Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[nil_desperandum]

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.

That flies in the face of reality and contradicts Parliamentary arithmetic.
It was her stupid red lines (maintained to appease the ERG) that prevented us !eaving on March 29th with a deal.
If she'd compromised on some form of Customs Union and alignment with the .Market, she would have had a comfortable majority.
Even during her desperate attempt to get her "deal" through with Corbyn/Labour support she apparently didn't budge an inch
It's May and her appeasement of the ERG that have brought us to this point.

[SGr]

At the end of the day, I do not believe the EU is some sort of utopian organisation. I believe it is inherently flawed, I believe there is a lot that should be changed. And I’m not anti-Brexit until my dying breath.

But from what I see, the people who are mainly pushing it are not acting in the interests of the UK, there are hidden agendas all over the place, from tax avoidance to an insurance based system of health care. It exists on the other side too mind. I don’t wholly disagree with leaving, I just want it to be for right reason. And I want people to know that.

[Imploding Turtle]

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.

This is what happens when one side of a negotiation has an incredibly weak negotiating position. You ******* was warned about this all through the campaign and you called it "Project Fear" and just curled up in the foetal position and repeated "they need us more than we need them" to yourselves. Now, when that unfathomably weak negotiation position yields an unfathomably **** deal for us, you're acting as if you weren't ******* warned and chose to completely disregard the warnings.

Of ******* course the deal is ****. We have next to no bargaining power compared to the EU.

[elwaclaret]

This is what happens when one side of a negotiation has an incredibly weak negotiating position. You ******* was warned about this all through the campaign and you called it "Project Fear" and just curled up in the foetal position and repeated "they need us more than we need them" to yourselves. Now, when that unfathomably weak negotiation position yields an unfathomably **** deal for us, you're acting as if you weren't ******* warned and chose to completely disregard the warnings.

Of ******* course the deal is ****. We have next to no bargaining power compared to the EU.

Not sure you can say that in all fairness IT, having a self confessed remainer negotiating Brexit was never ideal, no matter how much she genuinely tried to be tough and professional.

It is like going for a job in Burnley club shop wearing a Rovers shirt.

[Imploding Turtle]

Not sure you can say that in all fairness IT, having a self confessed remainer negotiating Brexit was never ideal, no matter how much she genuinely tried to be tough and professional.

It is like going for a job in Burnley club shop wearing a Rovers shirt.

A self-confessed remainer wasn't negotiating the deal. She put Leave supporters in charge of it and none of them could get anything done. She took over when they had failed.

[elwaclaret]

A self-confessed remainer wasn't negotiating the deal. She put Leave supporters in charge of it and none of them could get anything done. She took over when they had failed.

I always thought a managed withdrawal made the only sense and yet they seemed determined to make it complicated. We leave with all current legislation as it stands. We become Europe light until Uk legislation supersedes it. We leave Europe and become self determining. We avoid being dragged any deeper, without Parliaments express consent. Any current EU legislation that needs changing can be outlined in normal parliamentary elections in the usual way. Future EU legislation cannot be passed without UK consent in Parliament... one of the initial aims of the original Brexit campaign. We’ve left on what remainers claim to be the best possible terms, so remaining becomes pointless. And we work from there.

Always seemed the least fractious and most straight forward way of going about it to me anyway...

[Lancasterclaret]

Worth mentioning (again) that the real Project Fear is the one still believed by the looks of things.

We have a Veto. We can't get dragged in anymore without our consent. That is 100% unarguable.

[dsr]

I always thought a managed withdrawal made the only sense and yet they seemed determined to make it complicated. We leave with all current legislation as it stands. We become Europe light until Uk legislation supersedes it. We leave Europe and become self determining. We avoid being dragged any deeper, without Parliaments express consent. Any current EU legislation that needs changing can be outlined in normal parliamentary elections in the usual way. Future EU legislation cannot be passed without UK consent in Parliament... one of the initial aims of the original Brexit campaign. We’ve left on what remainers claim to be the best possible terms, so remaining becomes pointless. And we work from there.

Always seemed the least fractious and most straight forward way of going about it to me anyway...

The EU wouldn't go for that. Economically, that would be best for all concerned. Politically, it would be best for the UK but it wouldn't satisfy the EU's aim of punishing the UK for leaving.

They have to be seen to make us suffer, because the EU politicians are confident or afraid that if we left and were none the worse for it, other countries would leave too. Persuading people of the benefits of a free trade organisation is easy; persuading people of the benefits of a supranational political entity, not so easy, as the Brexit poll proved. They don't want others to leave because they would lose power.

[Lancasterclaret]

The EU wouldn't go for that. Economically, that would be best for all concerned. Politically, it would be best for the UK but it wouldn't satisfy the EU's aim of punishing the UK for leaving.

They have to be seen to make us suffer, because the EU politicians are confident or afraid that if we left and were none the worse for it, other countries would leave too. Persuading people of the benefits of a free trade organisation is easy; persuading people of the benefits of a supranational political entity, not so easy, as the Brexit poll proved. They don't want others to leave because they would lose power.

Sigh

Dsr is going to die believing that. He really is.

I can't be arsed telling him again why he's wrong, and that he's wrong and its been proven wrong on numerous occassions.

It is UKIP ******** paraded as "fact"

[CrosspoolClarets]

Sigh

Dsr is going to die believing that (speculation). He really is.

I can't be arsed (but you do, very often) telling him again why he's wrong (he may not be), and that he's wrong and its been proven wrong (it definately has not) on numerous occassions.

It is UKIP ******** paraded as "fact” (pot calling kettle based on the above)

I know DSR is big enough to handle himself (or herself) but there is much wrong with this comment Lancs. I’ve highlighted above the dodgy bits.

There are opinions, not facts, on both sides of the argument. Let us at least accept that. Personally, my favourite one is that it is “fact” that the EU will not reopen the withdrawal agreement and change the backstop, but if I were a betting man I would bet that it will be (whilst pretending it hasn’t been).

Anyway, the WhatUKThinks / Prof John Curtis poll of polls tracker has Remain dropping to 52/48 on average, within the margin of error, so that clearly shows we cannot be proven to have changed our mind as a nation so let’s just crack on and leave the darn thing - then by all means lobby for all kinds of partnerships thereafter. That’s the way adults do it (comment aimed at Mr Corbyn and the Labour Party).

[CrosspoolClarets]

Worth mentioning (again) that the real Project Fear is the one still believed by the looks of things.

We have a Veto. We can't get dragged in anymore without our consent. That is 100% unarguable.

Yes we have a veto. But when the EU Council decides some things and it is 27 vs 1 we would be pretty darn unpopular if we exercised our veto so the whole structure makes it less likely we will do so.

For example Education is in theory a member state issue.

But over the last 20 years the EU has agreed “benchmarks” that all 28 states have signed up to, such as over 40% of Citizens aged 30-34 need to have gone onto tertiary (post secondary school) education. That sounds great, but it skews education towards campus based “group think” and less towards on the job apprenticeships which in turn help “left behind” towns like Burnley.

The point being, we should decide ourselves based on our needs as a nation in that particular decade. That argument could be made 100 times over for different topics and demonstrates why many of us are so adamant the EU is a bad thing for the major nations like ourselves who have high standards anyway.

[dsr]

Sigh

Dsr is going to die believing that. He really is.

I can't be arsed telling him again why he's wrong, and that he's wrong and its been proven wrong on numerous occassions.

It is UKIP ******** paraded as "fact"

You don't say which bit is wrong. Is it that free trade is not best for the EU, or is it that the EU doesn't want to be seen to make us suffer?

[CrosspoolClarets]

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.

Just picking up on these replies now, I’ve had several attacks so I must have been on form last night.

The respectable leave voter doesn’t riot. He or she is the hardworking, nation loving, family loving plumber or bricklayer who doesn’t have time to wave placards at Trafalgar Square.

The Pandora’s Box I referred to will be the end of First Past The Post (bye bye ever having a socialist government or indeed a free trading one) and the end of economic liberalism and cultural liberalism. The people who believe their vote doesn’t count will become the classic swing voter, courted by every party that genuinely aspires to win.

It will be bye bye benefits culture, tighter migration, big deterrents for single parent families, employee ownership in companies, tough on crime etc. Somebody like Imploding Turtle will, well, implode.

All could have been easily sidestepped by simply leaving the EU straight away. Now, that won’t be enough.

[CrosspoolClarets]

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.

I think you know very well that it isn’t what I meant.

First of all, while I voted Leave at first I would have gone with a Norway style EEA arrangement (without the Customs Union). If I were speculating I would be a Gove-style Leaver. I suspect that caught you by surprise.

But with the things the EU started to insist on I wanted a cleaner break. A Canada style free trade deal is now my preference.

As I said yesterday, many cleverer brains than us have tried to argue that May’s deal is leaving the EU. Many similarly clever brains are adamant it is not. Legally doesn’t matter. It is what it feels like to the man in the street that counts. A new treaty of 599 pages with many more to be added due to trade and other partnerships is NOT freeing us from EU orbit.

[Greenmile]

The respectable leave voter doesn’t riot. He or she is the hardworking, nation loving, family loving plumber or bricklayer who doesn’t have time to wave placards at Trafalgar Square.

Did you unblock me? How brave.

You clearly threatened riots may occur if your lot don’t get their way. You even referenced riots when you said...

... I remember things like the poll tax riots but this feels far more angry...

I’m sure you wouldn’t riot yourself - you’re much too “respectable” (cowardly) for that. You’ll just encourage others to do it, by suggesting it’s a natural and understandable response to what’s happening.

...The Pandora’s Box I referred to will be the end of First Past The Post (bye bye ever having a socialist government or indeed a free trading one) and the end of economic liberalism and cultural liberalism. The people who believe their vote doesn’t count will become the classic swing voter, courted by every party that genuinely aspires to win.

It will be bye bye benefits culture, tighter migration, big deterrents for single parent families, employee ownership in companies, tough on crime etc. Somebody like Imploding Turtle will, well, implode...

I see now you’ve dialled it back to say that what we really risk by not giving the hard-right brexiters what they want is a hard-right government. I’m not sure that argument holds much water. I reckon the economic hardships a hard Brexit would bring are more likely to bring about far-right sentiment. Folk will be looking for someone to blame, and feeling run a lot stronger when you want someone to blame for your loss of an actual job / house / pension, than the supposed loss of intangible stuff like “sovereignty”.

(I think I’d be ok with losing FPTP, incidentally)

[Bordeauxclaret]

The respectable leave voter doesn’t riot. He or she is the hardworking, nation loving, family loving plumber or bricklayer

Might be better on a red t-shirt rather than a cap.

[aggi]

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.

So that's our current relationship with the EU. We're a part of the EU until something comes in that we really don't agree with and then we'll leave.

That seems more in line with the remain view than the leave view.

[aggi]

I think you know very well that it isn’t what I meant.

First of all, while I voted Leave at first I would have gone with a Norway style EEA arrangement (without the Customs Union). If I were speculating I would be a Gove-style Leaver. I suspect that caught you by surprise.

But with the things the EU started to insist on I wanted a cleaner break. A Canada style free trade deal is now my preference.

As I said yesterday, many cleverer brains than us have tried to argue that May’s deal is leaving the EU. Many similarly clever brains are adamant it is not. Legally doesn’t matter. It is what it feels like to the man in the street that counts. A new treaty of 599 pages with many more to be added due to trade and other partnerships is NOT freeing us from EU orbit.

I think that is what you meant, reality doesn't agree with any other interpretation.

You say legally doesn't matter, it's what it feels like that counts. I would thoroughly disagree with that. We voted to leave the EU, as many No Deal proponents are so keen to point out, there weren't any caveats to how we do that. If you think we're going to leave the EU without an eventual lengthy trade deal with the EU then you're deluded. (Yesterday I was reading a 125 page agreement related to a company selling branded children's t-shirts, a 599 page agreement is nothing).

[aggi]

Related to the above, this is Conservative party members convening to get rid of an MP who voted to leave the EU three times. What more do they want?

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

If you think we're going to leave the EU without an eventual lengthy trade deal with the EU then you're deluded. (Yesterday I was reading a 125 page agreement related to a company selling branded children's t-shirts, a 599 page agreement is nothing).

Some people really do, they think we are going to tell the huge trading block on our doorstep to **** off. It's like doing a runner from the restaurant next door to where you live, where you've been eating for the last forty years and which your brother owns.

[Lancasterclaret]

I know DSR is big enough to handle himself (or herself) but there is much wrong with this comment Lancs. I’ve highlighted above the dodgy bits.

There are opinions, not facts, on both sides of the argument. Let us at least accept that. Personally, my favourite one is that it is “fact” that the EU will not reopen the withdrawal agreement and change the backstop, but if I were a betting man I would bet that it will be (whilst pretending it hasn’t been).

Anyway, the WhatUKThinks / Prof John Curtis poll of polls tracker has Remain dropping to 52/48 on average, within the margin of error, so that clearly shows we cannot be proven to have changed our mind as a nation so let’s just crack on and leave the darn thing - then by all means lobby for all kinds of partnerships thereafter. That’s the way adults do it (comment aimed at Mr Corbyn and the Labour Party).

It is UKIP bullshit presented as fact. That's what it is.

It's so so sad as a country that we've let ourselves believe stuff that is pontificated by (depending on your preference) "bloke who knows it all at the bar" or "Golf club bores"

[Lancasterclaret]

There are some uncomfortable truths for the "No deal" Brexiteers to deal with as well.

There isn't a majority in the country or the parliament for a "No Deal" Brexit, so what can they do to get what they want (And remember, not what the country wants)

The way appears to be to dismiss parliament till it's passed and the continue on as if that constitutional outrage hasn't happened.

If they are fine with that, then there is only one question left to ask.

What is your favourite colour?

Is it black, or is it brown?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

If I remember rightly, there isn't a need for a parliamentary majority for a No Deal is there?

If the EU don't to extend the negotiations, or agree with any amendments etc, we will leave on the set date with or without a deal won't we?

They could literally chuck us out with No Deal.

[JohnMcGreal]

If I remember rightly, there isn't a need for a parliamentary majority for a No Deal is there?

If the EU don't to extend the negotiations, or agree with any amendments etc, we will leave on the set date with or without a deal won't we?

They could literally chuck us out with No Deal.

It's true that the default position is we leave with no deal at the end of October, unless something happens to prevent it. However, Parliament is overwhelmingly against leaving with no deal, so if it's looking like that's about to happen, you'd imagine they'll find a way of preventing that.

As for the EU 'chucking us out' with no deal, I don't think that will happen either. If we request an extension I think they'll grant one.

[taio]

It will get to a point where the EU has to focus on other things so they won't keep letting us defer.

[RingoMcCartney]

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.

If you do not implement the results of a democratic referendum you do not have democracy. You're simply paying lip service to it, and denying democracy

The 2016 referendum must be implemented if trust in our democracy is to be preserved.

Nobody is saying remainers should be silenced. They should be able to campaign , in a fee and open democracy, to rejoin the EU. If people have changed their mind then we would rejoin the EU.

What's funny is that, those who put off having a 2nd referendum on EU membership, for 40 odd years. Can't wait to have another after less than 3 years, even before the 2016 Peoples Vote has actually been implemented!

[RingoMcCartney]

You are making things up again!! Where have I mentioned dangerous extremists?

Find one text (out of the 1000 I have posted) where I have stayed I support Corbyn, McDonald or even the Labour Party!

I'm making things up!!??

Are you actually denying saying this!

In the future when millions no longer vote , because " why bother they do what they want to do" it will only take a relatively small number of votes to elect dangerous extremists.

To which you replied.


Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:26 pm

I don’t have a problem with that, in fact I would encourage it. I would rather a smaller electorate wha have some understanding of the issues than some of the fickle voters that have a vote now.

Bang to rights !

[RingoMcCartney]

Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:26 pm

I don’t have a problem with that, in fact I would encourage it. I would rather a smaller electorate wha have some understanding of the issues than some of the fickle voters that have a vote now.

Just another reminder of you approving electing dangerous extremists!

[RingoMcCartney]

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.

Anybody who believes the remain voters have to be represented in leaving the EU is misguided.

Will the new labour MP for Peterborough represent the views of the Brexit Party because they came second? No.

Attempting to remain while leaving the EU is like believing it's possibleto be half pregnant.....

[Devils_Advocate]

Watching the Andrew Marr show and Gove must have been out clubbing all night off his tits with the crap he is coming out with. His campaign manager Pete Doherty needs to pull him to one side and have a word

[RingoMcCartney]

Some people really do, they think we are going to tell the huge trading block on our doorstep to **** off. It's like doing a runner from the restaurant next door to where you live, where you've been eating for the last forty years and which your brother owns.

Yes you're right! It's exactly the same as that !

[RingoMcCartney]

Is it Monday already? Bloody hell, back to work - feels like I only just left.

Woke up. Had breakfast. Had a shave. Did the Times crossword. Had a shave........

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It's true that the default position is we leave with no deal at the end of October, unless something happens to prevent it. However, Parliament is overwhelmingly against leaving with no deal, so if it's looking like that's about to happen, you'd imagine they'll find a way of preventing that.

As for the EU 'chucking us out' with no deal, I don't think that will happen either. If we request an extension I think they'll grant one.

I wouldn't trust parliament to find their arse holes with a mirror and torch, Never mind agree on a deal to leave the EU.

I don't know if the EU would chuck us out or not, but remainers seem to be glossing over the fact that parliament can't actually stop it happening if the EU get fed up of us dicking about.

[JohnMcGreal]

I wouldn't trust parliament to find their arse holes with a mirror and torch, Never mind agree on a deal to leave the EU.

I don't know if the EU would chuck us out or not, but remainers seem to be glossing over the fact that parliament can't actually stop it happening if the EU get fed up of us dicking about.

I think Parliament could have supported a deal that kept us in the single market and customs union, a Norway style arrangement if you like. That would have taken us out the EU (as instructed by the 52%) but kept us close enough to maintain our economic ties and freedom of movement (satisfying the 48%). This would also have resolved the border issue in Ireland.

We didn't do that. May followed the wishes of the hard liners in her party and told everyone else to go to hell. We're now in a mess because of that. So I agree that the chances of Parliament supporting a deal to leave the EU are almost non-existent at this stage.

As for leaving with no deal, Parliament could vote to instruct the government to seek an extension. It could vote to revoke article 50. They could vote for a no confidence motion and bring down the government, forcing an election. If the EU reject an extension request, we can unilaterally revoke article 50. There are options to prevent us from leaving with no deal, but time is running out and it could get very risky.

[taio]

I think Parliament could have supported a deal that kept us in the single market and customs union, a Norway style arrangement if you like. That would have taken us out the EU (as instructed by the 52%) but kept us close enough to maintain our economic ties and freedom of movement (satisfying the 48%). This would also have resolved the border issue in Ireland.

We didn't do that. May followed the wishes of the hard liners in her party and told everyone else to go to hell. We're now in a mess because of that. So I agree that the chances of Parliament supporting a deal to leave the EU are almost non-existent at this stage.

As for leaving with no deal, Parliament could vote to instruct the government to seek an extension. It could vote to revoke article 50. They could vote for a no confidence motion and bring down the government, forcing an election. There are options to prevent us from leaving with no deal, but time is running out and it could get very risky.

The big problem with that is so many people voted Leave to end freedom of movement.

[JohnMcGreal]

The big problem with that is so many people voted Leave to end freedom of movement.

And so many didn't. Which is why there needed to be compromises and trade-offs from the get-go. It didn't happen. We drew up impossible red lines because of that, and we backed ourselves into a corner. Now we're stuck there.

[taio]

And so many didn't. Which is why there needed to be compromises and trade-offs from the get-go. It didn't happen. We drew up impossible red lines because of that, and we backed ourselves into a corner. Now we're stuck there.

Leave won and leave voters clearly want to end freedom of movement. So continuing with freedom of movement needs to be off the table.

[JohnMcGreal]

Leave won and leave voters clearly want to end freedom of movement. So continuing with freedom of movement needs to be off the table.

Which is what lead us to the problem with the border in Ireland. How do you 'take control of your borders' and end freedom of movement whilst simultaneously having no border in Ireland and maintaining freedom of movement there?

We only have one land border with the EU, and it's on the island of Ireland. So what's the solution?

[aggi]

I wouldn't trust parliament to find their arse holes with a mirror and torch, Never mind agree on a deal to leave the EU.

I don't know if the EU would chuck us out or not, but remainers seem to be glossing over the fact that parliament can't actually stop it happening if the EU get fed up of us dicking about.

Parliament could revoke Article 50 without any permission required from the EU.

They shouldn't but it is possible (and much more likely than Raab's plan).

[taio]

Which is what lead us to the problem with the border in Ireland. How do you 'take control of your borders' and end freedom of movement whilst simultaneously having no border in Ireland and maintaining freedom of movement there?

We only have one land border with the EU, and it's on the island of Ireland. So what's the solution?

May's deal
No deal
Another referendum

[Burnley Ace]

I'm making things up!!??

Are you actually denying saying this!




To which you replied.


Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:26 pm




Bang to rights !

The question was “where have I mentioned dangerous extremists?”

You mentioned dangerous extremists not me! You have even saved me the job of cutting and pasting it. If millions of people can’t be bothered to vote I have no problem with that. You may think that would lead to dangerous extremists, I don’t.

Any luck finding a post where I have supported Corbyn? Or McDonald?

Bang to rights! LOL - as always with you it’s in the detail.

'

[elwaclaret]

So that's our current relationship with the EU. We're a part of the EU until something comes in that we really don't agree with and then we'll leave.

That seems more in line with the remain view than the leave view.

Fact is gives most of the original referendum to both sides and heals the rift ... we’ve left and control what EU laws we chose to follow or withdraw from. Power returns to Parliament. pro- brexit and we leave the EU pro- brexit.

We also leave with terms that Remainers accept is the best deal within the EU and take it out. Retainers get what they want and also makes remain unnecessary as a position, as they by their own admission have a better deal than any new application could achieve.

Then all that needs sorting out is what Europe needs to mak3 it happen that way and see if it’s in our thinking.... a much reduced negotiation... doable by October.

[nil_desperandum]

Leave won and leave voters clearly want to end freedom of movement. So continuing with freedom of movement needs to be off the table.

How do you know?
As Ringo will tell you:there were only 2 options on the paper leave or remain.
Leave won by a pretty narrow margin of we're honest.
52%- so not much of a majority, so how can you categorically state, (as I notice you have done) that free movement is a red line.
Are you saying that all those 52% cast their vote because of free movement, or do you think it's possible that there were bigger issues for many of them?
Any leaver who actually analyses this should conclude that there is no obvious benefit to exchanging freedom of movement in and out of the EU to freedom of movement in and out of (eg) India or any other Sub-continent country that we try to strike anew deal with.
Additionally, of course, quite a few people are only just acknowledging that freedom of movement works both ways, and that it will have serious consequences for us and particularly the future prospects of our younger generation.

[taio]

How do you know?
As Ringo will tell you:there were only 2 options on the paper leave or remain.
Leave won by a pretty narrow margin of we're honest.
52%- so not much of a majority, so how can you categorically state, (as I notice you have done) that free movement is a red line.
Are you saying that all those 52% cast their vote because of free movement, or do you think it's possible that there were bigger issues for many of them?
Any leaver who actually analyses this should conclude that there is no obvious benefit to exchanging freedom of movement in and out of the EU to freedom of movement in and out of (eg) India or any other Sub-continent country that we try to strike anew deal with.
Additionally, of course, quite a few people are only just acknowledging that freedom of movement works both ways, and that it will have serious consequences for us and particularly the future prospects of our younger generation.

I don't know for certain, obviously. And I wasn't categorically stating - it's an opinion. I'm basing it on the many people I've spoken to who voted Leave. I have not spoken to a single person who voted Leave who doesn't want freedom of movement to end. In fact where did I say categorically it was a red line? I said it needs to be off the table which is clearly my opinion.

[AndyClaret]

How do you know?
As Ringo will tell you:there were only 2 options on the paper leave or remain.
Leave won by a pretty narrow margin of we're honest.
52%- so not much of a majority, so how can you categorically state, (as I notice you have done) that free movement is a red line.
Are you saying that all those 52% cast their vote because of free movement, or do you think it's possible that there were bigger issues for many of them?
Any leaver who actually analyses this should conclude that there is no obvious benefit to exchanging freedom of movement in and out of the EU to freedom of movement in and out of (eg) India or any other Sub-continent country that we try to strike anew deal with.
Additionally, of course, quite a few people are only just acknowledging that freedom of movement works both ways, and that it will have serious consequences for us and particularly the future prospects of our younger generation.

By the same definition you can't say everyone who voted remain wants to keep free movement.

[nil_desperandum]

By the same definition you can't say everyone who voted remain wants to keep free movement.

Totally agree with that.
I suppose I could sum up my thoughts on this by saying that an intelligent and informed national debate on immigration / migration issues is long overdue.
Cameron would have served the country far better by having this debate in advance of holding a binary referendum, which sadly - but inevitably - was hijacked by some elements to promote a nasty, narrow anti-immigration agenda.

[nil_desperandum]

Parliament could revoke Article 50 without any permission required from the EU.

They shouldn't but it is possible (and much more likely than Raab's plan).

The main issue with Raab's plan is that it politicises the role of the Queen.
She won't like this at all, and for this reason it's just about certain I think that she would ultimately have to side with Parliament against the PM.
To do otherwise would jeopardise the future role of the Monarchy.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Parliament could revoke Article 50 without any permission required from the EU.

They shouldn't but it is possible (and much more likely than Raab's plan).

Out of interest if Parliament decided to revoke Article 50 could the EU reject that option?

[Mala591]

Question:

Would it be theoretically possible for Burnley constituents to remove Burnley's MP - by use of a recall petition - for not representing their democratic Brexit decision in parliament?

[Devils_Advocate]

Question:

Would it be theoretically possible for Burnley constituents to remove Burnley's MP - by use of a recall petition - for not representing their democratic Brexit decision in parliament?

No