor could his econ policies make up for the fall in growth a hard brexit would bring.

In short, May, JRM and Jezza make the 1979 situation seem like the Great Reform Act and the emancipation of slaves.

We iz fücked, bruv.

I think they mid to late 70s and early to mid 80s were pretty ****ing awful for all concerned, and not just because I was born.

We iz ****ed, to coin your phrase, but I firmly believe that Corbyn can sort this mess out. He has my vote :)

[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]

So you keep saying, but would you be saying it if all the remain-led main parties give us euro-sceptic MPs to vote for, and if they actually reflected the views of the people?

EDIT : Forget that - it's badly worded and I'm out of time.

You had Ukip to vote for. Or take control of your party's selection ctte.

As a Lab moderate, I'm fighting against Momentum locally because I know what can happen. I'm not moaning about them trying to impose Stalinist candidates cos that's the way things are. I'm fighting it. And given the Tory clusterfück, the Tories on here better hope the likes of me win, cos a GE won by Jez and loads of momentum MPs will lead to Venezuela with added gulags.

[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.

[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.}

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

I think they mid to late 70s and early to mid 80s were pretty ****ing awful for all concerned, and not just because I was born.

We iz ****ed, to coin your phrase, but I firmly believe that Corbyn can sort this mess out. He has my vote :)

As I say, I'm a Lab member but if you think tens years of Jez will be better for the economy than ten years of Maggie was, I think you may be being a little optimistic.

The shadow chancellor's still saying the only thing wrong with Venezuela is that it wasn't socialist enough. And Maduro makes Milton Friedman look like father fücking Christmas.

[WES]

It goes a bit deeper than that. Essentially, you're saying is that EU membership has eaten so deeply into the bones of this country's democracy that it is simply too complicated and damaging to separate the two without killing the patient. This rather confirms what every Eurosceptic has been saying for the last 40 years.

If we cannot democratically unhitch ourselves from this monster, we are admitting that our democracy is not just undermined, but actually dead. The inescapable conclusion would be that the people may not govern themselves because the politicians and bureaucrats have sold their democratic birthright for a mess of pottage. The notion of national self-determination would be dead and we would effectively be told we must accept vassalage.

The consequences of such an admission are potentially disastrous - far more so, I would argue, than any negative short-term economic consequences.

Nah, you're making it more significant than it really is and being a bit of a drama queen. Entering the EU was complicated because that's the nature of these sorts of negotiations. Take a look at how long it takes any two countries to agree a trade deal, then imagine that across a much larger number of countries with different cultures, governments etc etc

Extracting yourself from something that is very complicated is very complicated. It says nothing about our democracy, it was just always going to be very hard of have a very large number of potential outcomes.

[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.

[Ash]

You had Ukip to vote for. Or take control of your party's selection ctte.

As a Lab moderate, I'm fighting against Momentum locally because I know what can happen. I'm not moaning about them trying to impose Stalinist candidates cos that's the way things are. I'm fighting it. And given the Tory clusterfück, the Tories on here better hope the likes of me win, cos a GE won by Jez and loads of momentum MPs will lead to Venezuela with added gulags.

The manifestos of both Labour and Tory said they would implement the result of the referendum, and between them won most of the seats, while the Lib Dems campaigned on a Remain ticket, and they got wiped out.

If the betrayal of the election promises by labour and conservative mps means huge gains for UKIP next time, then so be it. At least UKIP isn't Russophobic. :hehe:

Your horror fantasies of stalinist gulags under Corbz are just hysterical btw.

[Peter]

As I say, I'm a Lab member but if you think tens years of Jez will be better for the economy than ten years of Maggie was, I think you may be being a little optimistic.

The shadow chancellor's still saying the only thing wrong with Venezuela is that it wasn't socialist enough. And Maduro makes Milton Friedman look like father fücking Christmas.

I was just trying to wind up B and he didnt bite :)

[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]

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]

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.

So if we officially leave the EU but effectively remain a part of all of its core legal, financial and trade components, that will be fine. Because that is. What people voted for-leaving the EU.

I completely agree. The problem comes when people start to defend hard brexit on the grounds that it is what people voted for.

At what point does the manner of our departure become so weak and perfunctory that you call for a second referendum?

[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?

[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.

[Burney]

So if we officially leave the EU but effectively remain a part of all of its core legal, financial and trade components, that will be fine. Because that is. What people voted for-leaving the EU.

I completely agree. The problem comes when people start to defend hard brexit on the grounds that it is what people voted for.

At what point does the manner of our departure become so weak and perfunctory that you call for a second referendum?

I wouldn't like that, but if the ruling party (via the electorate) were able to get such a result through Parliament and win a subsequent election to secure that result, I would have no choice but to accept it.

However, that clearly isn't the case.

[Peter]

I wouldn't like that, but if the ruling party (via the electorate) were able to get such a result through Parliament and win a subsequent election to secure that result, I would have no choice but to accept it.

However, that clearly isn't the case.

So parliament is sovereign again.

I thought the mandate was from the referendum? Would you accept a party reversing it completely and winning a subsequent election?

[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?

[Burney]

So parliament is sovereign again.

I thought the mandate was from the referendum? Would you accept a party reversing it completely and winning a subsequent election?

Parliament is sovereign, but it does not exist in isolation. It cannot realistically hope to ignore the biggest democratic event in British history and get away with it. To that extent at least, the system works.

[Peter]

Parliament is sovereign, but it does not exist in isolation. It cannot realistically hope to ignore the biggest democratic event in British history and get away with it. To that extent at least, the system works.

The correct answer is that parliament itself called the referendum and effectively deferred the decision in principle to the public. It cannot claw that decision back because it didnt like the answer. It must, however, find a way of implementing it that it defines as being in the public interest.

One can remain sovereign whilst delegating individual decisions.

It remains, however, a decision in principle only as nobody asked the public to vote on different types or aspects of leaving. Parliament retains the authority to make those decisions.

Its messy but its constitutionally acceptable. The only problem is...well, parliament is a bit **** at this sort of thing.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Parliament is sovereign, but it does not exist in isolation. It cannot realistically hope to ignore the biggest democratic event in British history and get away with it. To that extent at least, the system works.

swivel eyed loons take to the streets and go nose to nose with The Police and/or The Army?

[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 :shrug:

[Peter]

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

Oh, when was that?

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

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.

1. Agreed. But the lack of a Lisbon vote disproves your statement that such things are always settled by a referendum according to constitution convention. Can't have it both ways, old bean.

2. But how do we choose which Leave without a mandate? Will you be happy if Parliament unilaterally signs us up to the SM and CU?

3. Now you're being wilfully stupid. If we remained, we wouldn't have wasted 2 years discussing just how we remained. It matters not that some voted from fear, some voted to help the young and maybe one person voted simply cos they loved driving their sound system round Europe for nigh on 3 decades getting off his tits in fields across the continent. That is irrelevant and you know it. Would you be happy purely for an EFTA vs WTO vote, to give the dappy bint a mandate? Cos she's too weak to work it out herself.

4. So when my sis-in-law said at the time she was voting to "**** 'em all" and last night that it was also to send money to the NHS cos her other sis {who works there} kept telling her how underfunded it was and she believed the £350m a week, you think I'm making it up?

I'm not saying all or even many were like her. But to deny they exist and think everyone thinks like you is both ignorant and arrogant.