UKH

/ No more hard brexit?

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
john arran - on 04 Dec 2018

According to ITV's political specialist Robert Peston, there's to be a Grieve amendment this evening that's likely to sound the deathknell for hard Brexit:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1069981350822899712

Fascinating stuff, albeit not trivial to follow!

Edit: Should probably clarify that as a possible end to a No-deal Brexit, since May's deal can still be passed next week and that's pretty hard.

Post edited at 17:48
Eric9Points - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

One way or another, it's not going to happen.

Bob Hughes - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Brexiters are arguing that the amendments wouldn’t be binding. 

The other option for a no deal Brexit is simply to run the clock down. We might like to think that no one wants that as it would be inneither sides interest but this could just be the one that got away.

With regards to the hardness or otherwise of Mays deal, it is totally undefined. The PD leaves a broad range of options open for the future and includes a clause saying that if both sides changed their minds they could consider options not contemplated in the PD.

john arran - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> With regards to the hardness or otherwise of Mays deal, it is totally undefined. The PD leaves a broad range of options open for the future and includes a clause saying that if both sides changed their minds they could consider options not contemplated in the PD.

Well given that the Tory whips seem to have lost all influence over MPs voting, I'm thinking there's precious little chance of it passing anyway.

Bob Hughes - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

I’m not so sure. The argument that it’s this or no Brexit at all could become persuasive to Brexiters.

wercat on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Grieve is someone I have a lot of respect for.  I've listened to him for years on R4's Moral Maze and more recently his stance on Brexit.  It's good to be hearing the voice of reason

john arran - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> I’m not so sure. The argument that it’s this or no Brexit at all could become persuasive to Brexiters.

I agree, but my understanding is that Brexiter MPs are in a minority, so without effective whips it's hard to see it passing.

Eric9Points - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Quite.

Parliament isn't going to allow a no deal to happen, the overwhelming majority of MPs are against it.

john arran - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

While I agree wholeheartedly, I should point out that it's May's deal we're talking about here rather than No-deal!

FactorXXX - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Well given that the Tory whips seem to have lost all influence over MPs voting, I'm thinking there's precious little chance of it passing anyway.

Brexiteers from all Parties don't want it because it isn't hard enough.
Remainers from all Parties don't want it because it's too hard.
Labour don't want it because they see it as a chance of forcing a General Election.

Bob Hughes - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Quite.

> Parliament isn't going to allow a no deal to happen, the overwhelming majority of MPs are against it.

People keep saying this but I’m not sure it’s that reliable. There are now basically three options: vote for Mays deal, accept no deal or remain (either by reversing art 50, a 2nd referendum (no time for this) or an election (no time for this either).

Of the three I think they’ll end up voting for Nays deal but it’s by no means a given. 

captain paranoia - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Time to write to one's MP, I think...

john arran - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

May's deal will get voted down.

She'll then get parliament to vote on a 2nd ref, which will pass.

She'll then agree with EU to extend A50 long enough for a 2nd ref.

2nd ref will be Remain vs. May's discredited deal.

Remain will win 62-38.

A50 will be retracted.

May will then be deposed because all the Tory piranhas will actually want to be leader again.

Tories will stumble on in power until 2020, when they will win a small majority.

 

Plenty for folk to disagree with there!

FactorXXX - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Time to write to one's MP, I think...

What's the point?

Bob Hughes - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

yes, a couple of things I’d disagree with there:

- According to the opinion published today, art50 can only be withdrawn unilaterally before any extension period.

- I’d expect the ERG and friends to put up strong resistance to a 2nd ref based on the choices of remain or accept a deal which has already been voted down in parliament.

I think the Norway model is gaining momentum and that Mays deal will fail the first time, pass the second vote and be ratified as a way to get to a Norway deal. Perhaps a few tweaks to the PD to bring it closer to Norway to gather support from remainers on the second vote.

 

Gordon Stainforth - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Absolutely brilliant projection, but god knows what'll really happen. This is the most unpredictable thing I've ever experienced in British politics.

Jon Stewart - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> People keep saying this but I’m not sure it’s that reliable. There are now basically three options: vote for Mays deal, accept no deal or remain (either by reversing art 50, a 2nd referendum (no time for this) or an election (no time for this either).

> Of the three I think they’ll end up voting for Nays deal but it’s by no means a given. 

I doubt it. It's simply too shit, if I was an MP, I couldn't bring myself to do it, whether I was a brexiteer or a remainer. There simply isn't any constituency (in both the literal and broader senses) that wants May's deal, and to vote for it would in itself be a betrayal of...well, everything!

As course of action, May's deal is completely irrational and 100% at odds with any version of common sense: it makes a gesture towards some political aims (ending free movement, blah blah) but fails to actually deliver them due to the backstop (it essentially leaves it up to the EU whether we end up in or out - "take back control" my arse); and it's economically harmful. All it does is mash together a load of completely irreconcilable goals into an unpalatable pig's breakfast. Which is great if that's what you want to achieve as an end in itself (i.e. to not get immediately kicked out of no. 10 by brexiteers or remainers, to hang on for another day or two ), but as a policy for the UK, it stinks of shit. Anyone who votes for it betrays everything they were elected to do and should be kicked in the face repeatedly until they understand this simple fact.

No deal's not a possibility following the Grieve amendment, there are only a few despicable vultures in Parliament who would allow it (if I understand correctly that the amendment allows Parliament to vote down no deal). So we've got May's deal - which defies all logic unless you consider "must Brexit" an incontrovertible axiom (and this is a ridiculous position if by delivering Brexit in name you actually fail to deliver it!); or we've got 2nd referendum/no brexit/general election. This is where I think we're heading.

The most sensible of these options is, I suppose, the 2nd referendum - it's not pretty, but it is a way out of the absurd mess created by the 1st referendum. May's deal and remain would have to be on the ballet - but what about a no deal option? That could just end up as a rerun of the 1st where the brexit dickheads pedal a stream of lies about how everything's going to be fine, when there are no actual facts available about what the consequences of leaving without a deal would mean. Anything the opposition said could be labelled 'project fear'. A 2nd referendum would be another gamble, hoping that the "will of the people" doesn't crash the plane fully into the mountain. Not a good idea. As for a general election, what the hell would that achieve? How thick would you need to be to believe that Labour could get us out of this mess?

The best plan IMO is just "no brexit - spin on that, motherf*ckers!". But this too is not without risk. It's a gripping drama anyway...

Post edited at 21:52
HansStuttgart - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

 

> The most sensible of these options is, I suppose, the 2nd referendum - it's not pretty, but it is a way out of the absurd mess created by the 1st referendum.

Isn't parliament reinstating parliamentary supremacy by just cancelling A50 much more sensible? They can call an election afterwards where Lab and Con tell the people that if they don't like their decision they can vote UKIP.... (would require replacements for May and Corbyn though)

I'm Dutch. My government ignores referendums that are closer than 60%-40% all the time .... good constitutional practice.

 

Post edited at 22:19
Jon Stewart - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> Isn't parliament reinstating parliamentary supremacy by just cancelling A50 much more sensible?

Yes, see my final para. The risk I allude to that makes this not really that sensible is that roughly half the country will go apeshit. As you say, a few demonstrations and whatnot may be preferable to risking the fullfat trainwreck that could potentially result from a 2nd referendum. 

wercat on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> I'm Dutch. My government ignores referendums that are closer than 60%-40% all the time .... good constitutional practice.

I've been trying to explain that idea since before we even had the referendum but the trouble is we don't do sensible constitution here!  We used to have one, but the rather delicate analogue vacuum tube technology that made it work  has been left in the hands of political children.

 

Post edited at 22:32
HansStuttgart - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yep, I also agree with the "It's a gripping drama anyway..."

 

john arran - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> - According to the opinion published today, art50 can only be withdrawn unilaterally before any extension period.

This could be part of a negotiated extension and would I think be welcomed by the EU27 against the prospect of the UK ultimately becoming a more committed member than before.

> - I’d expect the ERG and friends to put up strong resistance to a 2nd ref based on the choices of remain or accept a deal which has already been voted down in parliament.

One consequence of today's shenanigans is that, when May's deal is voted down, parliament rather than government gets to decide the next step. The ERG then becomes a small voice with no real sway.

> I think the Norway model is gaining momentum and that Mays deal will fail the first time, pass the second vote and be ratified as a way to get to a Norway deal. Perhaps a few tweaks to the PD to bring it closer to Norway to gather support from remainers on the second vote.

If parliament is deciding what happens after May's deal fails, I can't see how a second vote for a modified Norway version could happen. The EU have said it's not renegotiable (and they've proven good to their word so far) and there won't be the 2/3 majority needed for a general election, so it doesn't look like there would be a route to a Norway deal being on the table.

 

HansStuttgart - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

 

> If parliament is deciding what happens after May's deal fails, I can't see how a second vote for a modified Norway version could happen. The EU have said it's not renegotiable (and they've proven good to their word so far) and there won't be the 2/3 majority needed for a general election, so it doesn't look like there would be a route to a Norway deal being on the table.

The route to some type of Norway deal:

1. Accept the withdrawal agreement

2. Ditch May and install another PM.

3. Accept FoM and some other stuff (such as more level playing field regulations) during the transition. EU will be happy to ditch the PD part of the agreement to gain a closer economic relationship.

 

RomTheBear on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Quite.

> Parliament isn't going to allow a no deal to happen, the overwhelming majority of MPs are against it.

Here is the trick : MPs do not have the power to stop no deal. It is the governement that controls the legislative agenda. 

Theresa May knows this and will force MPs to either back her, or get no deal.

Besides, it's not true to say that there are isn't a majority for no deal. MPs have indeed voted down all sorts amendments that would have made no deal impossible.

pasbury on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

How secure is Corbyn really?

I’ve not seen any agitation against him but really he’s as much a part of this logjam as anyone else. There is no cogent opposition to Brexit from him.

 

pasbury on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

Great, another 2 to 3 years of watching a big shaky jelly.

FactorXXX - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> How secure is Corbyn really?
> I’ve not seen any agitation against him but really he’s as much a part of this logjam as anyone else. There is no cogent opposition to Brexit from him.

Brexit is just a sideshow to Corbyn.
He'll use it to his advantage and use it to try and engineer a General Election and with him as PM at the end of it.
Man of the people? 
Yeah, right.  He's as grubby and insincere as the politicians he's despised for the last quarter of a century or so and the promise of him being a 'different sort of politician' is surely starting to wear a bit thin by now? 

 

balmybaldwin - on 04 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Sounds like a reasonable run of events, IF Labour still have JC as leader. The question is which of the Piranhas will win the Tory leadership scrap?

Will there be a new party at the next GE?

john arran - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to balmybaldwin:

>  The question is which of the Piranhas will win the Tory leadership scrap?

Nigel Farage

> Will there be a new party at the next GE?

No

 

pasbury on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Brexit is just a sideshow to Corbyn.

I agree

> He'll use it to his advantage and use it to try and engineer a General Election and with him as PM at the end of it.

Yep

> Man of the people? 

Here we differ, I think he is, I think he’s deep down one of the good guys.

> Yeah, right.  He's as grubby and insincere as the politicians he's despised for the last quarter of a century or so and the promise of him being a 'different sort of politician' is surely starting to wear a bit thin by now? 

No. He wants a socialist republic and he’s not really made any bones about that. In a normal political landscape he’d be almost out of sight. But it isn’t very normal at the moment, he’s one of the poles of a very polarised country.

 

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

You jest, but if Brexit is overturned in parliament I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge shift away from Labour/Conservative back to UKIP or another party.

 

Anyway, reading this morning that parliament cannot stop "no deal" (or Brexit as it used to be known) if May's deal is rejected.

stevieb - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> You jest, but if Brexit is overturned in parliament I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge shift away from Labour/Conservative back to UKIP or another party.

I think first past the post will result in many people holding their noses and voting Con/Lab in a general election. But if we end up voting in the European elections next May, it could be total carnage.

> Anyway, reading this morning that parliament cannot stop "no deal" (or Brexit as it used to be known) if May's deal is rejected.

Yes, I think there is a strong argument that only executive will be able to present a bill on Brexit, so any compromise deal will have to agreed by Theresa or her replacement. This means there could be a lot more brinksmanship to come, because no legislation passed means no deal.

 

paulcarey - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It always makes me laugh that so much importance is placed on parliamentary sovereignty but in actual fact it seems its more about 'executive' sovereignty than anything else.

Parliament seems incredibly weak compared to the executive.

Bob Hughes - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Anyway, reading this morning that parliament cannot stop "no deal" (or Brexit as it used to be known) if May's deal is rejected.

Yes i *think* the mechanism is

1. Withdrawal Bill gets voted down.

2. The government is then obliged to bring a motion to be voted on in parliament outlining their plan B. Grieve's amendment allows parliament to amend that motion. But it is still only a motion, not an Act - in that sense not legally binding but politically difficult for the government to get out of, especially since they will need parliament to approve subsequent legislation. 

ON your aisde, "no deal" does not = Brexit and never has. Brexit = not being a member of the EU. To suggest otherwise is to put an interpretation on the referendum that isn't supported by the question everyone voted on.

 

 

john arran - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> You jest, but if Brexit is overturned in parliament I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge shift away from Labour/Conservative back to UKIP or another party.

I wasn't actually joking! It may not be a particularly likely outcome, but Farage has just quit UKIP in search of bigger spoils elsewhere, and there's a natural home for his ideas among far too many people in the Conservative party, so I don't think it's completely out of the question.

wercat on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> You jest, but if Brexit is overturned in parliament I wouldn't be surprised to see a huge shift away from Labour/Conservative back to UKIP or another party.

In that case my perception that we do not have a well informed electorate capable of making a reasoned choice in the  Referendum but rather swayed by lies  and tales of demagogues would be proven to be true.   To say that the result wasn't stupid voting and to say that this might result is having your cake and eating it.

One thing we do not need is appeasement of the hard liners - as a country we need to take them head on

Post edited at 10:08
cb294 - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

This.

Norway, either off the shelf or plus, is always on the table during the next negotiation phase. Nothing on the EU side stops the UK dropping the red lines that currently stand in the way of this solution.

CB

bpmclimb on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> I'm Dutch. My government ignores referendums that are closer than 60%-40% all the time .... good constitutional practice.

Whereas, in the UK, the tiniest, slenderest of majorities becomes "the will of the British people", and asking the public again is out of the question, since to do so would "cause damage to democracy". 

 

wercat on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to bpmclimb:

The first hint I had at the childishness of UK politicians with regard to Referendum results was the realisation that a majority perhaps of 1 or 2 would have allowed Scottish Independence!

Look at Gits like Liam Fox, shouting out about "Brexit being stolen" ignoring the possibility that the country might think again.  How is he so prominent when was he was found to have prejudiced UK Security in 2011?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15300751

Post edited at 11:01
Toccata on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

While we're on hypothetical situations...

May's deal narrowly rejected (only a few votes).

MPs realise a second referendum may well also be for brexit so too risky.

Force a general election.

Both parties campaign on revoking A50 with Tories saying they'll renegotiate a better deal. Labour will say they'll have another referendum.

Labour form a coalition with SNP to govern.

EU changes the rules on A50 triggering and revoking. Something like a 60:40 majority in referendum and can't be revoked without penalty.

Labour never bothers with referendum.

Tories form coalition with UKIP after next referendum.

Go back to step 1. 

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

"ON your aisde, "no deal" does not = Brexit and never has. Brexit = not being a member of the EU. To suggest otherwise is to put an interpretation on the referendum that isn't supported by the question everyone voted on."

My point was slightly facetious, mainly because "no deal" has been demonised to be an absolute no no in the press and by parliament, (cliff edge!!!!) when in fact it's leaving the EU (without a trading deal negotiated...yet), unlike Mays deal, which isn't really leaving the EU. I read that 90% of British businesses do no trade with the EU at all, not sure how true that is...or if it's a crafty/clever statistic that whilst true gives a false impression. Anyway...I digress. It was a slightly tongue in cheek comment which I feel has a kernel of truth to it

wercat on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

More on the ARCH Brexiteer Fox - look back at his expenses history before the details of his introducing a friend without security clearance to the MOD came out.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7450738/MPs-expenses-Liam-Fox-becomes-highest-shadow-cabinet-repayer.html

Mr Yates, how do we trust your friends at all with our country's direction?

Speak up man!

Christ, it's enough to make one volunteer for service with 77 Bde

Post edited at 11:07
The New NickB - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Only 10% of U.K. businesses are exporters, pretty much all of that 10% do business with EU countries. To pinch something I heard on the radio last night “but what a 10%” the supply chain behind them is colossal.

Post edited at 12:11
Bob Hughes - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> My point was slightly facetious, mainly because "no deal" has been demonised to be an absolute no no in the press and by parliament, (cliff edge!!!!) when in fact it's leaving the EU (without a trading deal negotiated...yet), 

It's more than that. On trade alone, it is the sudden change from one system to another which will cause the impact (lorry parks in Kent, food and medicine shortages - these are all things that, given a slow transition from one EU to ex-EU, would not be a problem but making the change overnight causes the problem. 

Beyond trade, a similar principle applies. In my own case, I am a UK citizen resident in Spain. In the event of no deal, on 30 March this year I would have no legal basis for living in Spain, working, accessing healthcare or associated public services. Likewise for EU citz in the UK. Now, we can say that governments wouldn't kick us out and that is most likely true but (a) the windrush scandal tells us that it isn't universally true that people don't get kicked out of advanced countries for no good reason and (b) in any case it puts about 3 million people in a position of significant uncertainty while governments slowly get round to dealing with it. 

Ian W - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I read that 90% of British businesses do no trade with the EU at all, not sure how true that is...or if it's a crafty/clever statistic that whilst true gives a false impression.

It very much gives a false impression. My main employer does absolutely no business at all with the EU (retail chain). However, many of our suppliers do A LOT of business with the EU.........

My second business buys exclusively from the EU. 

So both companies count as 1 in the "do you or don't you" answer, but the relative turnovers are a few 10's of millions of £ against a few thousand. Nissan also count as 1 business, whilst having £5bn pa of direct business with EU countries. 

Bob Hughes - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Ian W:

By value, exports to EU account for approx 12% of GDP and imports from GDP account for approx 15% of GDP. In many cases that will be the same company doing the importing and exporting. 

Ian W - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

yup, In Nissans case, its about £4bn out and £1bn in. 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 05 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

The argument about respecting the referendum just had a big hole shot in it by an Oxford Professor who calculated the likely number of votes changed by Vote Leave's overspending as being enough to have swung the result.     This should make it easier for the politicians to move away from the 'referendum must be respected line' by introducing doubt about its validity.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

I think we are heading for Remain and it isn't just about Parliament.

The thing that is being missed in all the discussions about timelines and parliamentary procedure is that there are more than enough people whose family life and livelihood is tied to EU membership to make the French disturbances look like a walk in the park.    When it gets closer to March there are going to be an even larger group who are seriously worried about their job or business.   People whose lives will be negatively affected by leaving the EU have been remarkably well behaved so far on the expectation that Brexit would get fudged or dodged by the politicians but if it doesn't happen as it gets closer to March, people are going to get less patient and they are going to face off against a government which is pretty much falling apart.   Leave just don't have the support and momentum to overcome the concerted resistance they are going to face and they don't have the support of the professionals they will rely on to get their will implemented.

Post edited at 16:41
oldie - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

>  There are now basically three options: vote for Mays deal, accept no deal or remain (either by reversing art 50, a 2nd referendum (no time for this) or an election (no time for this either). <

Can't really see why there's no time. Difficult maybe. Wasn't the last election held after about one month's notice? A referendum would need to be ASAP  as recent ruling shows we might legally be able to cancel Brexit before March date if vote were to Remain (Brexiteers might want delay to avoid this possibility).

And there should be two referenda in succession: first Remain or leave. Second May's deal or hard if first was for Leave. For example France manages to hold successive votes for eliminating other presidential candidates before the final contest.

 

 

oldie - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

> ...Remain will win 62-38.... Plenty for folk to disagree with there! <

There won't be anything like that difference though. However I'm for Remain and would certainly be more accepting of a repeated Leave vote......at present I worry too much that Brexit may be occurring in spite of the current wishes of the  (now better informed) majority.

neilh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to oldie:

I am a remain voter. I think it would be irrational to have another referendum now as it  would make the country even more nasty.You would whether or not you like it have kicked in the teeth of 17.5 million people who voted to leave.

People keep assuming that everybody is better informed. You only have to listen to people both on here and out in the street to understand that this is not the case.

And if the result is still the same next time, what then are you going to do?

 

jkarran - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to neilh:

> I am a remain voter. I think it would be irrational to have another referendum now as it  would make the country even more nasty.You would whether or not you like it have kicked in the teeth of 17.5 million people who voted to leave.

You're assuming 'Remain' would win and it might which is fine, that is democracy in action but it's equally possible that 'kick in the teeth' you foresee becomes an opportunity for Britain to stand behind it's decision and support a specific course of action. Another referendum will deepen social divisions but we're not comparing the consequence of another referendum with a return to some rose-tinted era of national harmony that never really existed. If we leave we leave deeply divided and times will very likely get harder, vocal support for leaving will sublimate and the divisions will deepen, the only difference is the split will lie in a subtly different place marginalising further the remaining vocal minority and the profiteers. It gets harder to bridge. A referendum is the lesser evil (an election would do if it were a party political issue but it isn't, both parties are split and constrained). A multistage process of public involvement should of course have been explicit from the outset to deliver accountability, maintain momentum and so when it inevitably became necessary it couldn't be misrepresented as a subversion of democracy by the likes of Fox and 'unfinished business' Farage.

> People keep assuming that everybody is better informed. You only have to listen to people both on here and out in the street to understand that this is not the case.

Perhaps not better informed (though I do believe we are, significantly, that's not to say we are as a society well informed, just better) but we are now faced with concrete and deliverable options with predictable costs and benefits (or soon will after May fails to bend Barnier's will). The fantasy stops here, 1001 brexits become one (perhaps two). It's the job of the government and the campaigns to inform the public, to sell their vision, there's no reason to expect the average bored-of-brexit man or woman on the street would yet (or will ever fully) understand the implications of deals that are complex and still hot off the press in draft form. The people in here discussing brexit are from both ends of the argument, we're invested, none of us are likely to be swayed by a snappy campaign, subtle shifts in wording within the Political Declaration or the implications of demographic shift in Northern Ireland over the likely lifespan of any 'backstop'. It's the middle ground, the undecided, the coin tossers, the people whose motives in voting one way or the other last time were other than 'Europe' (kicking Cameron or funding the NHS for example) who decide our future. It is them the campaigns must and will speak to.

> And if the result is still the same next time, what then are you going to do?

Leave on the deal we chose. We can't just and absolutely shouldn't re-run 'Leave/Remain', it has to be a choice for an available deliverable and well defined option, nothing else certainly delivers the additional information required to untie parliament's hands. One of those options should be the deal we have negotiated, another withdraw A50 notification. Politically there will be enormous pressure from the extremists to include a minimal (no-deal) deal covering precious little and refusing payment but I'm not sure they're strong enough to get what they want. The issue of 'the question' is vexed for sure but we are apparently pretty much out of options unless May's confidence is better placed than it seems. She does still have the option of precipitating an economic crisis to force parliament's hand but it's a life and death gamble for her and the Conservative brand. Perhaps she has a better plan nobody yet sees, it'd be a surprise but not a huge one.

jk

Post edited at 10:26
oldie - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to neilh:

>I am a remain voter. I think it would be irrational to have another referendum now as it  would make the country even more nasty. You would whether or not you like it have kicked in the teeth of 17.5 million people who voted to leave. People keep assuming that everybody is better informed. You only have to listen to people both on here and out in the street to understand that this is not the case.And if the result is still the same next time, what then are you going to do? <

 

Well continuing Brexit without rechecking opinion may be kicking in the teeth of the current majority (IF that has changed).

Of course not everybody, but at least some people will be  better informed, and few voting before would have been able to predict the present situation. 

As I said I would be far "happier" and accepting about Brexit if there was a repeated vote to leave, and I believe many other remainers would too. 

Post edited at 10:27
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to oldie:

> And there should be two referenda in succession: first Remain or leave. Second May's deal or hard if first was for Leave. For example France manages to hold successive votes for eliminating other presidential candidates before the final contest.

Suppose people's preferences were 45% remain, 15% May compromise 40% hard leave.

If you organise a three way referendum as you propose,  then Leave wins the first round 55% to 45% and in the second round the 45% Remainers almost all switch to May's compromise and it wins 60% to 40% so basically the order of the votes has fixed the result for the May compromise.

If you had two rounds and asked "Which option do you favour most" with the least favoured option eliminated from the second round you'd get May's compromise eliminated in Round one and in round two the compromise votes would split fairly evenly so hard leave would lose 52.5% to 47.5% and Remain would win.

If you just had one round and the most favoured option won then Remain would win if there was no tactical voting.  But if the Leavers stuck to Leave and the Remainers started second guessing about which of the two softer options had the best chance they might split their vote more evenly between Remain and May's option and Leave could win.

I'm not sure there is a completely fair way of deciding a three-way question with a referendum.

Parliament should eliminate the Hard Leave option on the grounds that it is impractical and let people choose between the other two.   There's absolutely no way to be anything like ready for Hard Leave in March when it is already December and there's been near zero preparation.  Theresa May has successfully run down the clock on that option.

john arran - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Suppose people's preferences were 45% remain, 15% May compromise 40% hard leave.

> I'm not sure there is a completely fair way of deciding a three-way question with a referendum.

Single transferable vote (STV) would seem to be the best option in that situation.

> Parliament should eliminate the Hard Leave option on the grounds that it is impractical and let people choose between the other two.   There's absolutely no way to be anything like ready for Hard Leave in March when it is already December and there's been near zero preparation.  

You mean Parliament should represent the best interests of voters? Surely not!

Edit: Spelling

Post edited at 11:39
oldie - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Suppose people's preferences were 45% remain, 15% May compromise 40% hard leave. If you organise a three way referendum as you propose,  then Leave wins the first round 55% to 45% and in the second round the 45% Remainers almost all switch to May's compromise and it wins 60% to 40% so basically the order of the votes has fixed the result for the May compromise. <

Yes. But everyone has been able to vote for their preferred option....if its May's deal so be it. 

> If you had two rounds and asked "Which option do you favour most" with the least favoured option eliminated from the second round you'd get May's compromise eliminated in Round one and in round two the compromise votes would split fairly evenly so hard leave would lose 52.5% to 47.5% and Remain would win. If you just had one round and the most favoured option won then Remain would win if there was no tactical voting.  But if the Leavers stuck to Leave and the Remainers started second guessing about which of the two softer options had the best chance they might split their vote more evenly between Remain and May's option and Leave could win. <

Again these are based on guessed percentages. Perhaps one shouldn't use these to determine the method as it could lead to accusations of manipulation,

> I'm not sure there is a completely fair way of deciding a three-way question with a referendum. <

Agreed! All have pros and cons. Giving an end result that will have an absolute majority is probably a must. Unfortunately all democratic systems have their limitations. 

> Parliament should eliminate the Hard Leave option on the grounds that it is impractical and let people choose between the other two.   There's absolutely no way to be anything like ready for Hard Leave in March when it is already December and there's been near zero preparation.  Theresa May has successfully run down the clock on that option. <

Hard Leave can occur, eventually at least, though personally I dread it, and people should be given the option as we've gone down the non-parliamentary route with the original referendum. I don't think the choice available should be manipulated even if I think it could prove disastrous.

 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to oldie:

> Yes. But everyone has been able to vote for their preferred option....if its May's deal so be it. 

Sure, but there are many ways of organising it so everybody can vote for their preferred option and the choice of how to order the votes has a big effect on the outcome.

> Again these are based on guessed percentages. Perhaps one shouldn't use these to determine the method as it could lead to accusations of manipulation,

Yes, they are guessed percentages, they are illustrative of what can happen.   People will make estimates of the split between votes and they will try and design a voting process which produces their desired outcome.   These are politicians and they have a staff of people who will war-game all the possible outcomes.  There's no point in worrying about 'accusations of manipulation'  it is for certain going to be manipulated.   Probably most of the electorate are not sufficiently interested to figure out how easy it is to manipulate a three way vote by controlling the process but May certainly is.

> Hard Leave can occur, eventually at least, though personally I dread it, and people should be given the option as we've gone down the non-parliamentary route with the original referendum. I don't think the choice available should be manipulated even if I think it could prove disastrous.

The problem is there is no two year implementation phase for hard leave.  If there is no deal then there is no phased transition, it's just everything changes on March 19.  That just isn't a credible option when its already into December.  No responsible politician should even think of allowing it.   The crazy thing is if we wanted to do a hard leave the only reasonable course would be to cancel Article 50 so we could have several years to get ready to invoke it again.

 

Post edited at 12:20
MonkeyPuzzle - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It's easy:

1) Should the UK exit the EU on the terms negotiated by the UK government (known as "the Chequers deal")?

2) If the electorate choose not to exit on the negotiated deal, should the UK:

 - a) Leave the EU with no agreement

 - b) Remain in the EU

 

I don't see anything controversial about that.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> It's easy:

> 1) Should the UK exit the EU on the terms negotiated by the UK government (known as "the Chequers deal")?

> 2) If the electorate choose not to exit on the negotiated deal, should the UK:

>  - a) Leave the EU with no agreement

>  - b) Remain in the EU

> I don't see anything controversial about that.

Of course it is controversial: that ordering effectively rules out the compromise which would be everyone's second choice.  If you were Theresa May and had control of the process you'd prevent it.  All the possible ways of organising a 3 way decision are going to be controversial once people start thinking it through.

What shouldn't be controversial is that Hard Brexit in March 2019 is no longer an option because there just isn't time to prepare.  Theresa May has already killed that as a practical option by running down the clock.

Post edited at 13:03
oldie - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

>It's easy:1) Should the UK exit the EU on the terms negotiated by the UK government (known as "the Chequers deal")?2) If the electorate choose not to exit on the negotiated deal, should the UK: - a) Leave the EU with no agreement - b) Remain in the EU. I don't see anything controversial about that. <

A good suggestion. However if, as seems likely, many many Leavers and Remainers dislike May's deal but might vote for it purely to avoid the possibility of a result they like even less in the second round (actually it would be a good method for May to use).

I admit there's no perfect way (for me that would have to ensure the result I want!).

Post edited at 13:05
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Nah, nothing controversial at all in re-running the referendum despite manifesto commitments.

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/thinking-about-scenarios-for-how-the-uk-might-leave-the-eu-and-taking-account-of-where-we-are-in-the-brexit-process-would-you-support-or-oppose-implementing-in-full-the-deal-negotiated-by-theresa-ma-4/

Doesn't look like there's popular support from the people for this People's vote either.

 

neilh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to oldie:

As far as I am concerned its for Parliament to sort it out as we have a parliamnetary democracy.MP's just need to get their act together and not sit on fences like they have been doing.

I doubt any remainers will still be satisfied if the referendum vote ended up the same.

And a side bet. May will get her plan through after a few tweeks because the  alternative is so bad its unreal.All this talk at the moment is  a bun fight with everybody getting in their last word.Its not just her plan, its the plan of the civil service negotiating with the EU civil service covering a whole raft of areas.And when you actually listen to her instead of talking over her ( as per Humphreys this morning on R4 which was a shockingly bad interview as he kept interrupting her) we might see she is forcing Parliament to make up their minds and do what they are meant to do.,, take control.

Post edited at 13:25
neilh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Its a life and death gamble for Parliament not May, she seems quite comfortable with the position. The bluster comes from MP's edging their bets and avoiding responsibility.

Post edited at 13:27
Sir Chasm - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Doesn't look like there's popular support from the people for this People's vote either.

Nobody has to vote if they don't want to.

The New NickB - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

Alternatively YouGov have shown support for a second referendum rise from 31% in April 2017 to 42% in July 2018 and 50% now. 59% if you discount the don’t knows.

At least one of them has got it wrong, I wonder which one.

Post edited at 13:47
john arran - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Nah, nothing controversial at all in re-running the referendum despite manifesto commitments.

> Doesn't look like there's popular support from the people for this People's vote either.

That's a near-perfect example of Tom's point above, where he gives example support for each option in 45-15-40 proportions. Being focused only on a binary yes/no of a preferred outcome, and therefore grouping other options together (explicitly or otherwise) will inevitably give minority support for a second referendum, as indeed it will give minority support for each of the other options too. There was another question in the same poll that makes that even clearer:

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/thinking-about-scenarios-for-how-the-uk-might-leave-the-eu-and-taking-account-of-where-we-are-in-the-brexit-process-would-you-support-or-oppose-implementing-in-full-the-deal-negotiated-by-theresa-ma-2/

But out of the three, Remain is shown to be the preferred option of the UK electorate.

Edit: Here's the more telling question, showing almost 50% support for remain. Together with your link, it seems to indicate some support for Remain that would rather not be achieved via a referendum:

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/thinking-about-scenarios-for-how-the-uk-might-leave-the-eu-and-taking-account-of-where-we-are-in-the-brexit-process-would-you-support-or-oppose-implementing-in-full-the-deal-negotiated-by-theresa-ma-3/

(you'll need to follow the link as it's mistakenly titled in the url)

Post edited at 13:49
jkarran - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to neilh:

> Its a life and death gamble for Parliament not May, she seems quite comfortable with the position. The bluster comes from MP's edging their bets and avoiding responsibility.

That depends, parliament may end up able to effectively direct government, it isn't yet clear exactly how much they can push and pull before the Conservative back benchers behead the government to end the game but if May keeps steering a no-deal course to appease the ERG and force the hand of MP's the market reaction will be brutal. The Conservatives as the party in power and the driver of brexit will carry the can for that electorally.

jk

Post edited at 13:50
thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

> That's a near-perfect example of Tom's point above, where he gives example support for each option in 45-15-40 proportions.

Did you look at a different link?  On the question of whether we ought to have a referendum it has 50% opposed, 11% don't know.  That's a majority against a referendum. 

> Being focused only on a binary yes/no of a preferred outcome, and therefore grouping other options together (explicitly or otherwise) will inevitably give minority support for a second referendum, as indeed it will give minority support for each of the other options too. 

What relevance does that have to the question!?

> But out of the three, Remain is shown to be the preferred option of the UK electorate.

Not on that link.  It just shows that a majority don't want no deal.  That includes me...but depends on the options available of course.

http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/steve-fisher-condorcet

This looks at the options you're talking about, based on transferable votes.  Doesn't support your side, again.  Perhaps surprisingly it puts May's deal top.

> (you'll need to follow the link as it's mistakenly titled in the url)

Following the link shows a small majority opposed to remaining in the EU (44:45).  Wrong one?

There's no mandate for any party to call for a referendum, as there was nothing about it in their manifestos.  The claim is that there's big support for either a new referendum or remain, doesn't look like either are true.

thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

> Alternatively YouGov have shown support for a second referendum rise from 31% in April 2017 to 42% in July 2018 and 50% now. 59% if you discount the don’t knows.

That's not support for a second referendum to rerun the last one.  The question asked was, "Would you support or oppose a public vote on whether to accept the deal".

john arran - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Did you look at a different link?

Sorry, I thought it was clear enough. I don't have time right now to explain it further. Maybe later if you're still confused.

thomasadixon - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

I think I understood, but Tom's point was about 3 options (remain, leave, TM's deal) and the relevant question only has two (new vote, no new vote) so it doesn't apply - there are no grouped options, there are only two - which is why I thought you might have meant to link something else.

neilh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Appease the ERG! Keep up, they have been blown out of the water and are now a spent force following their complete failure in  getting anywhere near enough votes to force a leadership challenge. They are yesterdays research group. .

It will go through as in the votes so far the losses have been nowhere near enough to force an election ( 100 plus for a serious collapse of the govt).

 

Post edited at 16:18
oldie - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to neilh:

> As far as I am concerned its for Parliament to sort it out as we have a parliamnetary democracy.MP's just need to get their act together and not sit on fences like they have been doing. <

Right or wrong this all started by initiating a people's vote outside parliament. Just as with a general election people's vote there is at least some logic to saying it should be repeated if there is a possibility it is no longer the will of the majority. In fact many would say that parliament is proving itself unsuitable by deciding on party factional interests instead of for the people ( I suppose this happens all the time but its far more pronounced and the effects even greater than usual).

> I doubt any remainers will still be satisfied if the referendum vote ended up the same. <

Well I will accept it and at least a few friends seem to agree with me. I can't say whether or not you are correct about most remainers.

 

 

 

jkarran - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to neilh:

> Appease the ERG! Keep up, they have been blown out of the water and are now a spent force following their complete failure in  getting anywhere near enough votes to force a leadership challenge. They are yesterdays research group. .

They are licking their wounds today but they're not yet a spent force, I'm talking about the situation when May's deal is rejected next week. They may not have the power to promote a leader but they may get to demote one if May is embarrassed.

> It will go through as in the votes so far the losses have been nowhere near enough to force an election ( 100 plus for a serious collapse of the govt).

It's quite possible but this is the situation I'm discussing, how to force it through the house while keeping her job after her deal is rejected first time round and it cannot as seems likely be significantly amended. To do that May has to charge headlong and believably toward the no-deal cliff edge rejecting every get-out parliament offers up spooking the markets in the process. This keeps the ERG sorts off her case, perhaps even snapping some of them to their senses and calls 'People's Choice' MP's bluff. My deal or no deal for real this time! If she gets it wrong and we crash out by accident she gets to be the worst Prime Minister in history and a Conservative worst at that, if she gets it right she wins a hell of a game of poker and delivers the country into miserable brexit bondage. A deal everyone hates and that will be vocally rejected by the electorate as soon as it causes obvious economic pain and delivers nothing. Like the no-deal alternative it will ruin what's left of the Conservative brand outside of the angry pensioner constituency.

I can't help but wonder if she hopes to fail.

jk

Post edited at 16:48
wercat on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to oldie:

If you look on the website linked by ThomasDixon you will see a number of poll analyses that show just that - that the will has shifted.  Moreover all of the time plots of sentiment appear to show anything but a clear and settled signal over the period 2016 to now, though the balance shifted to Remain some time ago.

There does appear to be no settled will as to what the process should be, however, which gives Parliament a natural mandate to act as it always has.  It was never established to serve the will of the people anyway (the biggest Brexit lie) but to represent the interests of the electorate and the nation.

Post edited at 17:09
john arran - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to thomasadixon:

That's a fascinating analysis. The theory and different ways to look at the data are really interesting, but with the small sample size and consequently unusually high error bars (4 points even at only 90% confidence) I'd be wary of reading too much into the figures. It also appears to give notably different (and more pro-Brexit) outcomes compared to other recent polls, such as those linked upthread, although given it's not asking quite the same questions, that's perhaps not a surprise.

What it does indicate though, is that there's a very high potential for variability of outcomes depending on such factors as the referendum approach taken and the level of voter engagement. More so that most people, myself included, would hope to be the case.

It also indicates that a staggering number of people are likely to be in for a very big shock if we end up with No-deal!

john yates - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to wercat:

Get a life 

wercat on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

when you've found one for yourself you can give me a tip

 

diddums, didn't you like having the stark truth about some of the protagonists being brought forward into the present awareness?

Post edited at 19:16
tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

> It also indicates that a staggering number of people are likely to be in for a very big shock if we end up with No-deal!

Yes, and that means if and when it becomes clear that is the outcome of the Parliamentary process a staggering number of people and companies are going to switch all at once from passively watching and expecting it will all go away to actively doing something to protect themselves from Brexit or setting out to make Brexit fail before it happens.   

The government stating it isn't going to give the agreed deal to EU migrants in the event of no deal Brexit will itself create about 5 million extremely angry people.

In Scotland the anger can be channeled into a second Independence vote.  In England its got nowhere to go except direct action.

 

 

Post edited at 23:01
neilh - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

It’s strange that in all the fuss over this the only thing that is being talked about is the backstop. 

Must mean that everything else in the 500 page plus agreement ticks the relevant boxes.

uk business is not kicking up a fuss unless of course there is a no deal .

jkarran - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to neilh:

> It’s strange that in all the fuss over this the only thing that is being talked about is the backstop. 

Isn't that just the way these things work, one issue at a time, most egregious or easily explained first, then the next, then the next... In reality for many it's just the convenient hook they need to hang an argument on for a change in the process or leadership or whatever else it is they seek. If it wasn't the backstop it'd be something else.

jk

wercat on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I was just thinking yesterday about the unique situation we occupy in the EU.   We have negotiated exemptions and do not have to join the Euro etc despite having the core benefits.

Do you think the loss of this position irrevocably and forever has been explicitly explained to the electorate sufficiently?   We certainly could apply to rejoin in the future, but if we don't rescind our Article 50 notice there will be a change that will bind and limit us forever, privileges never to be regained.   Surely only leaders who are traitors would inflict that perpetual limitation on us as a price worth paying for the disruption we are facing now ....  flying in medicines?

btw my thyroxine is made in Croatia, one of the benefits of being able to buy medecines cheaply for the NHS - that brand was preferred for cheapness according to our NHS pharmacy.   So if we have to make alternative arrangements are we going to hit the NHS with extra costs by limiting its choice?

Oh wait, we could have a good deal, a great deal with American Pharma .....?

Post edited at 10:20
oldie - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to wercat:

> I was just thinking yesterday about the unique situation we occupy in the EU.   We have negotiated exemptions and do not have to join the Euro etc despite having the core benefits. <

> Do you think the loss of this position irrevocably and forever has been explicitly explained to the electorate sufficiently?   We certainly could apply to rejoin in the future, but if we don't rescind our Article 50 notice there will be a change that will bind and limit us forever, privileges never to be regained.   <

That really is the reason for any referendum to be ASAP. With the recent legal ruling there is a good chance the UK can just cancel leaving before the March date should the electorate prefer to remain.

Presumably if there was a later referendum decision to rejoin then we might get back in with our present conditions, possibly needing all 27 member states to agree, or alternatively we might even be required to adopt the Euro.

Or cancel leaving anyway and soon after if necessary do the article 50 thing again to gain time (might suit Corbyn for possible renegotiation on completely different terms after any general election)! Not really serious. 

 

elsewhere on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to wercat:

I despair of the UK and the UK political process.

What sort of country chooses to put itself in a position where it is necessary to plan extra stockpiling of medicines, cold food storage is fully booked and parts of the M20 are being prepared for possible use as a lorry park if Dover/Calais clogs up? These are all extra contingency plans costing real money and undermining business confidence in the competence of the UK.

At the time David Davis resigned as Brexit Secretary he'd been to fewer meetings with Barnier than my bother in law had been to company Brexit meetings. My BiL is a German engineer for a huge non-German multinational. We are governed by clowns who take their job less seriously than an ordinary professional engineer in a technical role for whom the UK is not the biggest market.

On the radio this morning I heard about a Norway+ deal, AFTER I'd already read a newspaper article this morning that Norway wasn't interested and had a veto over EFTA membership for the UK. More stupidity from people too stupid to think it might be worth finding out what their Norwegian counterparts think. The Nowegians et al must think our politicians are clowns. 

They don't seem to realise that foreign trade deals means talking to (shock, horror) foreigners. They seem to think an international trade deal just needs the agreement of the Rt Hon Member for Upper Tiddlesbury in the Wold.

The serial incompetence makes my blood boil.

Obviously I need to calm down now ;-)

Post edited at 13:23
wercat on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

Well put.  There's no other way to describe it perhaps with the sole qualification that clown is too kind a term for those who are not acting in our best interests.

john yates - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

You do. Most of that was hysterical none sense 

john yates - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to oldie:

We had a legal referendum. The vote was leave. TM has massively failed to deliver on that. So all this talk of no Brexit is arrogant contempt for the silent majority. Shame on you. 

john yates - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

Could you list the number of meetings DD attended? Do you know them all? I suspect not. But would be interested to see the list. Otherwise your claim is just authentic prairie gibberish 

john yates - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It’s always ‘anger’ when it comes to shouty Nats....so much rage, and sneering 

Dave Garnett - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> We had a legal referendum. 

In what sense legal?

 

oldie - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

We did have a legal referendum some time ago and the vote was to leave. My concern is that with the passage of time and with changing perceptions the majority MAY now be forced to leave against their will. I'm not so arrogant that I presume to know what the silent majority desires today. I think this should be tested although there is a high chance that the result will be repeated. I am not suggesting that Brexit should be stopped unless the majority wishes to do so.

elsewhere on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You do. Most of that was hysterical none sense 

Any of it factually incorrect? 

Jon Stewart - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> We had a legal referendum.

As in, the referendum wasn't illegal? It's not legally binding. If you're going to take a strong position, you need to know what you're talking about.

> The vote was leave.

Correct. But in my opinion, a result of 52-48 leaves a very difficult situation where the country is split down the middle. Brexit hasn't worked for 2 reasons: 1, it's a shit idea; and 2, there isn't sufficient support. Too many people oppose it, and lots of those people are in positions of power and influence. 

> TM has massively failed to deliver on that.

By what measure? She's managed to cobble together the best possible deal which balances the political goals of brexit such as ending free movement and the subordinance to the ECJ, but which minimises the harm of trade barriers and the NI problem. She's dealing with reality, and unfortunately, reality's a bitch.

> So all this talk of no Brexit is arrogant contempt for the silent majority. Shame on you. 

What do you mean by silent majority? The people have voted in a referendum and had their say. No one's been silent. The government has done its best to try to implement a decision that was made by a small margin and has extremely tight constraints on what is possible - and it's a pig's breakfast. That pig's breakfast isn't Theresa May's fault, it's structural and inherent to the decision to leave. The idea that she could have negotiated something better is a fantasy. Reality's a bitch, isn't it. So what are the options?

 - Leave without a deal, totally screwing over the country

 - Leave with the deal negotiated, which would be a bad deal and doesn't really fulfil the unstated desires of those who wanted to leave - but those desires were never articulated so we can't say for sure what it was people wanted

 - Hold another referendum (May's deal or remain, two well-defined options) - which makes a mockery of the first

 - Remain in the EU, ignoring the result of the referendum

All of these are bad options, which will make some people feel sad. The worst is no deal, because that will make people sad because they don't have a job, which is quite serious. All the other 3 are just a bit worse than never starting the whole brexit charade, but aren't really that awful.

So, by deciding the to leave the EU, we're now left with 4 options, all of which leave the country in a worse place than where we started. It doesn't seem to me that this has been a worthwhile exercise, it's just a terrible f*ck up. Quite sad really, don't you think?

Post edited at 22:17
elsewhere on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Could you list the number of meetings DD attended? Do you know them all? I suspect not. But would be interested to see the list. Otherwise your claim is just authentic prairie gibberish 

You really should learn to use the internet, the Barnier meetings I mentioned are listed online.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/agenda_en?title=David+davis&field_agenda_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=1+January+2015&field_agenda_date_value_1%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=7+December+2018&field_agenda_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=01-01-2015&field_agenda_date_value_1%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=07-12-2018

I blame the FT for spouting "authentic prairie gibberish" such as

'David Davis has spent just 4 hours in talks with Michel Barnier this year.

EU leaders cite lack of engagement as they rebuke UK for slow progress on Brexit'

https://www.ft.com/content/9e3aacf0-7b9c-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d

It might be interesting for you to hear of a company called Google. The links above are results returned by that company's website. It is a  quite famous way of finding information that I can heartily recommend you try.

 

Post edited at 22:25
fifthsunset - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> We had a legal referendum.

Vote Leave acted illegally. It was sanctioned and referred to the police by the Electoral Commission.

Vote Leave overspent by 10% in a referendum with a 1.9% win margin.

The ICO fined Leave.EU for data misuse.

If the UK had a written constitution there is absolutely no way a constitutional change like this would be permitted with less than 60% of the vote. That doesn't exactly make it illegal but it does make it illegitimate. 

> The vote was leave. TM has massively failed to deliver on that. So all this talk of no Brexit is arrogant contempt for the silent majority. Shame on you. 

If you think Leave has a majority why are you so worried about another referendum?

Dr.S at work - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

I’m afraid I’ve had to give you a ‘dislike’ for failing to use LMGTFY in your otherwise excellent post.

soz.

john yates - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to fifthsunset:

Fantastical stuff. Why pose it in such terms? Like it’s some macho thing. Heh, what are afraid of? I’m afraid of nothing. Except no. I’m afraid you’re wrong. In almost every aspect. No legal authority has declared the referendum illegal or void. It stands. You can clutch at straws if you wish. The more you people bleat about the need for a second referendum, the more arrogant you sound. Baron Adonis and the other Blairite London luvvies suggest the roof will collapse if we leave. It won’t. But the sad fact is the Remainers have negotiated such a crummy deal, no one wants it except the EU. And why wouldn’t they want it. 

john yates - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

Heh, this internet thing is good. Thanks for pointing it out. And Google! Wow. Amazing. I met their head of AI a little while back. Lovely lady. Look her up. As for your snide remarks about DD and all the other rubbish, if you’d googled a little more you would have found that, whether right or wrong, DD focused on meeting heads of 27 members states, all elected politicians rather than an unelected commissioner. So he was very active and energetic, but perhaps not effective in breaking the EU grip. You would also have read that the talks with Barmier were led by a UK civil servant based in Downing Street. It was Number 10 who led those talks not DD or Raab. The reason, ultimately, both men resigned. So yes, most of your diatribe is gibberish. Remainer tosh fabricated to suit a narrow political purpose. Oh, and by the way, her name is Fei-Fei Li, you will also find her at Stanford. 

Sir Chasm - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

How do you think this process is going? Is it going better or worse than you thought it would when you voted out?

john yates - on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I have not said the referendum was legally binding. So rest of your first comment is redundant.  Your second point that Brexit is ‘shit’ is a crude statement of opinion. And not a fact. I hope you are more objective when filling caries. 

Your interpretation of TM’s negotiating ability and the result is mildly interesting but at odds with most other commentators and Parliamentary arithmetic.

your suggestion that no better deal could have been negotiated is unsustainable and pure conjecture. Lots of other outcomes were and are still possible. It’s yet another manifestation of the ‘there is no better alternative’ to the EU lie put about by Remainers.

So no, I figure your prognosis wrong on all counts. The only f*ck up is that we left Jimmy Saville in charge on the kindergarten and that’s why we’ve all be rogered. Utter betrayal. 

 

elsewhere on 07 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

Funny how the FT report the wonderful impression he made. 

At least we both agree he was an ineffective negotiator.

Post edited at 23:28
Bob Hughes - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> your suggestion that no better deal could have been negotiated is unsustainable and pure conjecture. Lots of other outcomes were and are still possible.

What is the better alternative that would have been available?

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> What is the better alternative that would have been available?

Remain or Norway if you are a staunch remainer. No Deal of Canada if you are a staunch brexiteer. It depends on your views. May's deal is an attempt to satisfy everyone but which in fact pleases very few.

john yates - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

I think they’ve all been utterly ineffective. In part due to massive divisions in party and cabinet and country. But Barnier did well to maintain EU discipline and stuff the stupid Brits. It needed a solid leave government to effect a clean break. Should never have said we wanted a deal. Majority voted to leave. And that’s what we should have done. Instead got tied in bureaucratic thicket where EU are master. So yes, there was a real alternative, but our establishment and their useful idiots didn’t want it. 

john yates - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Clean break. Would have had you guys squealing like stuck pigs. A real benefit. 

oldie - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Majority voted to leave. And that’s what we should have done. Instead got tied in bureaucratic thicket where EU are master. <

As far as I remember the most prominent campaigners for Leave, including Farage and Johnson, were telling us how easy it would be to strike a deal as that would also be in the interests of the EU. It seems  wrong if you're suggesting that most voters for Leave expected a hard Brexit.

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Majority voted to leave. And that’s what we should have done.

A very slight majority voted to leave, so a very soft Brexit is probably the best interpretation of the will of the people as expressed in the first referendum.

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Clean break. Would have had you guys squealing like stuck pigs. A real benefit. 

Just like you lot will be squealing if the second referendum gives a majority for remain. Which, as a reasonable person, I won't see as a  benefit; when we wake up from this nightmare there will be a lot of work to be done to heal the divisiveness and address the issues which resulted in so many people voting to leave against their own interests the first time round.

 

Post edited at 11:32
Luke90 on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to wercat:

> Look at Gits like Liam Fox

It's polite to refer to him by his full title...

Disgraced-current-minister Liam Fox.

My first Google result for "disgraced former minister" is the Wikipedia article on Mr Fox.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> What is the better alternative that would have been available?

I actually think that from where we are now the situation is fairly simple.

May has run down the clock to mid-December when the Article 50 date is mid March.  She's also pretty much exhausted the scope for negotiation with the EU by spending two years wasting their time on bullsh*t.

If we leave without a deal then there is no transition period.  That means absolute chaos, not just at Dover but also minor details like from one day to the next not being able to use all the EUs treaties with the rest of the world and being reliant on the crowd of cretins that negotiated with the EU to get us new ones.   The fact is we are completely unprepared for a no-deal Brexit in March and it is not a serious option.  The politicians have to know that but they are scared to say it because they have woken up forces they can't control.

Equally, the Norway option doesn't quite work.  There are things in the existing EFTA/EEA that don't allow for adding a country the size of the UK without seriously disadvantaging the existing members and they won't go for it.   What we should have been negotiating is a variant of EEA that would suit the UK without bullshitting about asking for stuff that we'd never get like single market access without freedom of movement and the ECJ.    But the EU has been patient for 2 years and they've cobbled together an offer that just about fudges into May's red lines.   She's run down the clock on negotiating an EEA variant too.

Which means the only alternatives at this point in time are May's deal and chucking the whole thing in.   Remain is better in every conceivable way than May's deal.   The Brexiteers had their chance, they wasted two years and got nowhere.   They haven't even resolved between themselves what Brexit would mean.

elsewhere on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I think they’ve all been utterly ineffective. In part due to massive divisions in party and cabinet and country. But Barnier did well to maintain EU discipline and stuff the stupid Brits. It needed a solid leave government to effect a clean break. Should never have said we wanted a deal. Majority voted to leave. And that’s what we should have done. Instead got tied in bureaucratic thicket where EU are master. So yes, there was a real alternative, but our establishment and their useful idiots didn’t want it. 

I agree EU members with an agreed plan in a unified block benefit from a powerful position in negotiations.

john yates - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Rubbish. A majority vote to paint the room blue. A substantial minority voted to paint it pink. The answer isn’t to paint it green. We should leave. This is nowhere near leave. 

Andy Hardy on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

>[...] Utter betrayal. 

See how the narrative shifts: straight out of the Weimar Republic playbook. And why not? it served you well thus far.

Bob Hughes - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Remain or Norway if you are a staunch remainer. No Deal of Canada if you are a staunch brexiteer. It depends on your views. May's deal is an attempt to satisfy everyone but which in fact pleases very few.

In which case Jon Stewart above is right - the current deal isn’t a failure of negotiation, it’s a failure of the red lines. Canada is consistent with the red lines but not with the EUs requirement for an Irish backstop. 

Rob Exile Ward on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

Who would have thought it? Perhaps we ought to find a similar group in the future.

Andy Hardy on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Rubbish. A majority vote to paint the room blue. A substantial minority voted to paint it pink. The answer isn’t to paint it green. We should leave. This is nowhere near leave. 

The whole problem is that the options upon leaving were not defined beforehand. So the analogy would be

"A majority vote to repaint the room. A substantial minority voted to leave it alone. Now the painters can't decide on the colour scheme, but somehow that's the fault of the minority"

Post edited at 13:27
Bob Hughes - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

There’s an implicit part of your post which I agree with - if the government had established and agreed a clearer direction early on we’d probably be in a much better place now. 

I don’t think no deal is credible, though. However we leave we’ll need a deal of some kind - if only for things like citizens rights, air traffic etc. As soon as we need those we need a cooperative EU, which they won’t be if we decide not to pay the bill.

Rob Exile Ward on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

Actually, painting the room green (or some other mutually agreeable colour) is EXACTLY what reasonable people do when opinions are divided. Thanks for the metaphor.

wercat on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> >[...] Utter betrayal. 

> See how the narrative shifts: straight out of the Weimar Republic playbook. And why not? it served you well thus far.


Sehr gut

Mr Lopez - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Rubbish. A majority vote to paint the room blue. A substantial minority voted to paint it pink. The answer isn’t to paint it green.

 

B&Q is out of Blue paint.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Rubbish. A majority vote to paint the room blue. A substantial minority voted to paint it pink. The answer isn’t to paint it green. We should leave. This is nowhere near leave. 

That's not what happened.  We started with a pink room.  The question was "Do you want it painted some other colour?"  48% said keep it pink, 52% said some other colour.  Then the 52% spent two years trying to decide between Blue and Green and couldn't.   When there is a poll between Pink, Blue and Green then Pink comes out ahead every time.

The sensible thing is to leave the room Pink.

 

stevieb - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

Out of interest, do you believe we can leave without a deal on 29 March 2019 without significant problems? 

Wanderer100 - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The last 2 years of negotiations have been a complete disaster for the UK. I agree that ever since the Government have said they wanted to cherry pick parts of the EU that are of benefit to the UK the balance of power in the negotiations shifted to Brussels (or Strasbourg depending what month it is). Now we have a dog's dinner of a deal that satisfies nobody other than May and the EU. For me the only sensible option is to hold another referendum. Ireland did this when they voted against joining the Eurozone. The room needs to be given a fresh coat of paint but it should be kept pink. Time for May, Corbyn, Bojo and Rees Mogg to shuffle off into obscurity. They have caused enough damage to this country and its international reputation and the healing process can't begin with these people still having an influence. 

David Riley - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> Out of interest, do you believe we can leave without a deal on 29 March 2019 without significant problems? 

Less problems than we are going to have any other way.

stevieb - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Less problems than we are going to have any other way.

Ok thanks. 

My view is that a no deal would be a massive problem for most of our exporters, goods or services, unless they have a real niche product, but hopefully you’re right. 

Do you think no deal on March 29th would be better than Canada 9 months later? 

john arran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

A very useful comparison can be made with New Zealand's decision not to change its flag recently. Only once the preferred option had been publically decided was a binary referendum held to choose between two known outcomes.

It's not too late to follow that worthy precedent.

David Riley - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to stevieb:

> Do you think no deal on March 29th would be better than Canada 9 months later? 

I do think so.

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> The whole problem is that the options upon leaving were not defined beforehand. So the analogy would be

> "A majority vote to repaint the room. A substantial minority voted to leave it alone. Now the painters can't decide on the colour scheme, but somehow that's the fault of the minority"

Exactly. The remainers and the EU did not ask for or vote for this mess. Ideally the negotiations should have been left to Leave voters or their representatives (I remember Michael Heseltine saying this immediately after the referendum) until, no doubt after much dreadful bloodletting (remember Gove stabbing Boris in the back within days of the referendum?), they came up with a deal by whatever means they wanted. We could then have had a straight binding referendum between that deal and Remain. And if the nation then rejected their deal, they would have no one to blame but themselves.

 

Bob Hughes - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to thread:

Interesting blog on the backstory to the backstop. According to the blog, it was the U.K. gov’s idea, pushed on eu as a way to build some of the advantages of a Custom Union into the legally binding part of the WA. 

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/1207/1015924-brexit-backstop-uk/

Pan Ron - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

I may have asked you this a while back, and you didn't answer as I recall:

Why are you opposed to a followup referendum?  And "we had a vote" isn't an answer any more than voting for Churchill in the 1940s means we don't need elections today. 

Now that we have three options (remain, May-deal, crash-out) which is a clarification on what the original vote was for, we can put it to an STV vote, and there can be no further argument if the crashing-out that you want wins.  

To anyone not in favour of a hard-Brexit, all the moaning by Leavers about a followup referendum looks like nothing more than a realisation that they are not the most popular option and that they want us to go ahead with something that a tiny minority might be in favour of.  I can understand Brexit in a way.  But he hard-Brexiteers display utter hypocrisy and lunacy.

neilh - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to David Riley:

As an exporter employing people and supplying uk manufactured goods to markets outside the EU it would be commercially devastating to me. 

Please explain why it would be a good thing to come out in respect of WTO origin rules. 

wercat on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

2 possibilities

He does not understand democracy

He is not interested in democracy

Apart from the fundamental failure to understand what democratic government in the UK is for

john yates - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Actually the question was -- do you want to leave the room. A majority said yes. Here is the question you voted remain for.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Actually the question was -- do you want to leave the room. A majority said yes. Here is the question you voted remain for.

> Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Yes, we all know that. The point you for some reason seem to refuse to recognise is that there are many shades of not being in the EU. Norway is not in the EU. Iceland is not in the EU. Canada is not in the EU. Indonesia is not in the EU.

David Riley - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to neilh:

I said I think the problems will be worse if we don't leave without a deal on 29th March. The cost and uncertainty of dragging things out for up to 8 years if not indefinitely.  People on both sides want an end to it.

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> I said I think the problems will be worse if we don't leave without a deal on 29th March. The cost and uncertainty of dragging things out for up to 8 years if not indefinitely.

But if we leave without a deal, renegotiating trade deals all round the world (including wit the EU) is going to take ages anyway.

> People on both sides want an end to it.

So lets just remain then!

 

 

john yates - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

I have answered in the past, ad nauseam. But it is a feature of this 'debate' that Remoaners are deaf to everything and everyone they disagree with. So, at the risk of repetition......

The second people's vote in 2016 was clear and unambiguous....

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

A majority voted to leave.

A government was elected on a manifesto commitment to leave......for those of you who didn't read it, it said “no deal is better than a bad deal” and Labour Party MPs were elected on a very similar ticket. 

Instead of leaving, a pro-EU Prime Minister decided to negotiate a 'deal' with the EU.

Needless to say, that has not gone well.

If I were a leave voter I would feel mightily pissed off by all of this. And they do if the polls are to be believed. Two years of relentless scaremongering about the end of the world have hardly budged the numbers.....

If I were a leaver I would want the intent of the referendum enacted. It hasn't been.

Democracy in other words has been hijacked by the establishment and their useful, Guardian reading idiots.......many of whom inhabit the darker recesses of this site...

As to the question of a third people's vote. As the second one has not been implemented I would not be in favour of it.

The only thing that might persuade me is if the electorate of the third people's vote were restricted to those who voted leave (no idea how this would be done, just shooting the breeze) ....and ask them 'do you want to change your minds'.......or do they still want to leave?

If the latter, we elect a government to enact their wishes.......

.....the losers.... (the overwhelming noisy majority on here) should sit this one out and let the leave majority vote on whether they think their wishes have been enacted (as a result of 'all the new shit tha has come to light t ' as the Dude would say......https://bit.ly/2hZAo9H

I thought Matthew Goodwin was brilliant on Newsnight ( I watched it on his twitter feed not TV before some smart ass suggests I'm fibbing about not have a TV!!) ...it is the inability of the remainers to reflect on what happened in 2016 that keeps us in this mess....and it is brilliantly exemplified on this site by the puffed up snobbery and conceit.......Mori suggest 20% per cent happy with no deal -- the same number as want a third referendum......

 

 

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> The only thing that might persuade me is if the electorate of the third people's vote were restricted to those who voted leave (no idea how this would be done, just shooting the breeze) ....and ask them 'do you want to change your minds'.......or do they still want to leave?

So, if in that referendum 49% said they had changed their mind, we would still leave despite that it would mean that approximately 75% of people now wished to remain?

> Mori suggest 20% per cent happy with no deal -- the same number as want a third referendum......

So you conclude that it would be democratic to leave with no deal but not democratic to have a second referendum? Anyway, some polls suggest far greater support than that for another referendum: https://www.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-peoples-vote-second-referendum-brexit-fears-grow-over-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-8?r=UK&IR=T

I find your ideas on democracy odd.

 

 

Post edited at 17:43
tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

Do you remember that video game 'Lemmings' where you had to try and prevent a bunch of lemmings from killing themselves by continually moving things about just in time before they fell to their deaths.   

That's what's has been happening for the last two years.   There's a bunch of swivel eyed no-brained Lemmings determined to walk over a cliff and Theresa May has been shuffling the furniture under them to block them at every turn and guide them towards her planned exit.  A fair few of the  Lemmings have had to be sacrificed or accidentally got squished along the way.   

You may as well face it.   The clock has been run down on you.  Hard Brexit wasn't prepared for and it is too late now: the turn for Hard Brexit was walked past about a year and a half ago.  It's gone.   There's less Lemmings than there were in 2016.  Not even a majority any more.   What's left on the table is the Theresa May deal and Remain and the Theresa May deal sucks.   

 

Post edited at 18:36
Pan Ron - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> The second people's vote in 2016 was clear and unambiguous.... Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

But that's really not the case is it.  Leavers were promising European's knocking at our door to make deals, that we would have the bargaining upper-hand, etc.  Plenty will have voted for exactly that and not every leaver is a hard-brexiteer.  

To assume that the leave you want is the leave other brexiteers want is incredibly naive and simply not backed up by any polls. 

The most I can grant you is that if an STV 3rd ref occurs, and soft-Brexit is rejected, the final decision between hard-Brexit and Remain might still fall in favour of hard-Brexit.  But we simply do not know that...it needs to be tested....remainers would have little to stand on if it goes that way...and if it doesn't go that way then you are clearly entirely wrong (which is I think EXACTLY what you are afraid of but won't admit).  

So, again, why not test it?

> Instead of leaving, a pro-EU Prime Minister decided to negotiate a 'deal' with the EU.

Because that's what many/most leavers were expecting and were promised.  

> Needless to say, that has not gone well.

That is something we can all agree on...except for those politicians who promised amazing deals, and those Brexiteers (like the ones on LBC the other day) who feel we are the dominant negotiating partner, that the EU needs us more than we need them, etc.

> If I were a leave voter I would feel mightily pissed off by all of this. And they do if the polls are to be believed. Two years of relentless scaremongering about the end of the world have hardly budged the numbers.....

I completely get you there.  I suspect much of the scaremonging will be proven wrong (just liek the scaremongering ABOUT the EU has been).  However, its equally likely it will be proven right.  People will be hurt one way or another.  That's a big imposition on 48% of the population, especially if it is no longer 48%.

> Democracy in other words has been hijacked by the establishment and their useful, Guardian reading idiots.......many of whom inhabit the darker recesses of this site...

With an attitude like that, are you surprised those of us who support Remain haven't decided "oh well, we lost, but those leavers are clearly a smart mob with our best interests at heart and we'll jump in to support them now"?

> As to the question of a third people's vote. As the second one has not been implemented I would not be in favour of it.

Given what is on the table is, by your own admission, is introducing a third arrangement in to the two-way referendum, how can the 2nd ref even be implemented?

> The only thing that might persuade me is if the electorate of the third people's vote were restricted to those who voted leave (no idea how this would be done, just shooting the breeze) ....and ask them 'do you want to change your minds'.......or do they still want to leave?

Ok, lets work through this one....  

You would have a vote, only allowing a 52% to vote in it. 

And even if 30% of that 52% now no longer wanted to Leave, and voted against it in your vote, despite the remaining 70% constituting only 36% of the total electorate (with the remaining 65% taking the polar opposite view and wanting Remain), you would feel the 36% should get their way? 

Are you seriously proposing such a system?

Again, how can we have any faith in you leavers, and your claims to "the will of the people", when you can come up with such preposterous ideas?  Sorry, but this is utter delusion.  You have lost the plot.

wercat on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

and how would the dead and those who could not vote as too young be treated?  Still excluded? Without any say?

We really ought to respect the will of the people expressed in the past and bring back hanging too if the purpose of the government is to implement the Will of the Folk

I understood Parliament was Sovereign, not fetter'd by the FolkWill  and MPs were elected to look after our interests

Post edited at 19:03
Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to wercat:

> We really ought to respect the will of the people expressed in the past and bring back hanging too if the purpose of the government is to implement the Will of the Folk

And we should take back proper control of our borders by sending back home all those Angles and Saxons who come over here stealing our farms. Not to mention those Norsemen stealing our women.......

The whole story is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cgeXd5kRDg

 

 

Post edited at 19:08
mullermn - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

>   That's a big imposition on 48% of the population, especially if it is no longer 48%.

Correction - 48% of the population who voted in the referrendum. 12,922,659 registered voters did not record their opinion one way or the other, and there's another 20million people who live in the UK who aren't voters.

Ridge - on 08 Dec 2018
In reply to mullermn:

> 12,922,659 registered voters did not record their opinion one way or the other.

Lazy buggers, getting off their arses and voting for what they considered the least worst option might have saved all this pissing about.

 

Enty - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to all:

Just out of interest, why do all you guys give this Yates fella so much airtime?

E

 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Enty:

Yeah. Shut him up. That’s good and democratic Enty. All cut from the same block. And so many living outside the country they claim to care so much about. But that’s not you, is it Enty? 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Fatuous bull shit

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

Cheers 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Wow. More grotesque caricatures of the people you disagree with. Utter refusal to accept there is a life outside the EU. I can see why there has been so little movement in the polls. Arrogant tosh like this only makes the divisions deeper and more entrenched. At least the Jock lemmings lacked the balls to leap over the cliff edge to oblivion. Always want the English subsidy parachute strapped on

 

 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

No, I am just stating what the recent Mori found, an equivalence between those in favour of no deal and those wanting a second referendum. Not to argue in favour of no deal, but to point out that it has as much public support as second ref. 

I don’t doubt you find my argument odd. Anyone who talks on here about the possibility of a clean break leave gets bowled down as a retard, lemming or some other form of abuse. Enty would prefer me not to be listened to. Which is par for the course in the quasi fascistic mind set of the remainers. Ban them, don’t listen to them, ignore them, ridicule them, suggest they are mentally unstable, stupid, moronic. And then you wonder why people think you’re arrogant! 

 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to wercat:

Parliament is currently doing a very good job at showing it is sovereign. It has rubbished and humbled the executive and ruled out the possibility of no deal. You really shouldn’t miss your meds. 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Wow. More grotesque caricatures of the people you disagree with. Utter refusal to accept there is a life outside the EU. I can see why there has been so little movement in the polls. Arrogant tosh like this only makes the divisions deeper and more entrenched.

I accept than in 15 to 20 years the UK could have adapted to life outside the EU.    We could have reconfigured our industry and infrastructure and have a differently balanced economy.   I also think it is  likely that after Trump is kicked out the next Democratic administration will restart trade negotiations with the EU and the end point of leaving the EU to join the US sphere of influence and staying in the EU twenty years out may not be that different.

That isn't the point.  The point is that a reasonable plan does not just have a distant end point it has a method to get there without getting killed.   It's like surgery, you need to keep the patient alive and functioning through the procedure.  Leave are cretins not because they have a dream but because they completely refuse to address the path towards that dream and the unacceptable consequences to industry and people in the short and medium term.    They don't see the problem in ripping up people's lives and businesses to solve a trade 'problem' which most trading companies don't think exists.   

I was just listening to a Leaver MP who was saying he knew all about parliamentary procedures and it was naive to think there could be a second referendum in less than a year because so much discussion and procedure was involved.   And yet he apparently believes the million times more complex problem of a no-deal exit from the EU can be prepared for in three months.

 

 

Post edited at 11:25
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Fatuous bull shit

You're welcome

Post edited at 11:27
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> And then you wonder why people think you’re arrogant! 

Or maybe just realistic or rational.

 

Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> And so many living outside the country they claim to care so much about. 

And probably living in the continent they also love.

 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

I would never conflate EU and Europe. Two very different things. But one seriously threatening the future of the other. 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Leave are cretins! Retards, morons, blah blah blah. Wake up dudes. You’ve got a serious communication problem going on here man. Endlessly abusing people is not the way to win friends and influence people. Are all ten or so of the Remainer bigots on here living in the same house? 

alastairmac1 - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

Your bigoted and ignorant prejudice against Scots and Scotland really don't belong on this forum. Your comments are offensive. 

wercat on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

You're like a bar of Cadbury's chocolate.   When you go off there's a piece for everyone, if you get the double allusion?

RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Leave are cretins! Retards, morons, blah blah blah.

You are certainly doing everything in your power to make sure they look that way.

Bob Kemp - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

>Endlessly abusing people is not the way to win friends and influence people.

No, it hasn't worked for you at all has it?

 

 

Pan Ron - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

I really didn't want to come across harsh.  But its incredibly disappointing when trying to find leavers to take seriously, when hoping there is actually some method to the madness and some reason that will break through the absurdity, that my hopes are repeatedly dashed.  To a certain extent, I want you to get what you want as I think it is the only way you will come to realise the idiocy behind it - unfortunately that will require decades of decline and no doubt, at the end of it, everything but Leave itself will be blamed for the outcome.

I saw a tweet the other day hoping something to the effect of there likely being another referendum and Remain winning, but also noting if Remain then crow and act like a bunch of cretons then it will have been for nothing.

I agree with that. So I do get your anger at some of the remain camp's attitude to Brexiteers.  

But I think you fail to understand just how poorly-made your case has been for the reasons to leave over the last few decades.  It has been an ongoing recital of falsehoods and wishful thinking, of denying intangibles in favour of made-up tangibles.  You can't go around accusing Remainers of not adhering to democratic principles when, now that you got the result you wanted two-years ago, you want to pull up the draw-bridge and deny an opportunity to re-test that outcome - which in all likelihood has changed.

And again, Leave is highly likely to have won only because it encompassed YOUR version of leave with the other version of leave that you are so stridently against.  That you so passionately believe the minority version you support is the only one that deserves to dictate our relationship with the world shows a complete disregard for the "will of the people"; you are angry that 48% might get more of a say than 52%, but you are happy for 30% to dictate to 70%. 

Add to that the outright threats of violence and unrest now coming from leavers, the emergence of illegal campaigning in support of Leave, the last two years being a re-run of the Suez Crisis when it comes to damage to British global credibility, and the likely disintegration of the Union...how can you be surprised at the anger aimed at you?  The Brexit campaign has become like a capital punishment referendum, which would likely come down in equal proportions but be equally absurd a result. 

The Leave campaign and its aftermath has probably done more economic and social damage to the UK than even ISIS could hope to acheive.

Post edited at 16:55
summo on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I would never conflate EU and Europe. Two very different things. But one seriously threatening the future of the other. 

Lack of real leadership is the problem in Europe. People are losing faith in all forms of government. Macron quick to suggest the eu should do this and that(usually related to closer and faster integration), his own country is burning and he keeps sending out his prime minister to speak to his electorate.  

Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with leavers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people; Brexit has become a religion for them. Criticising it only makes them more entrenched. They will either come to their senses in their own time or find out the hard way that there is no promised land.

Postmanpat on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with remainers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people; the EU has become a religion for them. Criticising it only makes them more entrenched. They will either come to their senses in their own time or find out the hard way that it is no promised land.

Post edited at 18:57
john arran - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

Every single Remainer I am aware of is open in acknowledging that that the EU is far from perfect, but thinks it would be better to seek to make improvements via our strong voice within, rather than trying to win some kind of competitive battle from outside.

I challenge you to find an exception. 

The conclusion you have come to may well say more about your opinion than it does about the opinion of those your post is seeking to disparage.

RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with remainers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people.

Ho dear, you do need to look in the mirror.

You've been peddling your myths of grandiose sovereignty and painting the EU as some reicarnation of evil for two years now, and still despite that all the facts have proven you systematically and repeatedly wrong you still sign and and persist.

If that's not fanatic behaviour I don't know what is.

Some, including Teresa May, are at least realist about Brexit, even if I disagree with the policy: it's a massive abdication of sovereignty and economic power in exchange of closing down freedom of movement.

If you are happy with that then at least it's a defensible point of view, but stop fooling yourself.

I for one, as a "remainer", I am actually not that bothered about leaving the EU. as much as I don't think the EU is an evil construct, I don't think it's paradise either. Even if leaving is economically and geopolitically evidently an own goal, it won't be the last nor the first.

I am however appalled at ending FoM, which constitutes a massive reduction of individual freedom. Your children will have only one country where they can move and live freely instead of 28. That is a tangible fact.

Post edited at 19:40
In reply to john arran:

Never forget why Cameron put the offer of a referendum in the Tories election manifesto - so he would be elected. The Referendum was all about the self -interest of the Tory party and it remains so. Serves them right if it carries on biting them on the erse

Postmanpat on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

  Both Robert Durran’s and my own spoof are provocative exaggerations,  the difference being that  I know mine is.

Rob Exile Ward on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

You couldn't be more wrong. Every time I try and engage with a Brexiteer I am straining to see the positives that apparently they can see,  and I can't. I don't want another referendum, I want an orderly exit - nothing fancy, just planes still able to take off and land, food and medicines to pass through Dover without delays, my daughter to be able to finish her French and German degree with appropriate placements, health insurance and all the rest.

But you b*stards come up with absolutely nothing other than to slag us off. List just one positive in the next 10 years, PP, that's worth all this pain... Just one, and I'll vote for you to become PM.

Post edited at 19:51
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Both Robert Durran’s and my own spoof are provocative exaggerations,  the difference being that  I know mine is.

Incorrect. Mine is a serious analogy (and obviously no analogy, however serious, is perfect).

Post edited at 19:58
tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with remainers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people; the EU has become a religion for them. Criticising it only makes them more entrenched. They will either come to their senses in their own time or find out the hard way that it is no promised land.

The EU isn't a religion or a promised land, it is a known quantity.  Britain joined in 1973, we know exactly what being in the EU is like and it is pretty OK.   The worst political decisions I've experienced in my adult life have come from Westminster, not the EU.   The EU policies the Brexiteers dislike the most were advocated for within the EU by the UK government.

 

Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

> Never forget why Cameron put the offer of a referendum in the Tories election manifesto - so he would be elected. The Referendum was all about the self -interest of the Tory party.

And never forget why Boris Johnson supported leave - for personal political ambition. And it is doubtful Leave would have won if he had come down on the side of Remain.

RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If anything the UK makes the EU look relatively competent which is quite an achievement.

We just need to look at all the praise across the EU for the way Barnier handled the process - he kept Member States informed and on-board, in stark contrast to the way the UK Government failed to build any consensus.

wercat on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with remainers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people; the EU has become a religion for them. Criticising it only makes them more entrenched. They will either come to their senses in their own time or find out the hard way that it is no promised land.


Ah, you'd be the nice kind of teacher who, arriving on the scene when a bully has provoked a reaction from someone, picks on that someone rather than the troublemaker in the first place.

 

This mess is a Tory Party+Rabid Brexiteer Mess, a Red White and Blue Mess!

Remainers are simply trying to stop the shite

Footloose - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Having just wandered in from the wilds, where I had a patchy 2G signal at best, I'm having to run fast to catch up with what's been happening in my absence, but reading this thread, two things seem quite clear to me: 1) Given that the momentum behind the whole Brexit let's-leave vote was a mass revolt against the political status quo, and given that the whole Brexit farce has thrown up in sharp relief how justified that sentiment probably is, maybe we should stay in the EU to give us some kind of stability while we sort out the nonsense in our own political system first; and 2) This John Yates person is queering his own pitch by causing everyone else to unite against him, regardless of their political stance. Good work JY!

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Spot on

 

john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Pan Ron:

comparing leave to ISIS. Now that is sick. No  end to how low Remain can stoop. And Footlose says I’m ‘queering’ my pitch. I’m just saying you are largely arrogant toddlers (that’s spellchecker for something else) and every post like these proves it. The Remain screeching is going to get ear bursting in the next few days if you don’t get a third people’s referendum. I do so hope that Goodwin is right and that if you do the retards blow wind in your general direction. 

 

Post edited at 22:50
john yates - on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Bull. Droppings. Strong voice. You are having a laugh! 

RomTheBear on 09 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

His analogy was spot on though. The reason it's impossible to have a rational debate with hardcore brexiters its because, like religion, it's primarily about identity. You can't convince someone of something that denies their identity. And that will be the case too with hardcore remainers.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with identity, that is as long as you don't try to force yours down people's throat.

Those who don't enjoy having european neighbours, and don't care about freedom of movement, don't care about EU cooperation, should be able to have what they want, that is, as long as they don't prevent the rest of us from having what we want as well.

So what you need is either a fully decentralised state, or a compromise everybody can live with.

But this situation where the 52% can fuck up with the lives of 48% is just tyranny of the (small and dwindling) majority, and highlights the total democratic failure of our centralised state.

Post edited at 23:18
RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

Worth quoting the Irish Times for some sense. I give up on the UK press on Brexit, too partisan on all sides.

"The outcome of the 2016 referendum set emotional English aspirations on a direct collision course with Britain’s interests. It trumped realistic future choices with an appeal to an imagined history. It set up the impossible conundrum of building a successful economic future without the most vital building blocks: free access to Britain’s most important markets, the maximizing of international influence and the continued untrammelled availability of the skill and sweat of neighbours."

Ridge - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

What about the Welsh?

Footloose - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But this situation where the 52% can f*ck up with the lives of 48% is just tyranny of the (small and dwindling) majority, and highlights the total democratic failure of our centralised state.

To UKC: "Like" is not enough. Please may we have a "Burst of loud applause" button? And would someone please urgently share this comment with Parliament?

Rob Exile Ward on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

'comparing leave to ISIS. Now that is sick.' Thus speaks the person who upthread compares Brexit negotiators with Jimmy Saville. Pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot.

Actually John you have a real talent for insults, and there's no question that you have mastered the art. Now if you could concentrate on making coherent arguments with the same energy and skill, some of us at least could get a glimpse of how on earth Brexit is going to benefit me, my children or grandchildren.  

wercat on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

As I said, when he goes off, everyone gets a piece (the old chocolate analogy used by people teaching use of the hand grenade!)

Toby_W on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

I don't know what to say about this.. funny but perhaps a bit mean and close to the line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjp5OmoDYQM&feature=youtu.be

Cheers

Toby

Robert Durran - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Every single Remainer I am aware of is open in acknowledging that that the EU is far from perfect, but thinks it would be better to seek to make improvements via our strong voice within, rather than trying to win some kind of competitive battle from outside.

I agree entirely with this and, to me it is a strong argument for remaining. I think there are now signs that those who want to see the EU as a bastion of liberal democracy are waking up to the fact that reform is needed. We should be a strong voice in this from within.

Jon Stewart - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with remainers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people; the EU has become a religion for them. Criticising it only makes them more entrenched. They will either come to their senses in their own time or find out the hard way that it is no promised land.

Of all the arguments a brexiteer might make, this one is the furthest detached from reality I've heard so far. 

I support remain, and I think that the EU is undemocratic, wasteful and serves vested interests. Most remainers will agree with me. Our reasons for supporting remain are nothing couldn't be further from the picture you paint, they are a simple pragmatic comparison of two options as best we can know their consequences.

Your post is incontrovertible proof that you are unable to listen 

jkarran - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

No more 'meaningful vote' either it seems.

Anyone fancy speculating on what we get from May at half three?

My bet is: acknowledgement she needs to go back to Brussels to have some sprinkles put on the turd giving the whips a month to apply whatever unholy pressure they can muster.

What little can she actually do without cabinet, party or parliament on side and Brussels dug-in? Her options must be getting very limited.

jk

Post edited at 15:17
Jon Stewart - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with remainers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people; the EU has become a religion for them. Criticising it only makes them more entrenched. They will either come to their senses in their own time or find out the hard way that it is no promised land.

Literally the most stupid thing I've read on the subject, and that's quite an achievement. 

I think the EU is undemocratic, wasteful and serves vested interests. But they aren't sufficient reasons to support leave, because the problems with leaving outweigh the problems with the EU. This is the core of the remain argument and if you haven't been able to pick that up over 2 years of discussion then you have a serious problem with listening to what people say. 

Post edited at 15:16
Darren Jackson - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

Meanwhile, we learn that Voyager 2 has left the Solar System:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46502820

I feel that this may be the best course of action.

David Riley - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I have come to the conclusion that reasoning with leavers over Brexit is like trying to reason with religious people; Brexit has become a religion for them. Criticising it only makes them more entrenched. They will either come to their senses in their own time or find out the hard way that there is no promised land.

Of all the arguments a remainer might make, this one is the furthest detached from reality I've heard so far. 

I support leave, and I think that the EU is undemocratic, wasteful and serves vested interests. Most remainers will agree with me. Our reasons for supporting leave are nothing couldn't be further from the picture you paint, they are a simple pragmatic comparison of two options as best we can know their consequences.

Your post is incontrovertible proof that you are unable to listen 

 

Bob Hughes - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to David Riley, PP and thread:

After close to three years the brexit debate has reached a sort of singularity where each side repeats exactly the same argument back to the other, verbatim except for the words "remain" or "leave" being interchanged with each other.

It's like the bit in War Games where matthew broderick gets the computer to play against itself. 

Bob Kemp - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

It's like a religious schism.

Andy Johnson on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john arran:

So the vote has been delayed - presumably until January given that the parliamentary session ends next week. Unless the law changes (good luck with that) MPs must vote on or before Friday 21st January. It looks very much like May is trying to narrow their choices to "her deal (possibly sightly tweaked) or no deal. How do you see this playing out?

And how long do you think the supermarket queues will be on 22nd January?

Post edited at 16:16
Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Literally the most stupid thing I've read on the subject, and that's quite an achievement. 

> I think the EU is undemocratic, wasteful and serves vested interests. But they aren't sufficient reasons to support leave, because the problems with leaving outweigh the problems with the EU. This is the core of the remain argument and if you haven't been able to pick that up over 2 years of discussion then you have a serious problem with listening to what people say. 

  Not the most stupid, but one of the more stupid things I've read on the subject. (hey! two can play that rather silly game) 

It is of course, a complete misreading of the point of my post , which was simply to highlight the utter closed minded conceitednesss of comments like his which remainers are apparently (and totally predictably) only able to spot when confronted with the same.The lack of self reflection is truly amazing.

  Secondly, of course we understand the core of the remain argument. Most research shows that it is the remain side that fails to understand the issues of the leavers. Hence they repeat, increasingly hysterically, their points about the economy whilst ignoring the issues of democracy, sovereignty, and identity which motivated the leave vote.

This excerpt from Newsnight between squabbling remainers makes the point well, and has the added bonus of seeing Alastair Campbell taking some shit

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1071179221601411072&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.spectator.co.uk%2F2018%2F12%2Fwatch-jenni-russell-schools-alastair-campbell-on-remainer-arrogance%2F

Post edited at 16:31
Rob Parsons on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

Link no good, but I think you mean this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhUOnkb230w&feature=youtu.be

Postmanpat on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Thx.That's the one.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Hence they repeat, increasingly hysterically, their points about the economy whilst ignoring the issues of democracy, sovereignty, and identity which motivated the leave vote.

The Brexiteers are welcome to their theoretical issues of democracy and sovereignty and identity right up to the point where they start threatening the immigration status of millions of people and the viability of hundreds of thousands of businesses.    

 

RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Not the most stupid, but one of the more stupid things I've read on the subject. (hey! two can play that rather silly game) 

> It is of course, a complete misreading of the point of my post , which was simply to highlight the utter closed minded conceitednesss of comments like his which remainers are apparently (and totally predictably) only able to spot when confronted with the same.The lack of self reflection is truly amazing.

>   Secondly, of course we understand the core of the remain argument. Most research shows that it is the remain side that fails to understand the issues of the leavers. Hence they repeat, increasingly hysterically, their points about the economy whilst ignoring the issues of democracy, sovereignty, and identity which motivated the leave vote.

Most remainer on here understand perfectly well the arguments made around sovereignty  and democracy. And most remainers agree that there are utter and complete bollocks.

Its just that those arguments fly In the face of the most basic comment sense, and are contradicted by the facts.

You just need to look at the massive handover of sovereignty we are now about  to make and the total failure of democracy we are currently witnessing.

I don't really call that regaining sovereignty and better democracy.

Why don't you stop your little Brexit Jihad and just use your common sense, for once, PP ?

You have a reasonable point about identity, which in fact is pretty much the only thing this is about, but I think most of us who believe in individual freedoms would agree that what constitutes our identity should not be enforced by the state. It's a matter for the individual, not for the state.

The point is simple, those who don't feel european and don't care about freedom of movement should be free to do so as long as they leave those who do alone. 

Gabbish ?

Post edited at 17:37
John2 - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Congratulations, that is one of the most illiterate posts I have ever read on UKC.

'those arguments fly In the face of the most basic comment sense'

You mean common sense.

'You just need to look at the massive handover of sovereignty we are now about  to make'

We are not at the moment about to make any handover of sovereignty. If we do leave the EU then we will be regaining sovereignty.

'the total failure of democracy we are currently witnessing'

May is attempting to implement the decision of a democratic vote.

'Gabbish ?'

You mean, 'Capisce?'.

RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to John2:

> Congratulations, that is one of the most illiterate posts I have ever read on UKC.

> 'those arguments fly In the face of the most basic comment sense'

> You mean common sense.

> 'You just need to look at the massive handover of sovereignty we are now about  to make'

> We are not at the moment about to make any handover of sovereignty. If we do leave the EU then we will be regaining sovereignty.

Nope, since you'd have to follow EU rules anyway without having a say.

> 'the total failure of democracy we are currently witnessing'

> May is attempting to implement the decision of a democratic vote.

Referendum are not democratic. May is attempting to bypass parliament by preventing it from actually expressing its will.

> 'Gabbish ?'

> You mean, 'Capisce?'.

No, obviously you didn't get the reference.

Bob Kemp - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to John2:

It's not sovereignty that's the problem. The big problem with the EU that needs to be addressed is its function as a regulatory space, and how this function is administered and controlled democratically. Anthony Barnett explains it here - 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/why-brexit-won-t-work-eu-is-about-regulation-not-sovereignty

John2 - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

'you'd have to follow EU rules anyway without having a say'

If we end up having a free trade agreement.

'Referendum are not democratic'

'Referendums are not democratic' is what you want to say. Unfortunately what you want to say is nonsense.

'No, obviously you didn't get the reference'

Well I've Googled gabbish and I'm none the wiser. 

Jon Stewart - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to David Riley:

> Of all the arguments a remainer might make, this one is the furthest detached from reality I've heard so far. 

> I support leave, and I think that the EU is undemocratic, wasteful and serves vested interests. Most remainers will agree with me. Our reasons for supporting leave are nothing couldn't be further from the picture you paint, they are a simple pragmatic comparison of two options as best we can know their consequences.

> Your post is incontrovertible proof that you are unable to listen 

Sorry to post the same point twice, thought I'd lost the first one.

But the point you make doesn't work. PMP was completely misrepresenting everything about what most remainers believe, as if he'd been listening to something completely different to what remainers have been saying for two years. Whereas I haven't represented nor misrepresented any leave arguments (but obviously I think that they're either wrong or outweighed by something stronger on the other side). I'm quite happy to listen to leave arguments and respond to those arguments, rather than completely failing to hear what's been said. I hear it, and I disagree.

Jon Stewart - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It is of course, a complete misreading of the point of my post , which was simply to highlight the utter closed minded conceitednesss of comments like his which remainers are apparently (and totally predictably) only able to spot when confronted with the same.

And it would have been a valid point if the remain position had any of that character - but it doesn't. It just says, "lets not make things worse than they are" - and we don't believe that the proposed renewal of sovereignty, democracy and identity are meaningful if they come at practical, economic costs.

Rob Parsons on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

>> 'Gabbish ?'

>> You mean, 'Capisce?'.

> No, obviously you didn't get the reference.

What is the reference?

 

David Riley - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Have you not understood, even now, that it was Robert Durran that said it not PP ?

RomTheBear on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to John2:

> 'you'd have to follow EU rules anyway without having a say'

> If we end up having a free trade agreement.

Whether we do or not. That is just the reality of global trade and power balance that small countries that want to remain open are rule takers.

> 'Referendum are not democratic'

> 'Referendums are not democratic' is what you want to say. Unfortunately what you want to say is nonsense.

No it makes perfect sense. Referendum at scale are just tyranny of the majority. It's the very opposite of democracy.

Plus they enforce an artificial constraint on only two options. So from the onset they give a false choice. 

It's not a coincidence that they are the tool of choice of dictators.

Referendums work well if they are local and if they are there to approve or disapprove of a bill. Think Switzerland.

> 'No, obviously you didn't get the reference'

> Well I've Googled gabbish and I'm none the wiser. 

Southern Italian pronunciation, think Toni Soprano.

Post edited at 21:24
oldie - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> So the vote has been delayed - presumably until January given that the parliamentary session ends next week. Unless the law changes (good luck with that) MPs must vote on or before Friday 21st January. It looks very much like May is trying to narrow their choices to "her deal (possibly sightly tweaked) or no deal. How do you see this playing out? <

As May is totally against a second In/Out referendum then you're probably right, possibly a referendum on her deal/hard Brexit thereafter especially if she fails in parliament. She'll also hope for a change in the Ireland part of the deal from the EU. Certainly by then any slight possibility of In/Out referendum deliberately too late to rely on reentry on original terms. Even if Corbyn got in by general election he would rather renegotiate completely different type deal during a transition period once we had left which would appeal even less to confirmed Leavers who would want to avoid this possibility. One unlikely way to give wider options would be for multi-party revolt of Remain tending MPs plus SNP forcing one or two referenda giving options for in/out, and May deal/Hard if vote was for Out (a result still highly possible IMHO). I don't really understand the Leaver logic of second referendum of all the people being undemocratic, but I suppose if I was a Leaver then I'd be really upset about it. What a mess.

 

Post edited at 21:36
John2 - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

You mean Tony Soprano. When I google Tony Soprano gabbish, all I come up with is Tony Soprano garbage, which is an eloquent description of your claim.

I thought democracy was the tyranny of the majority, in effect.

john yates - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

God that’s an impossible read. As you say regulation is the problem. But Barnett, as far as I can wade through his treacle prose, seems mistaken in thinking it is not something we can escape. For me regulation has been the mechanism that others describe as the ratchet. The steady, relentless slow march of the enemies of freedom, enterprise and competition. It’s death by ten thousand directives. The clogging up of our economic arteries by layer upon layer of fatty tissue. Our own clip board army are fifth columnists, crossing every T and dotting every I. All the more reason to leave before they suffocate us to death. 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

>  The steady, relentless slow march of the enemies of freedom, enterprise and competition. It’s death by ten thousand directives. The clogging up of our economic arteries by layer upon layer of fatty tissue. Our own clip board army are fifth columnists, crossing every T and dotting every I. All the more reason to leave before they suffocate us to death. 

Wouldn't life be great if every country had its own slightly different standards for paper sizes so they all needed slightly different shaped folders and everyone had slightly different standards for white goods so they didn't quite fit under each others worktops and slightly different mains voltages and slightly different shoe sizes and different energy standards so you couldn't quite tell whether the more expensive dishwasher was actually more energy efficient and different rules about plastic so you were never quite sure if there were chemicals leaching into the water in your water bottle.   And so on.......

Or maybe without standards and regulations we would have a masssive clusterf*ck connector conspiracy where everybody spent half their life dealing with pointless details.

 

Bob Kemp - on 10 Dec 2018
In reply to john yates:

Regulation is the only thing that saves us from death by capitalism. Look at the early history of the industrial revolution. And it's actually enabling, not strangling, if it's done properly. 

RomTheBear on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to John2:

> You mean Tony Soprano. When I google Tony Soprano gabbish, all I come up with is Tony Soprano garbage, which is an eloquent description of your claim.

It's the recreated pronunciation of old Cabrese that has disappeared in Italy but been preserved in NY, hence Tony Soprano.

Apparently it hasn't hit you that googling a recreated pronunciation won't work easily.

> I thought democracy was the tyranny of the majority, in effect.

Then maybe you need to do some reading and learn some fucking history.

Democracies have to strike a balance between the needs and rights of individual and minorities and the needs of the majority. Anything that result in oppression is not democratic.

That is why modern democracies have checks and balances.

Gabish ?

Post edited at 06:49
Bob Hughes - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to thread:

I’ve changed my mind -Brexit is worth it, just for this 

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1072263987620966402?s=20

 

John2 - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear

There is no point whatsoever in continuing to discuss with someone who just makes up nonsense such as, 'It's the recreated pronunciation of old Cabrese'. Go on, point me to a reference on the internet to Cabrese. 

RomTheBear on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to John2:

> In reply to RomTheBear

> There is no point whatsoever in continuing to discuss with someone who just makes up nonsense such as, 'It's the recreated pronunciation of old Cabrese'. Go on, point me to a reference on the internet to Cabrese. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabrese

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Calabria

gabish ?

Post edited at 08:18
Sir Chasm - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

You really are full of shoyt. 

John2 - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Ah, Calabrese not Cabrese.

Oceanrower - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

You are Donald Trump AICMFP

 

Robert Durran - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to John2:

> Ah, Calabrese not Cabrese.

Isn't that at Gogarth?

johncoxmysteriously - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Isn't it 'capish'? From the Russian, I always imagined.

 

jcm

John2 - on 11 Dec 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's capisce, from the Italian. TS was Italian-American.


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.