Possible 2nd EU Referendum

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:12 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:It isn't though is it Ringo

If it was, then May would have romped home in last years election on an uber-brexit manifesto.

Facts 1 Ringo 0

84% of voters chose a party whose manifesto pledged-

1 leave the customs union

2 end free movement of people

3 end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

An electoral landslide for a "Uber brexit"in anybody's view

Reality 1. Lancaster claret 0

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:12 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Up to your lot to put together a coherent plan to make leave actually better. You comprehensively failed to do that by promising far too much to win the referendum in the first place.

Reminds me of competitive bidding for a contract with a ludicrously low offer and then wondering about how to service it after you'd won it.

It isn’t “my lot” Lancs, it’s “our lot”. It’s fairly clear that the proposals being put forward are in essence a joint effort between all the parties, so much negotiation and compromise has gone on. I’m not a Tory anyway and am no lover of them as I have written many times.

Plenty of people outside Parliament are coming up with good ideas but the MPs are mucking it up I would agree. A perfect example that this EU-subservient bunch of Oxbridge suits who get seduced by high office are the completely wrong people to run the country. By that I mean Labour and Tory alike. That’s why we need to leave and get a new broom to sweep out the old and usher in a new generation of MPs and civil servants (their competence and understating of the needs of the electorate I assess regardless of the Brexit issue).

Lancasterclaret wrote:Isn't that UKIP under that bloke who used to be a game show host though?

Look where they are now.

The party I describe is a serious one. UKIP had no real policies other than migration related and EU related, and was too right wing. I am talking of something mainstream, but not pro-EU, and something that can both promise low tax and free trade while tackling poor left behind communities (such as Northern infrastructure investment). It can be done, and with a budgetary surplus.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:13 am

They also chose pro-Remain parties.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:17 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:It isn’t “my lot” Lancs, it’s “our lot”.

...

It's nice to finally see someone on the Leave side admit this. I'd like to ask where this inclusive attitude has been for the last two years when Remain voters have said "what about our opinion?" when Leave voters have tried to go for the most extreme of Brexits (which clearly has no mandate), but i'm not going to because this is at least a good start.

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:23 am

The general election was not about uber, hard, soft or over easy Brexits but about putting the country in a strong negotiating position. May was right about that at least. Although she had a very small majority it included people like Clarke and Soubry who wanted (and still want) to avoid Brexit at all costs and a vast majority in parliament opposed to Brexit. Hence we have had all the shenanigans since the election with fretting about amendments from the Lords and so on. It's obvious a weak government (no majority / tiny majority) is not likely to get as good a deal as a strong government.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:27 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:I don't think any other single issue or party received 17,4 million votes in political history, do you? If there was, I stand corrected.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you're research though. You're still under the misguided belief that , a losing party in a general election can enact it's manifesto pledge, therefore causing a constitutional crisis, by going against constitutional and parliamentary procedure. And can't tell the difference between that, and a government being politically opportunist, by adopting another parties policies in order to make themselves popular!!!

Get back When you've figured the difference out aggi.

I was just asking out of curiosity as there have been bigger turnouts in terms of percentage and absolute numbers in the past 25 years or so. If you mean in terms of the highest number of votes for a single policy then fair enough, that's obviously your interpretation.

As for the second point. It's clear that you still struggle with reading, you still won't be able to find me saying a losing party in a general election can enact it's manifesto pledge anywhere other than quoting you. I can't really be bothered discussing that though as last time round it was pretty clear you couldn't really understand the discussion and ended up arguing against your own point.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:33 am

Android -

Thats not the case at all though is it?

45 MPs were willing to vote against the govt yesterday, because it was a clear ignoring of parliamentary sovereignty and a blatant power grab.

That would have been an issue under the majority that the Cons had last election.

Crosspool -

No one is coming out with good idea regarding Brexit I'm afraid. People can't get past the idea that 40+ years of integration has to be either dealt with or managed, you can't just dump it.

Regarding a new party, no chance

Ringo-

One party was very clear in its desire to leave, one party was fudging it (and still is). That's why I voted for them, because they stopped a guaranteed uber-brexit. And it has.

And worth mentioning as well but if Labour goes pro-remain (like 68% of its members want), Burnley will still elect a Labour MP. That is something you are going to have to deal with very soon I think

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:39 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:I don't think any other single issue or party received 17,4 million votes in political history, do you? If there was, I stand corrected.

Bloody hell Ringo you should have been having my back when I was being ridiculed for arguing Leeds had a massive support the other day. The idiots on here like to base things on % of population but I can see you clearly agree with me its about the total numbers and that Leeds are obviously better supported than the Clarets

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:42 am

What is not the case Lancaster? I do not understand which of my points you are disputing?

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:46 am

Just noticed your third line Lancs. 45 v 16 majority before election I think is what you are saying. But that was my point - she had a problem with such a small majority and a larger majority was highly desirable to avoid having to deal with rebels endlessly.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:47 am

The election was never about putting the UK into a "strong negotiating position" basically.

That was what the Tories wanted people to believe. Completely nonsensical to think that all the issues that have split all parties wouldn't have still reared their heads over the last year, and that the EU wouldn't know about all this.

The closeness of the referendum, the unreality of what was promised and then the failed election are why we are where we are today.

QUICK EDIT as you've just made another point Android

That was my point, there hasn't been a landslide since Blair, and there hasn't been a Conservative one since Thatcher. The rebels would still have caused issues, and you also have to take into account that if the Cons had a majority, it would have really weakened the Labour left. You could well have had a ferociously pro-remain opposition taking every opportunity to take the Tories to task, rather than the damp husk we have at the moment.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:50 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:84% of voters chose a party whose manifesto pledged-

1 leave the customs union

2 end free movement of people

3 end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

An electoral landslide for a "Uber brexit"in anybody's view

Reality 1. Lancaster claret 0

So are you saying that 84% wanted to leave and that the 52-48 split is wrong?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:52 am

Its the sort of thinking that results in people saying "immigrants are too much of a strain in the NHS" because there were brown people in A & E when they were in there.

Thats in reply to Spijed by the way

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:58 am

What's this 84% figure?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:58 am

And please, please, please will someone tell me why a compromise leave to keep as many people as possible happy is so anathema to the Brexiteers on here?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:08 am

Spijed wrote:So are you saying that 84% wanted to leave and that the 52-48 split is wrong?

No. I'm saying that 84% of voters chose a party whose manifesto pledged-

1 leave the customs union

2 end free movement of people

3 end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

An electoral landslide for a "Uber brexit"in anybody's view. An "Uber brexiteer" is what Lancaster Claret calls anybody who wanted to leave the EU and the 3 above associated issues when they voted Leave. The referendum result was 17.4 million beating 16.1 million.

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:09 am

You are entitled to your view Lancaster - and on a lot of things I agree with you. But you do seem very entrenched on Brexit and not as open minded as you seem to be on most issues.

I am certain that the election was about putting the country in a strong negotiating position and you disagree. Of course issues would have reared their heads but we would not have had all this messing about with meaningless votes on meaningful votes. We should have been focused on getting the best deal for the country not wasting time dealing with this faction and that faction and basically people who want to change the result. It is the government's job to negotiate the best deal possible and it is much better for the EU to be negotiating with a weaker opponent - that's obvious isn't it?

I disagree on what was promised as well but that has been done to death.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:20 am

Guilty as charged on Brexit Android!

But I'm willing to listen to arguments and plans based on facts and reality. The appalling thing is that no one can come up with one that isn't a total disaster for the UK.

I'm not being funny, or alarmist, but we could well have a recession (we've had them before and ok, not nice but we would cope) and the break up of the UK (a very real prospect after yesterdays shameful 15 minute debate on devolution powers as part of the Brexit bill)

Sorry!

I'm certain it wasn't. It was about crushing the Labour party. The Conservatives were convinced that they'd win whatever they did as Labour was so useless. Remember May only TV interview? Remember her not turning up for debates? Remember their social care policy getting slammed? The self-employed changes which would have made it pointless being an entrepreneur?

They dropped the ball completely, put in all their fantasy promises in a manifesto thinking they couldn't lose.....and they left us where we are.

The reason they lost so many votes and MPs was because of Brexit. Thats why we are where we are.

QUICK EDIT - Basically to make it clear the Conservatives said (and keep saying) that its all about strengthening their negotiating position, but it was about crushing Labour.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:27 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Android -

Thats not the case at all though is it?

45 MPs were willing to vote against the govt yesterday, because it was a clear ignoring of parliamentary sovereignty and a blatant power grab.

That would have been an issue under the majority that the Cons had last election.

Crosspool -

No one is coming out with good idea regarding Brexit I'm afraid. People can't get past the idea that 40+ years of integration has to be either dealt with or managed, you can't just dump it.

Regarding a new party, no chance

Ringo-

One party was very clear in its desire to leave, one party was fudging it (and still is). That's why I voted for them, because they stopped a guaranteed uber-brexit. And it has.

And worth mentioning as well but if Labour goes pro-remain (like 68% of its members want), Burnley will still elect a Labour MP. That is something you are going to have to deal with very soon I think

If a clean brexit doesn't happen, millions will stop voting. The disillusionment with politics will be irreparable and permanent, when they see they clear cross party connivance, typified by Dominic greives blatant, shame faced Machiavellian plot to tie the hands of the uks negotiating team. By effectively ensuring a no-deal option,
by only agreeing to a deal that Remoaners agree with. Then, time limiting it to a November 30th deadline. At which point Parliament will take control of negotiations!!! A parliament packed to the rafters with MPs who don't want to Leave and will acquiesce to a Barnier and deliver a brexit in name only.

The government booklet that went to every single household in the land stated. " it is your decision"

"The GOVERNMENT will enact that decision"

That was an official government document bearing the crowns coat of arms , and whose wording was approved by the electoral commission. Nowhere did it say that PARLIAMENT would enact your decision. By parliament assuming control of negotiations, they are usurping the basis on which the referendum took place. I would not be surprised if there was a legal challenge.

Back to Burnley voting. Given the above. If a large percentage of voters choose to abstain. You could bring about a situation, in the future, where you only need a relatively small number of voters, due to low turn out, to elect extremists.

So have your day in the sun as a Remoaner, courtesy of Dominic Grieve. But be very careful of what you wish for.

Yesterday is being described in the MSM as a day Theresa May won.

In my opinion, it was the day democracy died.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:31 am

aggi wrote:I was just asking out of curiosity as there have been bigger turnouts in terms of percentage and absolute numbers in the past 25 years or so. If you mean in terms of the highest number of votes for a single policy then fair enough, that's obviously your interpretation.

As for the second point. It's clear that you still struggle with reading, you still won't be able to find me saying a losing party in a general election can enact it's manifesto pledge anywhere other than quoting you. I can't really be bothered discussing that though as last time round it was pretty clear you couldn't really understand the discussion and ended up arguing against your own point.

"Even though it is an example of lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law"

And the classic -

When presented with examples of the lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law"

YOUR WORDS AGGI OLD BOY. YOUR WORDS!!!

Not prepared to do your homework!

Final score

Ringo McCartney 1 aggi 0

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:32 am

Because you haven't got your way?

Democracy has died?

FFS

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:42 am

RingoMcCartney wrote: In my opinion, it was the day democracy died.

agreed. we've moved even nearer to a dictatorship, with the tories once again putting party before country.

there's no way these 'concessions' will materialise.

MP's have literally given up their voice to the government.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:44 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Because you haven't got your way?

Democracy has died?

FFS

Not because "I haven't got my own way"

Because the basis o which 17.4 million Britons voted in the referendum has been usurped. By a political establishment rotten to the core, packed with people who will use parliamentary machinations and procedures, to get THEIR WAY.

And to hell with democracy......

I saw grieves face last night on newsnight and his face was wracked with guilt.

And isn't it interesting. Hilary Benn was only saying in a tv interview on Sunday. That If the government can't sort a deal. Then parliament should take over the handling. And low and behold! Thats exaclty what Teresa the appeaser has handed to the forces against democracy. There definately hasn't been cross party collusion there has there!!!! Oh No!!

Like I say there are millions like me who see this as an establishment coup (whether you do or not is irrelevant) . And millions will chose to self-disenfranchise. Be careful what you wish for.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:47 am

quoonbeatz wrote:agreed. we've moved even nearer to a dictatorship, with the tories once again putting party before country.

there's no way these 'concessions' will materialise.

MP's have literally given up their voice to the government.

The Tory "rebels" have put political dogma and sheer pigheadedness before democracy.

As piers Morgan ( can't stand him) and Richard madelely both said on QT.

"I voted to Remain. But I accept the result and the basis on which leave won"

The forces against democracy haven't.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:51 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:The Tory "rebels" have put political dogma and sheer pigheadedness before democracy.

As piers Morgan ( can't stand him) and Richard madelely both said on QT.

"I voted to Remain. But I accept the result and the basis on which leave won"

The forces against democracy haven't.

So you accept the basis on which Leave won, do you?

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:52 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:The Tories have put political dogma and sheer pigheadedness before democracy.

agreed.

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:56 am

For sure some Tories would have relished a Labour thrashing, although I don't see May as particularly motivated by that but of course she would have enjoyed a victory. One of the risks she would have had to weigh up is losing Corbyn as an opponent. She would not have enjoyed a more competent opponent at PMQs every week so maybe a majority of 70 or 80 would have been ideal for her with Corbyn clinging on. Also, just on a human level she would have been most keen to avoid having to mess about with close votes on this and that and the Lords etc. Whatever her motive, the clearest benefit of all would have been being in a better position to negotiate with the EU. Even if you wish to believe her motives were less than honourable it is still the case that we would be in a much stronger negotiating position if we had a government with a working majority!

I think you think the Tories lost seats to Labour because of some uber Brexit agenda whereas I think they lost seats as a punishment for Brexit happening at all. Whoever is right about that it is ironic that they lost seats to a party led by one of the small minority of anti-EU MPs on either side!

I would like to discuss facts with you at some point but need I need to crack on...

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:02 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:It isn't though is it Ringo

If it was, then May would have romped home in last years election on an uber-brexit manifesto.

Facts 1 Ringo 0

After two years of his idiotic postings I think you'll find it's more like...

Facts 2475 Ringo 0

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:11 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:"Even though it is an example of lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law"

And the classic -

When presented with examples of the lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law"

YOUR WORDS AGGI OLD BOY. YOUR WORDS!!!

Not prepared to do your homework!

Final score

Ringo McCartney 1 aggi 0

Well done, you've found the bit where I quoted you again, exactly as I said you would (which I naively thought may actually make you think).

Anyway, I believe the considered response here is

Aggi 1 Ringo 0

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:14 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:agreed.

Fair play pal.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:14 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm certain it wasn't. It was about crushing the Labour party.

Spot on. That's all the general election was ever about, and it backfired spectacularly.

As for weakening the government's negotiating position, that assumes that the government once had a negotiating position that was something other than p1ss weak.

The harsh truth is that the EU have held all the cards ever since we triggered Article 50. The people who believe it was ever anything close to a level playing field are probably the same people who thought the EU would be bending over backwards to do deals with us because of BMWs and Prosecco.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:16 pm

aggi wrote:Well done, you've found the bit where I quoted you again, exactly as I said you would (which I naively thought may actually make you think).

Anyway, I believe the considered response here is

Aggi 1 Ringo 0

When presented with evidence that you said what I'm saying you said. You try and say you didn't!!!!

Beyond belief aggi. Beyond belief!!!!

It's like that Friday all over again!!!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:19 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:After two years of his idiotic postings I think you'll find it's more like...

Facts 2475 Ringo 0

After many a post criticising my grammar and punctuation. You make another post free of appropriate commas.

Hoisterized by your own petard!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:22 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:So you accept the basis on which Leave won, do you?

I try not to engage with idiots. I find they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Trump for a Nobel peace prize? Possibly

Turtles Head for rehab? Absolutely!

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:29 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:When presented with evidence that you said what I'm saying you said. You try and say you didn't!!!!

Beyond belief aggi. Beyond belief!!!!

It's like that Friday all over again!!!

As I said earlier, the fact that you struggle to read and prefer to ignore facts where they are inconvenient makes it a bit of a pointless discussion. (Or it is possible that you think that someone quoting a post means that they actually said it, either way it's not the basis for a coherent discussion.)

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 12:37 pm

Proper undiluted carnage at Question Time today...an extraordinary level of shambolic behaviour. and nonsense.

- some clown from the SNP just got booted out for being a prIYck, so all the SNP mob have walked out.

I hope the rest of the world isn't watching this circus, and as for The Speaker.....*&!?(*^! - he thinks it's all about him, and he should be flogged mercilessly.

Time this rubbish was reformed.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:22 pm

aggi wrote:As I said earlier, the fact that you struggle to read and prefer to ignore facts where they are inconvenient makes it a bit of a pointless discussion. (Or it is possible that you think that someone quoting a post means that they actually said it, either way it's not the basis for a coherent discussion.)

Aggi, please please don't do this to yourself! You actually identified parts of the LibDems manifesto. Actually singling out the relevant part. Then claim that the Tory government, by copying them, in a blatent act of political opportunism. Is the losing sides manifesto being put into law and legislation!!!!

When I cut and paste your very own words. You claim your not claiming, the very thing you were claiming!!!

Please don't oblige me to bump up your quotes in order to embarrass you even more. I thought wed drawn a line under this! But if you insist, I'm more than happy too!!

"Even though it is an example of lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law"

And the classic -

When presented with examples of the lib dems manifesto ... enacted into law"

Bang to rights aggi. Bang to rights.!

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:29 pm

Brexit 1 Sour Grapes 0

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:46 pm

And millions will chose to self-disenfranchise. Be careful what you wish for.

They got Brexit, but not the one that Ringo and his millions of followers wanted, and now won't participate in democracy again.

I guess that makes sense to someone, somewhere.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:48 pm

Spot on Blackrod, at least you understand that you've got what you wanted.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:50 pm

Oh, and this is reality people

https://www.adsgroup.org.uk/reports/ads ... ety-talks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:08 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Spot on Blackrod, at least you understand that you've got what you wanted.

I see Charlie Mullins, that millionaire owner of Pimlico plumbers has lost his case in the high court today Lancs.

You know. The one who, along with fellow foreign born, millionairess, Gina Miller, were successful in interfering with the democratic process, while pretending to take a principled stance on defending democracy. Yes he who turned up in a Bentley to defend "The People". Well, the free movement of low wage demanding people.

He was arguing that he didn't have to give zero hour workers, the same rights as other workers. That's typical of the Mike Ashley type, europhile, anti democracy type exploitative latter day master sweep. Who needs a large pool of cheap foreign Labour to hire and fire at will I'm order to protect his privileged kept in clover, lifestyle.

If he takes it onto the supreme court, loses. Then takes it to Europe. The champagne socialist, the socialist with starff, James Obrian and the opinon writers like the high priestess of ivory towered, luvviedom, Polly Toynbee. Are going to really have their work cut out, attempting to defend such an immoral piece of work aren't they! They praised his efforts in court.

He's one of their own, and cares not a jot about workers rights, only for his bloated bank balance.

I remember during the run up to the referendum. He said, " how am I going to get people to work for me, if they stop immigration!?"

"Pay local workers more. You shame faced crook" I thought.

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:19 pm

John Mc - it's fine to believe that crushing Labour was a motive for the last GE but it's unreasonable to ignore the other motives.

If I had been May, my motives in order of importance would have been:
1) Make my life easier (who wants to spend 2 years and counting faffing about trying to pacify Rebels and Lords)
2) Strengthen my government's negotiating position with EU (EU then know I have a much better chance of getting approval). I approach Brussels with new confidence and my life is much easier - see 1!
3) Beat / crush Labour but with not insignificant downside that Corbyn is replaced by someone much more difficult to deal with (note to self try to win but not completely crush)! (I'm not suggesting she deliberately botched the GE)!

I think you might be a Corbyn fan, which might be clouding your judgement on just how significant keeping Corbyn would have been back prior to the GE. His replacement would not only be much more competent and electable but also utterly blameless in terms of the referendum result (unlike Corbyn) and the consequences of Brexit, which let's not forget you are certain will be bad. Even if Labour had been crushed, if Corbyn had been replaced you would not be able to get a bet on Labour winning the next GE.

You and Lancaster believe the UK negotiating position is weak and you might be right. But you are definitely wrong if you think our government's negotiating position is not weaker than it would be if they had a sizeable majority. It might only move the dial from very weak to weak in your eyes but it is unreasonable to pretend it is the same.

This is all old news but I just wanted to point out to Lancaster that what he sees as completely black and white on Brexit is not always so.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:24 pm

And I'll just point out that the Conservative would not be unified on Brexit anyway, whatever their majority.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:24 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I try not to engage with idiots. I find they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Trump for a Nobel peace prize? Possibly

Turtles Head for rehab? Absolutely!

You're not going to answer?

Do you or do you not accept the basis on which Leave won?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're not going to answer?

Do you or do you not accept the basis on which Leave won?

I try not to engage with idiots. I find they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. No matter how persistent or attention craving they may be.

Trump for a Nobel peace prize? Possibly

Turtles Head for rehab? Absolutely!

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:33 pm

I accept your point Lancaster. It does not invalidate my point though.

Surely the basis of Leave winning was more votes?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:43 pm

Of course, but that isn't the same thing when talking to the EU about Brexit. I see it more as an academic point because the UK is split of Brexit, and talking of a 100+ Conservative majority (enough to negate the 45 rebels) is very unlikely (impossible).

I'll go on about the weakness of our position if I may as well as I think it all ties in.

No one expected Brexit, so we did no preparation for it (with hindsight, a serious mistake but a lot of it was not allowed as it might prejudice the vote, certainly Brexiteers pounced on anything that they regarded as unhelpful)

Article 50 was triggered too early (again, Brexiteer pressure) and the two year timescale is nowhere near long enough (hence good idea the transitional agreement, but again, against Brexiteer wishes)

And a fundamental misunderstanding about what the EU is and what it would do. They are not interested in trade without the fundamentals of the EU being respected. That completely blows the argument that "we need them more than they need us"

Thats our real weakness here.

Apologies for going on a bit btw

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:05 pm

Some fair points, although I don't agree that having a sizeable majority is an academic point (and the larger the majority the fewer the rebels - toadying for position would have become a more popular pastime than rebelling)!

And surely Gina Miller and friends must take a large slice of credit for the timing of the Article 50 trigger and the ridiculous (IMO) parliamentary vote on it - as if they could vote any other way having overwhelmingly decided to give the decision to the people. Speaking of motives - I notice Miller is a bit more transparent about her Brexit stopping agenda than she used to pretend!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:21 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And a fundamental misunderstanding about what the EU is and what it would do. They are not interested in trade without the fundamentals of the EU being respected. That completely blows the argument that "we need them more than they need us"

Thats our real weakness here.

That's one thing that you did get right about the EU - that they so obsessed with the principle of EU integration that they don't care about wealth. They will make themselves poorer if it makes us poorer still.

But of course we still disagree on the two fundamentals - one, that this feature of the EU makes it a good club to join; two, that the UK is too small to survive in the big wide world and must continue to have unfettered access to its vast trade deficit with the EU. On those, we will never agree.