Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[LoveCurryPies]

Interesting conversations (on Jeremy Vine's radio show at the moment) asking "Has Brexit destroyed your relationship with friends or family?"

Personally, I unfollowed a few family members on Facebook after having seen enough of the utter nonsense they were writing each day. They have revealed their true personality and I'm not sure our relationships will ever be the same again.

Have you been affected in similar ways?

[JohnMcGreal]

It's not a trick question my friend.

It wasn't a trick answer, either.

[aggi]

I'm assuming you are a committed Labour voter for the upcoming election (is this definitely right?).

In that case, what do you think Labour's Brexit policy should be for the election? I'm assuming you don't think it should be 'Negotiate a deal then campaign against it', so what should it be?

I'm not a committed labour voter. However, I think their stance should be that they'll push for a deal and then have a second referendum on their deal or remain (and we can add No Deal into the mix as well if people want I guess).

The labour party stance on what side it supports for the referendum should be open. MPs can support whichever side they want. (Ideally I'd want Corbyn to be neutral.)

I think that is the most sensible stance for both moderate remainers and leavers (the more extreme probably aren't going to vote for labour.)

[If it be your will]

You honestly think those who back team farage will even consider an UBI? Crikey!

Thats as far fetched as Ringo voting remain!

The bone the Brexit Party will throw disgruntled Labour voters is the same bone UKIP did. Tougher on immigration, and very tough language on immigration (whatever the consequences).

You vote for them as a socialist, and you will probably get exactly the opposite of what you want.

It'd be a clever move. I'd be interested how committed Brexit Party supporters would react to such a policy, because that would be the key. It could be a game changer if they actually adopted that policy, though. (I bet Farage has considered it, you know!)

But I don't think they'd do it, no

[Lancasterclaret]

It'd be a clever move. I'd be interested how committed Brexit Party supporters would react to such a policy, because that would be the key. It could be a game changer if they actually adopted that policy, though. (I bet Farage has considered it, you know!)

But I don't think they'd do it, no

I bet he hasn't!

UBI to him is against everything he stands for. He's the sort that actually believes in "bread and circuses" for the plebs.

[martin_p]

I'm assuming you are a committed Labour voter for the upcoming election (is this definitely right?).

In that case, what do you think Labour's Brexit policy should be for the election? I'm assuming you don't think it should be 'Negotiate a deal then campaign against it', so what should it be?

As a committed remainer and the next election almost turning into a single issue one I’d probably go Lib Dem (I’ve always voted Labour before). However in my constituency it’s a straight Labour/Tory fight so the FPTP system pretty much means any vote that isn’t Labour is half a vote for the Tories. So yes, I will be voting Labour. I’d prefer them to go all out Remain, but common sense says they’ll lose votes if they just do the Lib Dem thing of saying they’ll revoke article 50 (the Lib Dem’s can afford to do it as they know they’ll never get a majority). That given a 2nd referendum is the way forward but it really has to be a referendum with meaningful options, not just Remain v Leave. So I can see why Labour have got to where they’ve got. The obvious flaw in the plan is the one you’ve pointed out, how will you get a half decent deal to put to a referendum if you’re then going to vote against it. That’s why Corbyn has declared himself neutral.

[If it be your will]

I'm not a committed labour voter. However, I think their stance should be that they'll push for a deal and then have a second referendum on their deal or remain (and we can add No Deal into the mix as well if people want I guess).

The labour party stance on what side it supports for the referendum should be open. MPs can support whichever side they want. (Ideally I'd want Corbyn to be neutral.)

I think that is the most sensible stance for both moderate remainers and leavers (the more extreme probably aren't going to vote for labour.)

It's really difficult now they've been pushed so firmly into the remain corner. A policy of a 3-way AV referendum (no deal/ remain/ negotiated deal) with MPs given a free pass to campaign for any of these would be intellectually coherent, but that would be seen as a reversal from their overt remain stance, causing fury amongst full on remainers. I can't see how, electorally, they can take this path anymore. As such I can't see this happening.

But they have to think of something to replace the current policy. The current one is disastrous.

[RingoMcCartney]

I must have missed this earlier.

I'd say Yes. But that doesn't really seem a justification in my eyes for making it even worse.

I guess if your view is "these people are already suffering, we'll make it much worse" then that's fair enough but it's not one I agree with.

Whilst we're bringing up unanswered points, here's a few you've refused to answer:

Please explain why RBS, Lloyds, HBOS and various other had to divest themselves of various business groups, spin off into separate companies and set up a fund for their smaller competitors. You need to do this without mentioning the EU (as you claimed the EU said the bailout was fine so it can't be anything to do with them).

Please explain why me wanting us to leave the EU on something akin to May's deal whereas you stamped your foot and said no makes me the one who is refusing to respect the referendum and leave the EU (bear in mind that the referendum only referred to leaving the EU, not what the deal was, so vague comments about not really leaving are meaningless, we're talking facts here).

In the Dame Laura Cox inquiry please show where the QC responsible for the inquiry concluded, "The fish always rots from the head down"?

I made a mistake regards the Dame Laura Cox inquiry that looked into bullying and inappropriate sexual behaviour. It wasn't her that said "The fish always rots from the head" when referring to john Bercow and the culture inside Westminster. It was 2 female MPs, one a northern Irish one (I think) and also jess Philips (again I think)

Either way, it's not a very complimentary thing to be said about someone at the very heart of the democratic process is it?

Anyway, you now, finally, accept that rises in the cost of food and goods disproportionately affects the lowest paid. Despite trying to wriggle out of admitting previously, by using average wage rises and RPI !

So it just leaves you to confirm whether or not millions of the lowest paid , who have as you now concede, been disproportionately affected by the rise in prices of food, goods and fuel, during the 40 odd years of membership of the Common Market/European Market. Voted to leave in the 2016 referendum?

Yes



Or



No?

[RingoMcCartney]

We've used them all up after wading our way through your/Elizabeth's bullshit.

You've got form Edward the Confessor

I did it a few years ago on a Bolton Wanderers boardOne account being the hostile, gleeful Burnley fan, the other a long-suffering Trotters fan with patience sadly running out.

what I was doing on the Trotters board. Both my accounts, successful in different ways, were brilliant wind-up jobs although the inevitable bans did make life a tad difficult at times

[/b][/size][/quote]

It was, to be fair, pretty interesting to see how you could manipulate others' thinking. Nothing "split personality" about that, chap, far from it - two uses of different persona. That's why I did it

[/b][/size][/quote]

i Was happy to spend time on the Bolton board engaged in guerilla verbal warfare

I ran one account as a legit BFC fan enjoying the er, banter with some of their lads. Occasionally it went too far and one lad, Mallorca Trotter, bless him, had my BFC fan account shut. No problem - new user name, tone it all down a bit and off we went. The other account, never questioned, was a ****-take from start to finish, posting stuff just to see how gullible some of those fools were.

[RingoMcCartney]

Good. You do support all MPs other than Tories supporting a bill to stop no deal then.

If boris had no mandate for no deal. Then back benchers seizing the order paper and forcing a prime minister to ask for an extension if he wanted to leave without a deal have no mandate either. Simple as.

[If it be your will]

As a committed remainer and the next election almost turning into a single issue one I’d probably go Lib Dem (I’ve always voted Labour before). However in my constituency it’s a straight Labour/Tory fight so the FPTP system pretty much means any vote that isn’t Labour is half a vote for the Tories. So yes, I will be voting Labour. I’d prefer them to go all out Remain, but common sense says they’ll lose votes if they just do the Lib Dem thing of saying they’ll revoke article 50 (the Lib Dem’s can afford to do it as they know they’ll never get a majority). That given a 2nd referendum is the way forward but it really has to be a referendum with meaningful options, not just Remain v Leave. So I can see why Labour have got to where they’ve got. The obvious flaw in the plan is the one you’ve pointed out, how will you get a half decent deal to put to a referendum if you’re then going to vote against it. That’s why Corbyn has declared himself neutral.

It sounds like you agree the current trajectory for Labour's Brexit policy is hopeless, too. It's an impossible task from here.

I'm somewhat irritated - in a friendly way! - that you have been pushing Labour in a remain direction, only to abandon them (at least at heart) for the Lib Dems anyway. That's exactly what's happened here, and why Labour a struggling. Madness.

[martin_p]

It sounds like you agree the current trajectory for Labour's Brexit policy is hopeless, too. It's an impossible task from here.

I'm somewhat irritated - in a friendly way! - that you have been pushing Labour in a remain direction, only to abandon them (at least at heart) for the Lib Dems anyway. That's exactly what's happened here, and why Labour a struggling. Madness.

But they’d have to go the whole way to get the support of those pushing them to remain surely? I’d agree that Labour hasn’t covered itself in glory over this. It’s fence sitting, certainly over the last six months or so, may have the effect of pushing both sides away. With two such polarised views there isn’t really a middle ground and the desire to ‘listen to and understand everyone’s opinion’ just annoys everyone. I do however stick by my assertion that Labour has upheld its manifesto promises from 2017.

[martin_p]

If boris had no mandate for no deal. Then back benchers seizing the order paper and forcing a prime minister to ask for an extension if he wanted to leave without a deal have no mandate either. Simple as.

So if no one has a mandate what do you suggest?

[RingoMcCartney]

I'd say the Manifesto that said:
We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a cliff-edge for the economy. definitely suggests that a lot of those MPs are against a no-deal exit.

Further to that though MPs, for better or worse, are elected as individuals as our representatives. On the surface you may be voting for a party, manifesto, a PM, etc but ultimately what you're voting for is someone to represent you as best as they see fit. That is where the mandate comes from.

Could you point me to the page in the labour manifesto that said " we will seize the order paper and conspire with tory party MPs that stood on manifesto pledges that said "no deal is better than a bad deal" and force a prime minister to request an extension of article 50 . The same article 50 that we by a massive majority voted for.

I'm struggling to find it!

And as for your throw away comment "on the surface you may be voting for a party, manifesto, a PM, etc". If you're going to try and say once they , on the basis of that manifesto promise to their voting constituents, become our "elected representatives" . They can just toddle off down to London and do what ever they want, regardless of their manifesto pledges. Then why have a bloody manifesto to stand on in the first place!!!

The manifestos are the basis on which voters differentiate between one candidate and the next!

If they're gonna tear it up and and act as "best as they see fit" Then the manifesto pledges on which they were elected arent worth the paper they were written on.

They should stand as independents.

Here's a question for you aggi.

What if a party that you hadn't voted for was elected as a government. Then wanting to bring in some extreme measures that you, and the majority if the People thought were outrageous, decided because they were acting "as best as they saw fit" decided to suspend all general elections for the next 20 years or something like that, if not exactly that. Would that be acceptable aggi. ?

Because that's taking your arguement to its logical conclusion.


Yes




Or



No?

[RingoMcCartney]

So if no one has a mandate what do you suggest?

We enact the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed.

Mandate?


Article 50 voted for by the vast vast majority of MPs.


Thank you.

[Devils_Advocate]

I made a mistake regards the Dame Laura Cox inquiry that looked into bullying and inappropriate sexual behaviour. It wasn't her that said "The fish always rots from the head" when referring to john Bercow and the culture inside Westminster. It was 2 female MPs, one a northern Irish one (I think) and also jess Philips (again I think)

Either way, it's not a very complimentary thing to be said about someone at the very heart of the democratic process is it?

Anyway, you now, finally, accept that rises in the cost of food and goods disproportionately affects the lowest paid. Despite trying to wriggle out of admitting previously, by using average wage rises and RPI !

So it just leaves you to confirm whether or not millions of the lowest paid , who have as you now concede, been disproportionately affected by the rise in prices of food, goods and fuel, during the 40 odd years of membership of the Common Market/European Market. Voted to leave in the 2016 referendum?

Yes



Or



No?

Think you have missed the other two questions from Aggi that you have failed to answer. If you want others to answer your incessant questions why don't you try and offer others the same courtesy. Thats what good honest debate is all about

[RingoMcCartney]

Think you have missed the other two questions from Aggi that you have failed to answer. If you want others to answer your incessant questions why don't you try and offer others the same courtesy. Thats what good honest debate is all about

Why not give aggi some respect and allow him to speak for himself?

Just a thought.

[martin_p]

We enact the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed.

Mandate?


Article 50 voted for by the vast vast majority of MPs.


Thank you.

Leave under what terms?

[Devils_Advocate]

Why not give aggi some respect and allow him to speak for himself?

Just a thought.

Thought you'd have got the hang how these messageboards work by now but stop swerving and just answer his Q's

[martin_p]

Why not give aggi some respect and allow him to speak for himself?

Just a thought.

Why not give him some respect and answer his questions. Just a thought.

[Lancasterclaret]

Leave under what terms?

I'm not 100% sure he's aware of where he is at the moment.

What is he going to do

Option 1 - ignore and talk about something else

Option 2 - attack another poster for pointing out where he is

[martin_p]

I'm not 100% sure he's aware of where he is at the moment.

What is he going to do

Option 1 - ignore and talk about something else

Option 2 - attack another poster for pointing out where he is

Please please! Wrongo is keen that posters be allowed to speak for themselves. I’m sure he’ll give a full, direct answer to the question.

[martin_p]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

Glad it’s not just the Luxembourg PM making Johnson look stupid!

[Devils_Advocate]

Bozo really has found himself 'In the Thick of It' this week

[android]

He calls himself a Marxist, but his party policies are not marxist (certainly 2017 manifesto wasn't)

I suspect that if they get in and they succeed, they will push further to the left, but no more lefty than the social democrats systems of Northern Europe.

I don't believe you are that naïve Lancaster. Plenty of leaders / governments have got into power on a seemingly relatively moderate proposition and then...well you know the rest.

I did consider running Tall Paul's joke about Erasmus spelling Mcdonnell's name wrong but I decided that this is too serious. If people want to support and vote for the Marxist Mcdonnell so be it. But if people keep pretending that he is something he is not then I am going to keep pointing out the truth.

[martin_p]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 1568811715

Now he thinks he’s perfected the Jedi mind trick.

‘There’s no press here’

‘These aren’t the droids you’re looking for’

[CrosspoolClarets]

People think they are being reasonable about a second referendum which restricts Leave to one variant of it, but they would never consider applying the same logic to Remain (e.g. only Remain if the EU doesn’t integrate any further).

We should call it for what it is - an opportunity to stack the deck and ensure Remain wins in a 2nd vote.

[martin_p]

People think they are being reasonable about a second referendum which restricts Leave to one variant of it, but they would never consider applying the same logic to Remain (e.g. only Remain if the EU doesn’t integrate any further).

We should call it for what it is - an opportunity to stack the deck and ensure Remain wins in a 2nd vote.

How can people vote on the basis of what the EU may or may not do? You’d could only vote on the basis of the U.K. would never integrate further with the EU (although that’s a term so open to interpretation any decent politician could drive a bus through it).

[BleedingClaret]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... SApp_Other

Glad it’s not just the Luxembourg PM making Johnson look stupid!

The Luxembourg’s PM’s behaviour was exactly as arrogant as the populist view of these exulted People

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't believe you are that naïve Lancaster. Plenty of leaders / governments have got into power on a seemingly relatively moderate proposition and then...well you know the rest.

I did consider running Tall Paul's joke about Erasmus spelling Mcdonnell's name wrong but I decided that this is too serious. If people want to support and vote for the Marxist Mcdonnell so be it. But if people keep pretending that he is something he is not then I am going to keep pointing out the truth.

Not denying that he regards himself as a Marxist. But his parties plans are more Northern European socialist than marxist. I've even acknowledged that there is a risk that they would move further to the left in the event of a successful govt.

Your first line though is pretty telling. You could use that with a lot more justification for the current UK government but your side of the debate doesn't.

[Lancasterclaret]

People think they are being reasonable about a second referendum which restricts Leave to one variant of it, but they would never consider applying the same logic to Remain (e.g. only Remain if the EU doesn’t integrate any further).

We should call it for what it is - an opportunity to stack the deck and ensure Remain wins in a 2nd vote.

Keep using undemocratic means to shut down parliament CC, and remain will win for sure.

For Brexit to last, you have to do it with democratic support. Seriously doubt you have that with the way it is being done at the moment.

[claretspice]

People think they are being reasonable about a second referendum which restricts Leave to one variant of it, but they would never consider applying the same logic to Remain (e.g. only Remain if the EU doesn’t integrate any further).

We should call it for what it is - an opportunity to stack the deck and ensure Remain wins in a 2nd vote.

The EU cannot unilaterally integrate further for a few reasons. Firstly because it is not a thing in the way you suggest, but a collection of member nations. They can choose to integrate further, but it's just that, a choice. And secondly, because that choice would allow the UK to opt out or use its veto, just as in every other major integration in the last 30 years.

In any event, I don't think anyone would debate that any referendum result precluded a further referendum if, despite the above, a U.K. PM with a kamikaze streak decided to take the UK into closer integration in a manner that wasn't reversible by a future prime minister.

So the "remain" choice in any future referendum would be exactly the one you say it should be. The choice has to be between the options that are known to exist at the time of voting.

[AndyClaret]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 1568811715

Now he thinks he’s perfected the Jedi mind trick.

‘There’s no press here’

‘These aren’t the droids you’re looking for’

Labour activist who works for Emily Thornberry, he speak with forked tongue.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/ ... 1349892096" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

I believe that it costs about £6k per child per year to run a state school. So make it easier to run schools. Let private individuals, companies, charities, run schools much more easily, and let the government pay the fees by way of vouchers. An average class of 20 could raise £100k per annum, enough to pay a full time teacher and have a fair bit of cash for other expenses. Let the facilities take second place to a work ethos, to discipline, to tolerance, to a smaller school perhaps where everyone knows everyone (especially - all the teachers know all the pupils) rather than the ginormous sausage factories that are currently in vogue. A school of 200 pupils, two classes of 20 per year, say 14 full time teachers plus a head, income £1m per year. Commercial? Possibly. Look at this sort of thing. Look at big schools, small schools, parent-run schools. Above all, look at keeping the Education Authorities out of them and let the parents be the ultimate arbiters. If schools are popular with parents, let them fly. The more involved the parents are, the better.

And if the vastly rich FA could be persuaded to spend say 10% of its annual income, which means more than £200m per year, on school playing fields and other school infrastructure (to replace the playing fields that have been scandalously sold by governments of all colours), so much the better.

Your suggestions have already been put into practice by this and the last government (and to a lesser degree with the previous Labour government), and already many problems have come to light. When you turn education into a market, the cost goes up. In order to have choice, you have to have overabundance, and you will always get parents gaming the system. Given the choice, most parents would prefer their local school to be a good one, rather than having to choose among half a dozen, and potentially end up sending their child to one that is rated less good than the others. If it were up to me, there would be no OFSTED rankings at all.

My middle daughter entered secondary school last year. We have two schools within a mile of our house that are both rated "outstanding". One of them (the closest) was rated seventh in the country when we went to view it, and this became her first choice (as a result of being the closest school, rather than its rating). The one she ended up getting was over three miles away, and not rated as high. Both of the outstanding schools were filled by students "living within half a mile" of them (the criteria by which students are chosen). It's possible to rent a flat very close to one of these schools for just six months in order to ensure entry. It's very likely that when she makes her hour long journey to school each day, she passes by someone making the opposite journey to one of these "outstanding" schools from their house close to where her school is. This is how ridiculous parental choice has become. And the differences between the schools? Marginal. A good student will do well at any of the three secondary schools mentioned. A student will benefit more from a shorter commute than the differences in these school rankings, yet the system has encouraged some parents to blow ten grand or so on getting the right address to gain this perceived advantage.

Get rid of the education authorities and let the parents decide, is the same as; let's ignore evidence and expert opinion, and hand the decision to parents who are probably far less clued up on the subject than any of the experts.

[nil_desperandum]

I don't believe you are that naïve Lancaster. Plenty of leaders / governments have got into power on a seemingly relatively moderate proposition and then...well you know the rest.

Don't disagree with that in theory but in practical terms there's absolutely no prospect of a Labour majority government any time soon, indeed I often wonder if we'll ever have a govt with a clear majority again, (unless of course we get an independent Scotland, in which case the Tories should be in with a good chance of a majority govt in England under the FPTP system.)
If McDonnell were to be part of Labour led administration he wouldn't be able to get any extreme measures through Parliament, unless of course he / Corbyn did something most likely legal like shut it down and ignore its wishes. Now what outrage that would cause.

[dsr]

The EU cannot unilaterally integrate further for a few reasons. Firstly because it is not a thing in the way you suggest, but a collection of member nations. They can choose to integrate further, but it's just that, a choice. And secondly, because that choice would allow the UK to opt out or use its veto, just as in every other major integration in the last 30 years.

In any event, I don't think anyone would debate that any referendum result precluded a further referendum if, despite the above, a U.K. PM with a kamikaze streak decided to take the UK into closer integration in a manner that wasn't reversible by a future prime minister.

So the "remain" choice in any future referendum would be exactly the one you say it should be. The choice has to be between the options that are known to exist at the time of voting.

Which would be against Labour policy, because they want to exclude at least one of the options. Labour want to offer us a choice of either Remain, or a probably bogus leave deal stitched together by two parties who want Remain to win.

[dsr]

Your suggestions have already been put into practice by this and the last government (and to a lesser degree with the previous Labour government), and already many problems have come to light. When you turn education into a market, the cost goes up. In order to have choice, you have to have overabundance, and you will always get parents gaming the system. Given the choice, most parents would prefer their local school to be a good one, rather than having to choose among half a dozen, and potentially end up sending their child to one that is rated less good than the others. If it were up to me, there would be no OFSTED rankings at all.

My middle daughter entered secondary school last year. We have two schools within a mile of our house that are both rated "outstanding". One of them (the closest) was rated seventh in the country when we went to view it, and this became her first choice (as a result of being the closest school, rather than its rating). The one she ended up getting was over three miles away, and not rated as high. Both of the outstanding schools were filled by students "living within half a mile" of them (the criteria by which students are chosen). It's possible to rent a flat very close to one of these schools for just six months in order to ensure entry. It's very likely that when she makes her hour long journey to school each day, she passes by someone making the opposite journey to one of these "outstanding" schools from their house close to where her school is. This is how ridiculous parental choice has become. And the differences between the schools? Marginal. A good student will do well at any of the three secondary schools mentioned. A student will benefit more from a shorter commute than the differences in these school rankings, yet the system has encouraged some parents to blow ten grand or so on getting the right address to gain this perceived advantage.

Get rid of the education authorities and let the parents decide, is the same as; let's ignore evidence and expert opinion, and hand the decision to parents who are probably far less clued up on the subject than any of the experts.

For one thing, I expect your opinion would be different if your local school was poor-to-terrible. In that case, you would be glad of an overabundance of places rather than being forced into the closest school regardless of how bad it was.

For another, you and I seem to have different opinions as to who are the "experts" in bringing up your daughter. Without even knowing you, I say you are the expert in bringing up your daughter. Not the Education authorities.

[AndrewJB]

You lost me on your last sentence as to being a sensible debate and clearly showed your true colours. I stand by what I said, the EU could have easily made a few concessions and the UK would not have had a referendum and we would all be living in an alternative universe today. Also just as an aside mind you, you would be far more credible in your stance if you quoted from sources other than the BBC and the Guardian, perhaps you could add a few quotes from the Speaker just to drive home your point.

What kind of concessions outside of the ones they made do you think the EU could have made for Cameron in 2016?

And if you seriously think the Tories are a party for ordinary people, what have they done for them?

[AndrewJB]

It doesn’t lie squarely with the government. It lies squarely with parliament. If it was solely up to government to get us out, we’d be gone already. Far too many politicians in parliament busy skriking about not having a deal, then doing everything they can to remove the only bargaining chip we have left to get a reasonable deal. Makes no sense at all.

If we get a deal (I want one and it’s a really big if) the opposition parties that voted it thru parliament will spend the next five years complaining about it and blaming whichever government we have anyway.

Could do with another gunpowder plot, cos this load of wasters we have in the HoC right now aren’t worth ****, regardless of party affiliation.

The government is the body that negotiated brexit - not parliament. The government is the body that put forward a deal deemed so bad that many of its own MPs voted against it. And now the government is failing to agree any kind of compromise with the EU to get a deal done - not parliament. The government took three years to get us where we are now - not parliament. The government had a working majority in parliament, and the government threw that away - not parliament. How much more evidence do you need held in front of your face before you realise how utterly inept this government has been?

[CrosspoolClarets]

How can people vote on the basis of what the EU may or may not do? You’d could only vote on the basis of the U.K. would never integrate further with the EU (although that’s a term so open to interpretation any decent politician could drive a bus through it).

You couldn’t of course.

Leave has been decided - now it is all about what type of Leave.

Thus any second referendum should be the current deal, or no deal. The only people suggesting Remain should be on the ballot are Remainers desperate for a reversal. Look at this thread for proof. Hardly any Leave voter has changed their minds so why hold a new Remain / Leave vote? All the polls say that whilst there has been a small swing to Remain this is largely because people who did not vote in 2016 are now saying they will (in my view, people who are undeserving of a second chance).

[Devils_Advocate]

Labour activist who works for Emily Thornberry, he speak with forked tongue.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/ ... 1349892096" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well done but this wasn't hidden and was stated in the Gaurdian article if you'd have cared to read it. How dare a Labour activist have a sick 7 year old in the hospital Bozo decides to do a PR exercise at

[Lancasterclaret]

You couldn’t of course.

Leave has been decided - now it is all about what type of Leave.

Thus any second referendum should be the current deal, or no deal. The only people suggesting Remain should be on the ballot are Remainers desperate for a reversal. Look at this thread for proof. Hardly any Leave voter has changed their minds so why hold a new Remain / Leave vote? All the polls say that whilst there has been a small swing to Remain this is largely because people who did not vote in 2016 are now saying they will (in my view, people who are undeserving of a second chance).

And there you go, you ignore almost half the country and wonder why people are going "Er, hang on a sec".

[CrosspoolClarets]

because that choice would allow the UK to opt out or use its veto, just as in every other major integration in the last 30 years.

That is a total misunderstanding of the real world. Technically, legally, correct. But not reality.

Reality is that vetos only give you bargaining power. If the other 27 countries are desperate for you to vote with them they will either offer something to prevent your veto, or threaten you in some way. That’s why we haven’t vetoed much over the years.

A perfect example of why Cameron was being disingenuous when he talked of the veto in the context of the EU army, or Turkey entering. Does anyone really think he would have had the balls to use it? Just some threat for Frankfurt to pinch the City of London and we would have backed down. The trouble is, all these quid pro quos haven’t left the U.K. any richer. The rich thrive, the middle class enjoy their lattes, the poor stagnate.

That’s why we needed a referendum. We were right to have it. We were right to vote out.

[CrosspoolClarets]

And there you go, you ignore almost half the country and wonder why people are going "Er, hang on a sec".

Not ignore. Get them a good deal. Hopefully. We are in this together but we voted out. By all means get them to vote on deal or no deal. Just not Remain.

Leave means Leave.

[Lancasterclaret]

That is a total misunderstanding of the real world. Technically, legally, correct. But not reality.

Reality is that vetos only give you bargaining power. If the other 27 countries are desperate for you to vote with them they will either offer something to prevent your veto, or threaten you in some way. That’s why we haven’t vetoed much over the years.

A perfect example of why Cameron was being disingenuous when he talked of the veto in the context of the EU army, or Turkey entering. Does anyone really think he would have had the balls to use it? Just some threat for Frankfurt to pinch the City of London and we would have backed down. The trouble is, all these quid pro quos haven’t left the U.K. any richer. The rich thrive, the middle class enjoy their lattes, the poor stagnate.

That’s why we needed a referendum. We were right to have it. We were right to vote out.

Fact free as usual

You want to leave, you are prepared to lie through your teeth to get it. We get it. Whatever floats your boat.

Just be honest with yourself that you are just making stuff up.

[Lancasterclaret]

Not ignore. Get them a good deal. Hopefully. We are in this together but we voted out. By all means get them to vote on deal or no deal. Just not Remain.

Leave means Leave.

Where is this good deal with our red lines and the ERG?

Leave means Leave, just not an any cost and if we can't get what was promised in 2016, then something else needs to be considered.

[quoonbeatz]

All the polls say that whilst there has been a small swing to Remain this is largely because people who did not vote in 2016 are now saying they will (in my view, people who are undeserving of a second chance).

Seen some ridiculous views on here but that's pretty special.

[AndrewJB]

For one thing, I expect your opinion would be different if your local school was poor-to-terrible. In that case, you would be glad of an overabundance of places rather than being forced into the closest school regardless of how bad it was.

For another, you and I seem to have different opinions as to who are the "experts" in bringing up your daughter. Without even knowing you, I say you are the expert in bringing up your daughter. Not the Education authorities.

The school at which I'm a governor received a low OFSTED rating ("requires improvement") about ten years ago, but I didn't take my eldest daughter out, and my other two still went there. Committed and enthusiastic students with stable home lives will flourish wherever they go to school, and the differences between the "best" and the "worst" schools in my borough are probably very small. You have to understand the story underneath all the data. One family with two children in a school can skew attendance data massively by rarely bringing their children to school, for example. Ranking schools and categorizing them as "outstanding" "good" or "needs improvement" - only leads to parents competing for places at what they perceive to the best school, and again it's those with the most money who win out in this by gaming the system. Sadly for them I think it's almost always money wasted. They'd be better off hiring a tutor.

I think parents are number one when it comes to loving their children, but the reason we have teachers (and doctors) is because these people are highly trained in what they do. You wouldn't turn to a doctor and say; "thank you for your advice, but I'm afraid my wife and I, who know best, don't agree"

[claret2018]

Hopefully an EU army will be formed in the next decade, then invade the UK and conquer it, making us part of the EU again.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Labour activist who works for Emily Thornberry, he speak with forked tongue.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/ ... 1349892096" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Did he invite the press?