Possible 2nd EU Referendum

[taio]

I'd trust an FT link Taio, I'd never trust an RT one!

Basically I think its the one you are on about, in which UK businesses are a happier since the transitional agreement since it gives them the extra time to sort stuff out. But that is counter balanced by continued pessimism about the whole process.

Basically, if we have time to do it right, then it might not be too bad. All we've got to do is convince those who demand we leave asap that its a bad idea and to leave in an orderly fashion.

The above seems to be a different to the article to the one i read. RT simply reported those figures. I've read about company optimism in investor newsletters i receive from hsbc and hargreaves lansdown.

[Lancasterclaret]

Only two FT articles I could find with a search of "companies prospects after Brexit" where that one, and one from 2017 (which was much bleaker)

I probably need a different search term to be honest!

Some good news anyway, as long as we secure a deal.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul

My question was phrased exactly how it should have been.

My issue is with Brexiters claiming (as you did) that we know what leave meant as Cameron et al made it clear, whilst also disputing other thing that they made clear as being part of “project fear” (which, to be fair, you may not have done, but loads of brexiters have and continue to do, in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence that “project fear” was, in fact, “project unpalatable truth”)

I’ll ask again, since you have avoided answering my question by telling me what I should have asked and answering that instead - how did you decide which parts of what the government of the time said were entirely true (eg what a vote to leave would mean), and which parts were just said to scare folk into voting remain (eg it will screw our country over for generations to come)?

Couldn’t one also argue that any comments from Cameron re a “hard /clean Brexit” prior to the referendum were also just used to try to scare (sensible) people into voting remain?

To be clear, I’m not trying to suggest that remain voters had any greater knowledge or understanding than leave voters overall. In fact, I believe that everyone was essentially voting from a position of ignorance, to a greater or lesser degree, which for me made the entire thing a bit less “democratic” than a lot of brexiters seem to think, since proper democracy relies on an informed electorate.

Hi Greenmile, I've just spent some time composing my response - but, I've lost it all as I'd been timed out while I was typing.

I'll leave it here for the time being. Maybe I will return to the subject some time - or maybe not as the world cup kicks off, then it's transfer window time, then pre-season and the Europa League.

Got to put the bbq on now.

[bartons baggage]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahah.

Moron

F off snowflake.

[dsr]

Do if democracy with an ill-informed electorate is less good than a democracy with a well-informed electorate, then surely it follows that you support a referendum on the final Brexit deal, since that display of democracy will occur with a better informed electorate than the display of democracy you previously expressed support for two years ago.

I haven't read the rest of your posts, but i'm sure you're consistent with logic in regards to that. Right?

But we won't have a better informed electorate. I don't see any way that the "withdraw Article 50 and join/rejoin the EU" option can possibly be spelled out in detail. Can you tell me, for example, how the ECJ will rule on the UK's withdrawl of Article 50? Can you confirm whether the other 27 countries will unanimously agree UK's budget rebate will continue? And more to the point, will the UK government be able to confirm these things?

[Lancasterclaret]

No problem, yes (as its the current status and we haven't withdrawn), yes (see previous answer)

There was a thread on twitter on this spelling it all out. Its not been mentioned much by Brexiteers because its basically unarguable.

[dsr]

Anything that works for them is ok...

"Oh, Russia interfered with our democratic process but they got the result I wanted so that's fine."

I'm still not clear on what Russia did. From what I can see, the objection is that although the Leave side and Remain side spent the same amount of money (give or take the odd £9m), the Leave side got its money from a businessman with a dubious history. Is that it? Or is it suggested that the Russian interference was a lot more specific and direct?

I mean, Harold Wilson's Labour party got a fair bit of funding from dodgy sources (Lord Gannex, for example) but there's no suggestion that the election was somehow bought. The 1974 elections, so far as I know, were won broadly speaking fairly based on spending within the rules and with votes earned under normal political conditions. Apart from the murky money.

[dsr]

No problem, yes (as its the current status and we haven't withdrawn), yes (see previous answer)

There was a thread on twitter on this spelling it all out. Its not been mentioned much by Brexiteers because its basically unarguable.

This is part of Article 50:

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

Which means that we are automatically out of the EU next March unless the European Council (ie. the other 27 countries) unanimously all agree. Can we take it for granted that the other 27 will unanimously agree that we can keep our rebate, that we can keep our Euro opt-out, etc? Or if not, will there be time to negotiate all this while continuing to negotiate the withdrawal agreement?

[Paul Waine]

What the UK Gov't said pre-referendum in 2016:

Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... the-uk.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And, they also published a statement in "easy reading" style - with the additional explanation: "This is a document intended to be easier to read for people with learning difficulties."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ERSION.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given the "debate" since 23-June-2016 it's surprising what the official documents don't say.

And, I've no problem with the "easy reading" style of statement. I think it demonstrates that the UK Gov't - while expressing support for remain - had no concerns about the electorates understanding of the issues relating to the UK's membership of the EU and would not claim that anyone was voting out of ignorance and, therefore, their vote should be counted any less than any other member of the electorate. That for me is how democracy should work.

[South West Claret.]

Brexit: Rebel Tory MPs urged to back May in EU votes.

Fat chance of that happening

[nil_desperandum]

What the UK Gov't said pre-referendum in 2016:

Given the "debate" since 23-June-2016 it's surprising what the official documents don't say.

.

Yep.

No mention at all of the Customs Union or the Good Friday Agreement to mention 2 "biggies".

[nil_desperandum]

Brexit: Rebel Tory MPs urged to back May in EU votes.

Fat chance of that happening

I wouldn't be too sure. History suggests that when push comes to shove Tories tend to toe the party line. The official line is that a vote against May is a vote for Corbyn - whereas, - as Ken Clarke points out, it's nothing of the sort.
There's no way that she would lose a subsequent vote of confidence.

[South West Claret.]

I know what you’re saying but could well be interesting this time.

[Paul Waine]

Yep.

No mention at all of the Customs Union or the Good Friday Agreement to mention 2 "biggies".

So, what does it tell us?

Good Friday Agreement had nothing to do with the EU?

And, the Single Market was mentioned and we should assume that exiting EU means exiting the Customs Union - which otherwise was not important enough for the government's case to remain in the EU?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Is that it? Or is it suggested that the Russian interference was a lot more specific and direct?

A lot more specific and direct...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssia-links" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

A lot more specific and direct...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ssia-links" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me rephrase it then - is there any evidence that the Russian influence was more specific and direct?

There are lots of demands that the Commons enquiry should investigate, and no doubt they will. So far they have found evidence that this person spoke to the Russian ambassador more often than he said he did, and that he gets money from Russian business. That isn't enough to prove anything, so when some actual evidence comes along, I'll be interested.

[Lancasterclaret]

Two ways of looking at it Dsr

1) the EU need us more than them (Brexiteer lines since this whole shitshow started) so it won't be an issue

2) The EU want this sorted quickly as the uncertainty is helping no one

Either way, there isn't a country in the EU that would vote to stop us staying in.

Certainly not after all the stuff going on with Trump, trade wars, china and Russia

[nil_desperandum]

So, what does it tell us?

Good Friday Agreement had nothing to do with the EU?
?

Hi Paul,
I think you are generally much respected as a poster, even by those who disagree with you, so I'm very surprised that you would write that.
Both the UK and the EU recognise that the Good Friday agreement has to be respected, and I hope that you do.
It was made between 2 EU countries, and makes specific reference to the UK and Ireland as "partners in the European Union".
It also commited the government to enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights in law and allows Northern Irish residents access to the European Court of Human Rights.
The absence of reference to the future of both Ireland and Scotland in those documents is pretty revealing I think. (i.e. Cameron never gave a thought to not winning).

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul,
I think you are generally much respected as a poster, even by those who disagree with you, so I'm very surprised that you would write that.
Both the UK and the EU recognise that the Good Friday agreement has to be respected, and I hope that you do.
It was made between 2 EU countries, and makes specific reference to the UK and Ireland as "partners in the European Union".
It also commited the government to enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights in law and allows Northern Irish residents access to the European Court of Human Rights.
The absence of reference to the future of both Ireland and Scotland in those documents is pretty revealing I think. (i.e. Cameron never gave a thought to not winning).

Hi nil_d,

I'm asking the question: If the GFA is so critical that it creates barriers to the UK leaving the EU and the UK Gov't published a statement before the referendum about why they supported remaining in the EU, why didn't the statement mention the GFA?

I don't recall EU membership being the critical hinge to the GFA at the time it was signed. I recall US President, Bill Clinton, playing a supporting role in achieving GFA. I can't remember any direct involvement of the EU in the negotiation of GFA.

The European Convention on Human Rights is not an EU convention (unless I'm mistaken). That is separate from the EU - and is not impacted by Brexit.

From Wikipedia: "it was argued in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the Agreement meant that the consent of Northern Ireland's voters was required to leave the European Union. The UK Supreme Court unanimously held that this was not the case....."

I'm a big supported of the GFA. I agree that "partners in the European Union" is included in the GFA, but I would argue - and the UK Supreme Court has determined - that membership of the EU by either UK or RoI is not a requirement of GFA. Nor does GFA say anything about the nature of the boarder between RoI and NI.

If anything, in recent months it is RoI who have been overstepping the Good Friday Agreement in seeking to divide NI from the rest of the UK - again, with thanks to Wiki: "the Irish government accepted in a binding international agreement that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. The Irish Constitution was also amended to implicitly recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom's sovereign territory"

Thanks, btw, about the "respected poster" comment. However any of us voted and whichever vote, showing respect is still the better choice. And, no worries from me, if anyone has different opinions.

[dsr]

Two ways of looking at it Dsr

1) the EU need us more than them (Brexiteer lines since this whole shitshow started) so it won't be an issue

2) The EU want this sorted quickly as the uncertainty is helping no one

Either way, there isn't a country in the EU that would vote to stop us staying in.

Certainly not after all the stuff going on with Trump, trade wars, china and Russia

There isn't a single EU country that would object to the budget rebate being continued? I think perhaps you're overstating the EU's generosity. And I doubt in any case you could get a legally binding agreement before the proposed second referendum.

[nil_desperandum]

Hi nil_d,

I'm asking the question: If the GFA is so critical that it creates barriers to the UK leaving the EU and the UK Gov't published a statement before the referendum about why they supported remaining in the EU, why didn't the statement mention the GFA?
.

Hi Paul,
But that's exactly the point I was making. There was no mention in those documents that leaving the Customs Union was a direct threat to the Good Friday Agreement, nor did it mention that during the Scottish referendum the Scots were promised that a vote to remain in the UK was a vote to remain in the EU.
That's all part of the argument that we weren't so well informed then as we are now, although, (if you are "sad" enough, you will find that I posted about the Irish border several times in the run-up to the referendum, but was not taken seriously by most.).

[nil_desperandum]

There isn't a single EU country that would object to the budget rebate being continued? I think perhaps you're overstating the EU's generosity. And I doubt in any case you could get a legally binding agreement before the proposed second referendum.

If it was a case of we return and pay the significant amount that we paid before, or we don't return and so don't contribute at all, then I can't imagine any country standing in our way.
We already have a legally binding agreement, (up until the point we leave), so I don't see a problem there.
[It won't happen though!]

[Lancasterclaret]

But Dsr, you've been telling us since Day One that the EU needs us more than we need them

Is this your "Road to Damascus" moment?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

But Dsr, you've been telling us since Day One that the EU needs us more than we need them

Is this your "Road to Damascus" moment?

Leavers don't have "Road to Damascus" moments, no matter how crazy it becomes.

350 Million to the NHS was a lie, don't care.

Ports to collapse on the first day (or week), don't care.

20 Billion costs to UK firms, don't care.

Russian manipulation through social media, don't care.

Extra costs to households of the UK, don't care.

The collapse of The Good Friday agreement and peace in Ireland, don't care.

Conclusive proof, if any were needed that only the stupid, obdurate section of the population voted for and still back Leave.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Leavers don't have "Road to Damascus" moments, no matter how crazy it becomes.



Ports to collapse on the first day (or week), don't care.




The collapse of The Good Friday agreement and peace in Ireland, don't care.

Que?

[ColonelCool]

A second referendum would be like hanging yourself because you're just so pished off with life. Succeeding. But somebody grabbing you before you reach the gates and giving you the chance to bring yourself back to make sure you never make the same mistake again and to be happy with the time you have left in life.

[dsr]

Leavers don't have "Road to Damascus" moments, no matter how crazy it becomes.

But at least we don't have the "I am right because I am clever and I am clever because I am right" attitude so prevalent among Remainers. I think the "Do as I tell you because you're too stupid to make your own mind up" attitude, common among politicians, doesn't win votes.

[dsr]

But Dsr, you've been telling us since Day One that the EU needs us more than we need them

Is this your "Road to Damascus" moment?

No I haven't. But it is a bit complicated, so I can see why you're confused.

What I have been saying is that the cost to the EU of a no-deal departure will be higher to the EU than it will to us, in financial terms. What has been frequently pointed out as if it was the only thing that matters, is that the EU is putting a lower proportion of its exports at risk even though it's a higher total value.

The irony is, I (who don't like the EU) didn't realise that they would be willing - or apparently willing - to make themselves poorer if the result is that the UK is relatively worse off. Imploding Turtle and others - who are all in favour of the EU - are in favour even though they realised all along what a nasty club it is.

[FactualFrank]

I love a sneaky bit of patronising. That's if they notice it, of course.

[RingoMcCartney]

Conclusive proof, if any were needed that only the stupid, obdurate section of the population voted for and still back Leave.

Wouldn't that sentence have flowed better, if you'd have
paid more attention to your spelling and grammar?

Surely it requires a comma after "needed" and following "for" and again after "back"?

Like this-

"Conclusive proof, if any were needed, that only the stupid, obdurate section of the population voted for, and still back, Leave."

There, that's much better. Just a little more care and attention to your spelling and grammar, and you'll be just fine-ish.

Sanctimonious Remoaners, they really aren't as pin sharp as they'd like to portray themselves......

Bless.

[FactualFrank]

Ringo, it works much better if you quote what they put and then use the * to correct them.
It goes down a treat.

[RingoMcCartney]

But at least we don't have the "I am right because I am clever and I am clever because I am right" attitude so prevalent among Remainers. I think the "Do as I tell you because you're too stupid to make your own mind up" attitude, common among politicians, doesn't win votes.

What I'm saying is right. And I know it's right. Cos I'm the one saying it.

Self conformation. It's what Remoaners do best.

[Lancasterclaret]

Dsr, the last two years have been a trial on the brightest of brexiteers. I fully understand that its hard to keep banging the same drum (or changing it when the goalposts move).

The last forty eight hours have been very illuminating from a remain point of view. Journalists so desperate to leave, that they keep a massive scoop hidden away so there is no danger to their precious brexit, which looks to be more important that the actual democratic processes of the UK.

I'm bloody glad I'm not Isabel Oakeshott this morning put it one way.

[UpTheBeehole]

Ringo giving out SPAG lessons is a new one.

[UpTheBeehole]

How a Journalist Kept Russia’s Secret Links to Brexit Under Wraps

A pro-Brexit journalist held back evidence of links between Russia and the Brexit campaign while playing down so-called conspiracy theories on TV.

The extent of Russia’s interference in the 2016 votes for Trump and Brexit has been investigated by intelligence agencies, congressional and parliamentary inquiries, the FBI and special counsel Robert Mueller’s office for more than a year.

For much of that time, a reporter in England has been in possession of extraordinary details about Russia’s cultivation and handling of Brexit’s biggest bankroller. Arron Banks was secretly in regular contact with Russian officials from 2015 to 2017, according to a cache of emails apparently not seen in those Transatlantic investigations until they were published in Britain on Sunday.

Banks, who ran the Leave.EU campaign group, was one of the first foreign political figures to visit Donald Trump—accompanying Nigel Farage to Trump Tower—soon after the shock presidential election of 2016. Farage is reportedly a “person of interest” in the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation.

Isabel Oakeshott, a former Sunday Times journalist who ghost-wrote Banks’ book, The Bad Boys of Brexit, was granted access to his emails in the summer of 2016 in order to help draft the diaries. The book mentions one meeting at the Russian embassy which has been the focus of great interest ever since, especially amid questions about where Banks’ sourced the multi-million pound funding of Brexit. He has denied the money came from Russia.

Oakeshott says she did not discover the stunning extent of Banks’ true dealings with Russia until last year. Even then, she decided not to publish saying she wanted to wait until the publication of her next book White Flag? in August. It is unclear whether the Electoral Commission’s investigations into Banks’ financing of the Brexit campaign would have been completed by August.

Oakeshott was keen to keep her treasure trove of Brexit/Russia revelations for her book launch, but she has not merely kept out of the debate about the legitimacy of the Brexit campaign. Describing herself as “a long-standing Brexit supporter,” who is close to Farage and Banks, Oakeshott has become a regular TV pundit shooting down “conspiracy theories” about the validity of the Brexit vote amid claims of Russian influence or reports about Cambridge Analytica’s disputed involvement.

Three months ago she confronted The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr live on the BBC after Cadwalladr’s stories uncovering the misuse of tens of millions of Facebook profiles by Cambridge Analytica, which was linked to the Trump campaign and Leave.EU.

Cadwalladr, who has spent the last two years investigating the nexus of Farage, Banks, Trump, Cambridge Analytica and Russia, raised concerns about the validity of the Brexit vote. When the presenter asked Oakeshott about her relationship with Banks, she said: “There just isn’t a conspiracy here, Carole, I just feel like you’re chasing unicorns.”

Oakeshott’s attitude apparently changed on Friday when she learned that Cadwalladr—along with Peter Jukes—was preparing another story for Sunday.

An email, seen by The Daily Beast, was sent to Banks at 11.57am on Friday by Cadwalladr advising him that The Observer had obtained copies of his emails which laid bare the scale of his interactions with Russia. They appeared to show that he and Leave.EU colleague Andy Wigmore had multiple meetings with high-ranking Russian officials, that Banks visited Moscow in February 2016, and that he had been introduced to a Russian businessman by the Russian ambassador who allegedly offered him a multibillion dollar investment opportunity in Russian goldmines.

Banks did not respond to the email until 10.30pm that night, saying he was out of the office and could not respond until Monday.

Within hours, Oakeshott was in touch with Cadwalladr, however. At first she accused The Observer of hacking her archive and stealing the emails—an allegation the reporters deny—but by late afternoon on Saturday she had entered into a discussion about cooperating with The Guardian/The Observer if they agreed to hold the story until Monday.

By then, a team at The Sunday Times, where Oakeshott used to work, was in full swing producing their own version of the stunning story which they managed to break before The Observer late on Saturday.

The Sunday Times reported that Banks admitted passing over contact details for members of the Trump transition team to Russian officials and meeting with the Russian ambassador in London just three days after their Trump Tower summit.

Their package came complete with a commentary from Oakeshott herself, in which she expressed her shock at the revelations. “I was very surprised by what I found, which conflicted with the public accounts of the relationship with the ­Russian embassy,” she wrote. “Suddenly the Russian embassy in ­London had a potential back channel to the White House.”

Oakeshott has not responded to questions from The Daily Beast, including whether she has passed the emails to the FBI, the Mueller probe or Britain’s Electoral Commission.

Jukes said he was concerned that the information may not have reached the ongoing inquiries in time. “There’s every indication that Isabel Oakeshott was planning to hold back revealing this explosive material until her book was published in August,” he said. “With an Electoral Commission investigation into Banks’ financing of Brexit underway since November, you would have thought that the public interest of this story was more important than keeping the scoop for a book.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-jou ... nder-wraps

[claretandy]

Blaming Russia for Brexit/Trump is a comfort blanket for Liberals, it stops them having to think about the uncomfortable truths that people actually wanted Trump and Brexit.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul,
But that's exactly the point I was making. There was no mention in those documents that leaving the Customs Union was a direct threat to the Good Friday Agreement, nor did it mention that during the Scottish referendum the Scots were promised that a vote to remain in the UK was a vote to remain in the EU.
That's all part of the argument that we weren't so well informed then as we are now, although, (if you are "sad" enough, you will find that I posted about the Irish border several times in the run-up to the referendum, but was not taken seriously by most.).

Hi nil_d, I might be thinking of this a little more cynically than you are.

The UK Gov't - which favoured remaining in the EU produced a leaflet explaining all the reasons why the UK, in the Gov't's opinion, would be better off staying in the EU. They didn't mention any impact on GFA. Perhaps it's because there wasn't an impact on the GFA - until all the "remain" crowd etc etc starting saying "look what you are doing, you are putting at risk the GFA, you are creating a reason for the Irish terrorists to return to the streets of the UK... etc... etc." Maybe, in reality, the GFA is not and should not be impacted whether the UK (or RoI) is in the EU...

And, as for a 2014 promise to Scotland - wasn't that before there was agreement to have a referendum on EU membership? And, if the promise was made, who knows, maybe UK Gov't didn't want to mention that promise in the EU leaflet because otherwise there may have been a number of people who thought, hey, out of the EU and independence for Scotland.... let's all vote leave!

Good spot on your side if you were raising the Irish border before the referendum - but, would it have been such a "bust" if the majority of politicians (and media) had accepted the result of the referendum?

[DCWat]

The Irish border had been mentioned by plenty ahead of the referendum, perhaps not as part of campaigning but I certainly recall it being mentioned. It was always going to be a difficult one to resolve.

[Hozz]

Last couple of years, I’ve sadly had to bury my father in law and my grandad. Both of them served with the airforce but more importantly both felt it was time to stymie a German march upon Europe when they were both young men.

I have zero shame in stating I voted to leave a corrupt, German driven union that my previous generation voted to join, under false pretences that it was an economic union.

I have no problem with trade between European nations, hence my belief in the EEC ( European Econmic Community) which is what my parents and previous generation signed up to.

If there is a second referendum, I will personally feel the need to start a civil war, democracy in this country HAS to be adhered to, it is the byword in our stability, over and above pretty much any other nation in the past few centuries.

[JohnMcGreal]

If there is a second referendum, I will personally feel the need to start a civil war, democracy in this country HAS to be adhered to, it is the byword in our stability, over and above pretty much any other nation in the past few centuries.

Jesus Christ...

[Imploding Turtle]

Last couple of years, I’ve sadly had to bury my father in law and my grandad. Both of them served with the airforce but more importantly both felt it was time to stymie a German march upon Europe when they were both young men.

I have zero shame in stating I voted to leave a corrupt, German driven union that my previous generation voted to join, under false pretences that it was an economic union.

I have no problem with trade between European nations, hence my belief in the EEC ( European Econmic Community) which is what my parents and previous generation signed up to.

If there is a second referendum, I will personally feel the need to start a civil war, democracy in this country HAS to be adhered to, it is the byword in our stability, over and above pretty much any other nation in the past few centuries.

Funny, isn't it? You went from talking proudly about how you had to bury your elder relatives who fought against Nazism to talking about how you personally want to start a civil war if we held an election on something you don't think we should hold an election on.

Your grandad would be so proud.

[Lancasterclaret]

If there is a second referendum, I will personally feel the need to start a civil war, democracy in this country HAS to be adhered to, it is the byword in our stability, over and above pretty much any other nation in the past few centuries.

Everyone stop whatever you are doing right now. Hozz has just won UTB.

I'm not sure you have learnt the lessons that ended up with your father in law and grandfather having to fight btw.

[Billy Balfour]

Also, publishing such fantasies online isn't always the smartest thing to do.

[UpTheBeehole]

Hozz likes a drink early doors doesn't he?

[nil_desperandum]

Last couple of years, I’ve sadly had to bury my father in law and my grandad. Both of them served with the airforce but more importantly both felt it was time to stymie a German march upon Europe when they were both young men.

I have zero shame in stating I voted to leave a corrupt, German driven union that my previous generation voted to join, under false pretences that it was an economic union.

I have no problem with trade between European nations, hence my belief in the EEC ( European Econmic Community) which is what my parents and previous generation signed up to.

If there is a second referendum, I will personally feel the need to start a civil war, democracy in this country HAS to be adhered to, it is the byword in our stability, over and above pretty much any other nation in the past few centuries.

Even our friend Ringo is going to up his game a bit if he's going to compete with this.
I don't agree with referendums myself, but there's nothing undemocratic about having one, and it's certainly a better option than having families fighting each other.

[Imploding Turtle]

Guys, guys. Don't criticise him. Remember, he can just come back with "this is why we won" and then we all lose immediately.

Just smile, give a single nod, and walk away calmly.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Ringo giving out SPAG lessons is a new one.

Message to Ringo

If you are quoting or replying to me then don't bother.

You are neither witty or intelligent enough to argue with me so I ignore your posts.

Debating complicated issues with someone who hasn't even the simplest grasp of basic English is beneath me.

[AndrewJB]

Looks like May is refusing Grieve's compromise amendment, so fingers crossed she suffers another defeat. Winning the referendum doesn't give brexiters any more say than remainers as to how we go about leaving.

[South West Claret.]

https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/12/theresa- ... 02/Another" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; minister gone today over Brexit

[UpTheBeehole]

The pro-remain MP for Bracknell said on Twitter: ‘I am incredibly sad to have had to announce my resignation as a minister in Her Majesty’s Government so that I can better speak up for my constituents and country over how Brexit is currently being delivered.’

He added: ‘If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s current exit from the EU looks set to be delivered. ‘I voted to remain in the European Union and have not changed my view that continued membership would have been the better strategic course. Even so, I believe that it would be impossible and wrong to seek to go back to how things were before the referendum. ‘If Brexit is worth doing, then it is certainly worth doing well; regardless of how long that takes.

‘When MPs vote on the House of Lords’ amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill I will support the amendment which will empower Parliament to reject a bad deal and direct the Government to re-enter discussions. For me, this is about the important principle of Parliamentary sovereignty ‘Then, when the Government is able to set out an achievable, clearly defined path – one that has been properly considered, whose implications have been foreseen, and that is rooted in reality not dogma – it should go to the people, once again, to seek their confirmation.’

https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/12/theresa- ... t-7624302/