Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[GodIsADeeJay81]

They have a duty to represent the 16,142,241 people who voted remain just as much as those that voted leave. The beauty of a Democracy is that the Representatives can change their mind, it’s not a fixed point. Democracy relies on that win elections and referenda to accept, gracefully, that whilst they may have won, they should always be ready to accept that circumstances change and they should reconsider.

Fair point, but the referendum was fairly pointless if the result was going to be ignored or bitterly fought against for the last 3 years.
If would've been far better to not have held jt instead of alienating the leave voters.

You say they have to represent remain just as much as leave but it's clear as day that they aren't representing leave and have very little intention of doing so.

[aggi]

You think May's agreement, which gave the EU everything they asked for, was a cunning plan to be so bad a deal that the house of Commons was bound to reject it? Hmm. I don't think she is either devious enough or clever enough to do that.

No. You suggested that. I said that she wasn't that much of a tactician.

[aggi]

The result was leave.
The how wasn't asked, so hard or soft was down to the government to deal with.
If she'd gone with soft from the beginning we'd most likely still be having roadblocks thrown in the way at every opportunity by remain.

Who knows. I believe that if she'd gone softer we'd be out but we'll never know.

I agree the result was leave, which makes it baffling how many pro-leave MPs have voted against leaving.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Fair point, but the referendum was fairly pointless if the result was going to be ignored or bitterly fought against for the last 3 years.
If would've been far better to not have held jt instead of alienating the leave voters.

You say they have to represent remain just as much as leave but it's clear as day that they aren't representing leave and have very little intention of doing so.

A very good point.

The number of MPs who are representing Leave voters is only a few dozen. Cameron had no intention of leaving, hence the complete lack of a route map for what to do after Leave won. The current Cabinet have no intention of leaving, hence the massive delay in no deal planning. Labour have never had any intention of leaving, nor the other parties.

That leaves a few Tories around the edges of their party and a handful of Labour MPs at most.

That is why this issue is far, far bigger than Brexit because it has persuaded a massive chunk of the population that Parliament doesn’t represent them. I suspect we haven’t even seen the first tremors of what that will really mean in the decades to come. I remember things like the poll tax riots but this feels far more angry.

It sums up why I have been saying for years that they have to cleanly leave or it will throw Pandora’s box open wider and wider.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Who knows. I believe that if she'd gone softer we'd be out but we'll never know.

I agree the result was leave, which makes it baffling how many pro-leave MPs have voted against leaving.

They didn’t vote against leaving. They voted against being part of a new treaty that would (potentially) take away all of the benefits of leaving and also lose all the reasons to remain.

[aggi]

They didn’t vote against leaving. They voted against being part of a new treaty that would (potentially) take away all of the benefits of leaving and also lose all the reasons to remain.

But as Sidney said The how wasn't asked, so hard or soft was down to the government to deal with.

No deal is going to be as good as what we currently have so that can't be a reason to not vote for it. May's deal, regardless of whether you favoured it or not, had us leaving the EU.

[Greenmile]

If you're gullible enough to have ever believed that was actually me. Then fair play to whichever crazed loner it is that mugged you off. And you drone on about intellect!

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[Greenmile]

...That is why this issue is far, far bigger than Brexit because it has persuaded a massive chunk of the population that Parliament doesn’t represent them. I suspect we haven’t even seen the first tremors of what that will really mean in the decades to come. I remember things like the poll tax riots but this feels far more angry.

It sums up why I have been saying for years that they have to cleanly leave or it will throw Pandora’s box open wider and wider.

Yet more implied threats of civil unrest. Nice.

Just get on with it and riot if you’re going to riot. I’ll look forward to watching it on the news.

[Imploding Turtle]

A very good point.

The number of MPs who are representing Leave voters is only a few dozen. Cameron had no intention of leaving, hence the complete lack of a route map for what to do after Leave won. The current Cabinet have no intention of leaving, hence the massive delay in no deal planning. Labour have never had any intention of leaving, nor the other parties.

That leaves a few Tories around the edges of their party and a handful of Labour MPs at most.

That is why this issue is far, far bigger than Brexit because it has persuaded a massive chunk of the population that Parliament doesn’t represent them. I suspect we haven’t even seen the first tremors of what that will really mean in the decades to come. I remember things like the poll tax riots but this feels far more angry.

It sums up why I have been saying for years that they have to cleanly leave or it will throw Pandora’s box open wider and wider.

True of False - If the public vote again on EU membership and the vote shows we have changed our mind then Brexiteers will have **** all to be angry about.

[dsr]

No deal is going to be as good as what we currently have so that can't be a reason to not vote for it. May's deal, regardless of whether you favoured it or not, had us leaving the EU.

That isn't quite right. It's true that the future trade deal with the EU would not be as good as the trade deal we have now, assuming you are a free trader (as most of us seem to be). That was self-evident all along. But the point of the negotiation was to get the best deal going forward; not to bemoan the loss of the old deal and accept any old rubbish deal going forward. If we don't have the old deal, that doesn't mean that we don't care what sort of new deal we get.

May's deal values our trade with the EU, imports and exports, as being vastly more valuable than their trade with us, exports and imports. This is wrong, essentially because it's a zero sum game and the financial worth is basically the same. The only argument for paying May's negotiated price is the one Lancaster has been pushing all along, that the rest of the EU is almost 5 times the size of the UK and therefore we are helpless and have to bend over backwards to eat their crumbs.

[Imploding Turtle]

This girl forgot to buy insurance and has to fork out $118,000 for having an accident. Imagine living in a country where if you can't even afford insurance and you have an accident you have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that might not even be your fault.

That's what Brexit and FPTP is going to bring us. A Prime Minister Farage that will sell off this country's greatest crown jewel after he becomes PM with about 30% of the vote.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

This girl forgot to buy insurance and has to fork out $118,000 for having an accident. Imagine living in a country where if you can't even afford insurance and you have an accident you have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that might not even be your fault.

That's what Brexit and FPTP is going to bring us. A Prime Minister Farage that will sell off this country's greatest crown jewel after he becomes PM with about 30% of the vote.

Only if we change from FPTP to Proportional Representation.
The latest predictions has the Brexit party taking voters from the Tories and Labour sailing through the middle and winning a large majority, especially in what many thought are safe Conservative seats.

For instance, in a seat where traditionally 50% would vote Tory and 30% Labour you might end up getting this...

Labour 30%
Brexit Party 25%
Conservative 25%
Others 20%

This is what just happened in Spain.

Bless the Brexit party, handing a general election to Labour.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

A Prime Minister Farage that will sell off this country's greatest crown jewel after he becomes PM with about 30% of the vote.

You are forgetting one important fact, Farage is an idiot who has never won a seat in Parliament.
This will continue, especially with the Brexit party splitting the Tory vote, there will be a lot of gammon-faced creeps giving the thumbs down (see below) as they storm into a second or third-placed losing position, handing a nice majority to Labour.
Don't forget, the first party to get a majority in Parliament now gets their Brexit deal through, that's the only reason we are deadlocked, a hung Parliament.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Yet more implied threats of civil unrest. Nice.

Just get on with it and riot if you’re going to riot. I’ll look forward to watching it on the news.

There may be some petty civil unrest when Brexit is shitcanned but it will be minor and localized.

The only person who will be armed with a rifle will be Farage but he will only be shooting himself in the foot with it.

Brave little Tommy Yaxley Robertinson will be running up and punching people from behind.

At least Wrongo Elizabeth McCartney, "The main man" will be safe, his mum won't let him out that night.

[JohnMcGreal]

A very good point.

The number of MPs who are representing Leave voters is only a few dozen. Cameron had no intention of leaving, hence the complete lack of a route map for what to do after Leave won. The current Cabinet have no intention of leaving, hence the massive delay in no deal planning.

You're implying that all leave voters are prepared to leave with no deal, which is false.

The few dozen MPs you mention are representing the small minority of Leave voters who are completely insane. These are the political extremists who are prepared to do an unlimited amount of damage in order to leave the EU. They are not to be respected or taken remotely seriously.

The rest of the leave voters are being represented by MPs who want to leave in an orderly fashion with some sort of deal.

Unfortunately, it's become as clear as day that we've had the best deal in Europe all along, and leaving in any form is worse. Which is why Parliament is now stuck. How can they knowingly and willingly damage the country, even under instruction from the electorate? They can't, and they won't. Which is why this will eventually come back to the people.

Brexit has failed. It will be chalked up as a failed project that should never even have been attempted. The public will throw this failed project on the scrapheap as soon as they're asked.

[Burnley Ace]

You think May's agreement, which gave the EU everything they asked for, was a cunning plan to be so bad a deal that the house of Commons was bound to reject it? Hmm. I don't think she is either devious enough or clever enough to do that.

It gave the EU everything they were entitled to and that was compliant with their rules and agreed principles.

[Burnley Ace]

That isn't quite right. It's true that the future trade deal with the EU would not be as good as the trade deal we have now, assuming you are a free trader (as most of us seem to be). That was self-evident all along. But the point of the negotiation was to get the best deal going forward; not to bemoan the loss of the old deal and accept any old rubbish deal going forward. If we don't have the old deal, that doesn't mean that we don't care what sort of new deal we get.

May's deal values our trade with the EU, imports and exports, as being vastly more valuable than their trade with us, exports and imports. This is wrong, essentially because it's a zero sum game and the financial worth is basically the same. The only argument for paying May's negotiated price is the one Lancaster has been pushing all along, that the rest of the EU is almost 5 times the size of the UK and therefore we are helpless and have to bend over backwards to eat their crumbs.

Leave campaign said we’d get a better deal than we have now - people like John “Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards” Redwood, Douglas “We could easily get a better trade deal than the one we have now” Carswell, David “They will be banging down Merkels door” Davis. It very clearly wasn’t self evident.

[Lancasterclaret]

That isn't quite right. It's true that the future trade deal with the EU would not be as good as the trade deal we have now, assuming you are a free trader (as most of us seem to be). That was self-evident all along. But the point of the negotiation was to get the best deal going forward; not to bemoan the loss of the old deal and accept any old rubbish deal going forward. If we don't have the old deal, that doesn't mean that we don't care what sort of new deal we get.

May's deal values our trade with the EU, imports and exports, as being vastly more valuable than their trade with us, exports and imports. This is wrong, essentially because it's a zero sum game and the financial worth is basically the same. The only argument for paying May's negotiated price is the one Lancaster has been pushing all along, that the rest of the EU is almost 5 times the size of the UK and therefore we are helpless and have to bend over backwards to eat their crumbs.

Pushing?

No

Accepting it as a bloody awful compromise because that's the closure the country needed?

Yes

I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face but the uber Brexit about 15% of the country want is both undemocratic and a disaster. And subtle threats of civil disobedience are bang out of order.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Pushing?

No

Accepting it as a bloody awful compromise because that's the closure the country needed?

Yes

I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face but the uber Brexit about 15% of the country want is both undemocratic and a disaster. And subtle threats of civil disobedience are bang out of order.

But ultimately self-defeating, do you think anyone cares if a load of knobhead no-deal Brexiters burn Stoops down?

Also, there's no such thing as no-deal, you can walk away from the table for a while but when you finally return to it to sort out a trade deal, the EU will say, "where's our money?"

The consequences of burning our bridges with the EU are a lot worse than the benefits of getting a trade deal with a few ex-colonies.

Everybody with half a brain knows this which is why no-deal is constantly voted down in Parliament.

[elwaclaret]

The most sensible agreement would be we accept our current relationship with the EU upto now, and adopt ALL EU current laws and agreements then leave.

This way any future legislation has to be passed through parliament to be ratified into British law instead of having to beg for opt outs. Any laws that parliament then needs re- defining can be done without a time limit as a practical solution is agreed upon.

It really needn’t be that difficult. It was what common sense suggested to me even before the vote.

[Lancasterclaret]

The most sensible agreement would be we accept our current relationship with the EU upto now, and adopt ALL EU current laws and agreements then leave.

This way any future legislation has to be passed through parliament to be ratified into British law instead of having to beg for opt outs. Any laws that parliament then needs re- defining can be done without a time limit as a practical solution is agreed upon.

It really needn’t be that difficult. It was what common sense suggested to me even before the vote.

It is, but you won't get that past the uber-brexiteers

[elwaclaret]

It is, but you won't get that past the uber-brexiteers

But that is the point. The door is then not closed. There remains the option to completely overhaul any law but without the needless disruption of “last stop, everybody off” politics.

[aggi]

A very good point.

The number of MPs who are representing Leave voters is only a few dozen.

I think what you mean is that the number of MPs representing leave voters like you is only a few dozen. Not the full spectrum of leave voters.

286 MPs voted for May's withdrawal agreement which would have seen us leaving the EU. That's a lot more than a few dozen.

[aggi]

That isn't quite right. It's true that the future trade deal with the EU would not be as good as the trade deal we have now, assuming you are a free trader (as most of us seem to be). That was self-evident all along. But the point of the negotiation was to get the best deal going forward; not to bemoan the loss of the old deal and accept any old rubbish deal going forward. If we don't have the old deal, that doesn't mean that we don't care what sort of new deal we get.

May's deal values our trade with the EU, imports and exports, as being vastly more valuable than their trade with us, exports and imports. This is wrong, essentially because it's a zero sum game and the financial worth is basically the same. The only argument for paying May's negotiated price is the one Lancaster has been pushing all along, that the rest of the EU is almost 5 times the size of the UK and therefore we are helpless and have to bend over backwards to eat their crumbs.

But that's beside the point. May's deal undeniably sees us leaving the EU. It's as valid an option as No Deal is to leave but plenty of leave at all costs Brexiteers don't want to leave if it's not on their terms. That's the contradiction.

[aggi]

The most sensible agreement would be we accept our current relationship with the EU upto now, and adopt ALL EU current laws and agreements then leave.

This way any future legislation has to be passed through parliament to be ratified into British law instead of having to beg for opt outs. Any laws that parliament then needs re- defining can be done without a time limit as a practical solution is agreed upon.

It really needn’t be that difficult. It was what common sense suggested to me even before the vote.

But obviously that sees us leaving the single market, customs union, four freedoms, etc so still ends up with the same border issues, having to define a new trade deal, etc.

What you're describing is basically No Deal.

[Lancasterclaret]

But that is the point. The door is then not closed. There remains the option to completely overhaul any law but without the needless disruption of “last stop, everybody off” politics.

I repeat, the uber Brexiteers want nothing to do with Europe that would (as they see it) possibly result in us rejoining.

They want to complete dismantle anything to do with the EU from the UK to make it as hard as possible for the UK to rejoin.

And they do not care about the consequences.

[Lancasterclaret]

I repeat, the uber Brexiteers want nothing to do with Europe that would (as they see it) possibly result in us rejoining.

They want to complete dismantle anything to do with the EU from the UK to make it as hard as possible for the UK to rejoin.

And they do not care about the consequences.

BTW, I'm reading elwas post as staying in everything and then leaving as and when parliament decides if that is a good or bad idea. I might well be reading it wrong.

So we stay in everything (CU,SM etc) until its decided we don't.

It could almost be the withdrawal agreement really

[elwaclaret]

I repeat, the uber Brexiteers want nothing to do with Europe that would (as they see it) possibly result in us rejoining.

They want to complete dismantle anything to do with the EU from the UK to make it as hard as possible for the UK to rejoin.

And they do not care about the consequences.

Yes I understand that but surely now we should be looking at the point of least resistance. With a sensible approach moderates could easily break the deadlock.

[Vino blanco]

I would be happy for the UK to rejoin Europe, if there were a referendum to do so and it was enacted, or if a political party won a GEneral Election on the promise to take us back in.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yes I understand that but surely now we should be looking at the point of least resistance. With a sensible approach moderates could easily break the deadlock.

But that would require the Lab and the Conservative Parties to split to pass it. They both have decided to put party before country.

Sadly for those who keep thinking that simple, common sense solutions are going to work, its not simple and common sense is the last thing on anyones mind.

[elwaclaret]

But obviously that sees us leaving the single market, customs union, four freedoms, etc so still ends up with the same border issues, having to define a new trade deal, etc.

What you're describing is basically No Deal.

No what I am describing is an agreement to maintain existing EU legislation until workable solutions can be agreed if necessary.

I know many Brexiteers see leaving ALL EU institutions as the only way to go, but with the door remaining open should we decide at the ballot box that a particular part of legislation needs changing it will not be “in” or “out” question... it would be one piece of legislation against the existing piece of legislation with a battle of merit the main consideration.

One thing for certain is entrenching positions benefit nothing but aggression and defence.... it’s why they are so useful in war.

[elwaclaret]

But that would require the Lab and the Conservative Parties to split to pass it. They both have decided to put party before country.

Sadly for those who keep thinking that simple, common sense solutions are going to work, its not simple and common sense is the last thing on anyones mind.

Sadly I agree that that has been the case far too long.... can anyone on either side say that has been beneficial?

The Tory party need to realise, bridges not turrets are needed.

[Lancasterclaret]

No what I am describing is an agreement to maintain existing EU legislation until workable solutions can be agreed if necessary.

I know many Brexiteers see leaving ALL EU institutions as the only way to go, but with the door remaining open should we decide at the ballot box that a particular part of legislation needs changing it will not be “in” or “out” question... it would be one piece of legislation against the existing piece of legislation with a battle of merit the main consideration.

One thing for certain is entrenching positions benefit nothing but aggression and defence.... it’s why they are so useful in war.

Its completely ignored by the uber brexiteers that the hard brexit was defeated in 2017 and massively in Parliament in 2019.

They will push and push and push for their own version of hard Brexit regardless of the consequences and regardless of the democratic mandate.

People who back Brexit but want a deal have to decide which is more important I'm afraid, or these ideological nutjobs will carry the day.

[elwaclaret]

Its completely ignored by the uber brexiteers that the hard brexit was defeated in 2017 and massively in Parliament in 2019.

They will push and push and push for their own version of hard Brexit regardless of the consequences and regardless of the democratic mandate.

People who back Brexit but want a deal have to decide which is more important I'm afraid, or these ideological nutjobs will carry the day.

Which would be great if any two people were singing off the same hymn sheet. Clearly a trading relationship with Europe cannot be ignored, any more than a sensible approach to border controls or security. Or has Europe opted out of World trade as a potential market for Britain after Brexit?

I may sound like a remainder, but that is the point Lancaster, as you know I’m all for Brexit. But if you don’t manage it how does anyone expect it to be a success?

Edit - not that I’m touting Boris for PM, I still think the guy that looks like Gollum sounds the most balanced I’ve heard.

One thing Boris does bring to the party is that while he may talk tough, he is a populist who wants everyone to think he is wonderful... it won’t be with Hard brexit, or remain.

[Lancasterclaret]

Which would be great if any two people were singing off the same hymn sheet. Clearly a trading relationship with Europe cannot be ignored, any more than a sensible approach to border controls or security. Or has Europe opted out of World trade as a potential market for Britain after Brexit?

I may sound like a remainder, but that is the point Lancaster, as you know I’m all for Brexit. But if you don’t manage it how does anyone expect it to be a success?

Edit - not that I’m touting Boris for PM, I still think the guy that looks like Gollum sounds the most balanced I’ve heard.

One thing Boris does bring to the party is that while he may talk tough, he is a populist who wants everyone to think he is wonderful... it won’t be with Hard brexit, or remain.

Doens't the fact that he's not as bright, not as talented, not as honourable as he thinks he is not a worry?

I agree that he's completely untrustworthy could go both ways, as he'd do absolutely anything to remain popular, but you have to bear in mind that to be popular in the Conservative Party, you need to be for Hard Brexit.

There was an article yesterday (Damo poo-pooed it a bit, but I don't think it was far off) which basically said that Hard Brexit is popular with those who own their own houses and have secure pensions. Any economic fallout will probably pass them by.

Lots of truth in that, and as always it will be the ones at the bottoms and the just about managing who will suffer.

[elwaclaret]

Doens't the fact that he's not as bright, not as talented, not as honourable as he thinks he is not a worry?

I agree that he's completely untrustworthy could go both ways, as he'd do absolutely anything to remain popular, but you have to bear in mind that to be popular in the Conservative Party, you need to be for Hard Brexit.

There was an article yesterday (Damo poo-pooed it a bit, but I don't think it was far off) which basically said that Hard Brexit is popular with those who own their own houses and have secure pensions. Any economic fallout will probably pass them by.

Lots of truth in that, and as always it will be the ones at the bottoms and the just about managing who will suffer.

I’m pretty sure the Conservative’s have more managed leavers than no-dealers, they just don’t shout as loud because they know it’s not what the public want to hear in sound bites.

The old dears are the ones when you had to wait for a month to get a Visa to “nip over” to the mainland. Remind them of what a ball ache it will be for their quick shopping sprees, or to visit their timeshare... that will sort it

[nil_desperandum]

I would be happy for the UK to rejoin Europe, if there were a referendum to do so and it was enacted, or if a political party won a GEneral Election on the promise to take us back in.

Leaving the EU then having a referendum to decide whether we should rejoin is not really a credible option, though obviously it would appeal to brexit ultras.
Applying to remain would lead to us losing all our current preferential terms and benefits. We would have already lost our veto on all the key areas and our rebate. People wouldn't vote for that, and that's why the ERG are keen to get out at any cost.
They know that no matter what the difficulties, rejoining would not really be palatable. I'm afraid that once we've left people will just have to make the best of it. If we go for some kind of Norway option then we'll hopefully avoid the worst scenario, but will any of the Tory hopefuls be prepared to grasp this nettle, win the leadership contest and secure a parliamentary majority?
If none of them can, then it seems like some kind of "pro-Norway /Canada +++ " coalition would be the next option.(Can't see any possibility of a Gen Election of Corbyn as PM).

[Lancasterclaret]

I’m pretty sure the Conservative’s have more managed leavers than no-dealers, they just don’t shout as loud because they know it’s not what the public want to hear in sound bites.

The old dears are the ones when you had to wait for a month to get a Visa to “nip over” to the mainland. Remind them of what a ball ache it will be for their quick shopping sprees, or to visit their timeshare... that will sort it

Thats "Project Fear" though.

(and not actually true I think, no visas is pretty much agreed)

Look, The brexit party candidate for Peterborough is on tape to a news organisation explaining EU interference in our education system (there isn't any, and he can't name any, but that is what he believes) There are millions like him. How do you get through to people who will swear black is white rather than admit they are wrong or that they don't know anything about it?

[dsr]

This girl forgot to buy insurance and has to fork out $118,000 for having an accident. Imagine living in a country where if you can't even afford insurance and you have an accident you have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for something that might not even be your fault.

That's what Brexit and FPTP is going to bring us. A Prime Minister Farage that will sell off this country's greatest crown jewel after he becomes PM with about 30% of the vote.

On a technicality, if you can't afford insurance then you won't have to pay out hundreds and thousands, because you don't have thousands. You might have to pay hundreds.

[elwaclaret]

Thats "Project Fear" though.

(and not actually true I think, no visas is pretty much agreed)

Look, The brexit party candidate for Peterborough is on tape to a news organisation explaining EU interference in our education system (there isn't any, and he can't name any, but that is what he believes) There are millions like him. How do you get through to people who will swear black is white rather than admit they are wrong or that they don't know anything about it?

There comes a point where you cannot. Even that liberal Anne Widecombe insists the Brexit party needs to be fully involved in negotiation... confirming that even she admits there has to be some kind of climb down somewhere, or it’s not a negotiation.

Those that truly believe (rather than preach) no deal whatsoever are living in cuckoo land, end of. It is simply not an option to have no relationship with the EU.

[Lancasterclaret]

There comes a point where you cannot. Even that liberal Anne Widecombe insists the Brexit party needs to be fully involved in negotiation... confirming that even she admits there has to be some kind of climb down somewhere, or it’s not a negotiation.

Those that truly believe (rather than preach) no deal whatsoever are living in cuckoo land, end of. It is simply not an option to have no relationship with the EU.

Isn't that part of the problem though

Why should the Brexit Party have any part in the negotiations?

[elwaclaret]

Isn't that part of the problem though

Why should the Brexit Party have any part in the negotiations?

I’m not saying they should.. but that AW thinks they should, acknowledges that they really believe there needs to be some kind of agreement.

[Lancasterclaret]

I’m not saying they should.. but that AW thinks they should, acknowledges that they really believe there needs to be some kind of agreement.

Oh I know, don't worry!

Just don't get why they think they should have a say. There is no precedent for it, and its all political theatre that should be called out as such

[elwaclaret]

Oh I know, don't worry!

Just don't get why they think they should have a say. There is no precedent for it, and its all political theatre that should be called out as such

I think the logic is skewed too, personally. The only way Brexit could have a seat at the table is if the Lib Dem’s are also invited to balance them as second largest EU party, it is not going to happen as it would serve no purpose.

[dsr]

You're implying that all leave voters are prepared to leave with no deal, which is false.

The few dozen MPs you mention are representing the small minority of Leave voters who are completely insane. These are the political extremists who are prepared to do an unlimited amount of damage in order to leave the EU. They are not to be respected or taken remotely seriously.

The rest of the leave voters are being represented by MPs who want to leave in an orderly fashion with some sort of deal.

Unfortunately, it's become as clear as day that we've had the best deal in Europe all along, and leaving in any form is worse. Which is why Parliament is now stuck. How can they knowingly and willingly damage the country, even under instruction from the electorate? They can't, and they won't. Which is why this will eventually come back to the people.

Brexit has failed. It will be chalked up as a failed project that should never even have been attempted. The public will throw this failed project on the scrapheap as soon as they're asked.

Not a small monority. A large minority. 35% of the voters at the EU elections voted for Brexit or UKIP, who basically have only one policy - leave now, without a deal. You are of course entitled to believe that these 35% are completely insane, but (until we have all been legally certified) not entitled to say that we are not to be respected or taken seriously. You can have democracy; or you can have government by a self-elected "elite" who take charge because they follow the PNE motto "we are superior". If you don't let the people vote, then you don't have democracy.

[SGr]

https://twitter.com/l__macfarlane/statu ... 44129?s=21" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well imagine my shock.

[elwaclaret]

Not a small monority. A large minority. 35% of the voters at the EU elections voted for Brexit or UKIP, who basically have only one policy - leave now, without a deal. You are of course entitled to believe that these 35% are completely insane, but (until we have all been legally certified) not entitled to say that we are not to be respected or taken seriously. You can have democracy; or you can have government by a self-elected "elite" who take charge because they follow the PNE motto "we are superior". If you don't let the people vote, then you don't have democracy.

But that is the sound bite.... it has no bearing on reality. As I just discussed with Lancaster above. Even on election night AW was insisting that brexit should now be involved in any negotiation... by definition that suggests there has to be a further negotiation.

[dsr]

But that is the sound bite.... it has no bearing on reality. As I just discussed with Lancaster above. Even on election night AW was insisting that brexit should now be involved in any negotiation... by definition that suggests there has to be a further negotiation.

Exactly. "Compromisers", even Theresa May, are of the opinion that we need to give the EU pretty much everything they ask for; that's not a difficult negotiation. May's deal was so ridiculously skewed to the EU's benefit that even the pro-Remain House of Commons didn't like it.

There has to be negotiation because after 31st October we will (hopefully) be outside the EU, and will then be negotiating trade terms with the whole world. Including, of course, the EU, because as we all agree the current trade deal is of mutual benefit and both sides will have an interest in negotiating a new one. Always assuming the EU can get past its current position of having to be seen to "punish" the UK for leaving.

[Lancasterclaret]

Three years and you are still repeating the same ****.

Genuinely don't get it, as it's not backed up by reality

[elwaclaret]

Exactly. "Compromisers", even Theresa May, are of the opinion that we need to give the EU pretty much everything they ask for; that's not a difficult negotiation. May's deal was so ridiculously skewed to the EU's benefit that even the pro-Remain House of Commons didn't like it.

There has to be negotiation because after 31st October we will (hopefully) be outside the EU, and will then be negotiating trade terms with the whole world. Including, of course, the EU, because as we all agree the current trade deal is of mutual benefit and both sides will have an interest in negotiating a new one. Always assuming the EU can get past its current position of having to be seen to "punish" the UK for leaving.

As I have been saying for three years a Remainer at heart cannot deliver Brexit. However unless whoever gets in has a team of World Beaters (not impossible, but unlikely) ready we are going to then have further delay, and at best a half thought out solution (at least this will be an improvement many would argue)... the way forward is to adopt all current EU law and take a nothing we don’t agree from now approach going forward. This then allows us to leave in October with a manageable approach to creating “Our” version through normal parliamentary procedure.

This to me is the least fractious route for all sides. We might be ‘Europe light’ for a while but that would be for British party politics to dictate from there on.