David Davis resigns

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:45 pm

claretandy wrote:You misunderstand, Mays deal would win by default, even though it might only get 30% in the first round.

That's how an AV system works. It get's rid of the options that the least number of people want first then see's which is the most popular of the options left. So yes, an option can finish a distant second on 'first choice' votes but still end up winning.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 2:52 pm

At the end of the day Mays so called deal, isn't what the country voted for. So why vote on it at all. The country had it's say 2 years ago, all she has to do is deliver. Only she isn't up to it.
Her not being up to it isn't a reason to have a second vote. People really are clutching at straws here. If it wasn't for the bitterness of those who lost first time round, and by that I mean the politicians not the people on this board, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You are all entitled to your opinion. Westminster ate obliged to follow the will of the people, no matter what their personal opinion is.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:17 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:At the end of the day Mays so called deal, isn't what the country voted for. So why vote on it at all. The country had it's say 2 years ago, all she has to do is deliver. Only she isn't up to it.
Her not being up to it isn't a reason to have a second vote. People really are clutching at straws here. If it wasn't for the bitterness of those who lost first time round, and by that I mean the politicians not the people on this board, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. You are all entitled to your opinion. Westminster ate obliged to follow the will of the people, no matter what their personal opinion is.

Go on then, what did it vote for?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:24 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Seriously, the media, some politicians and the total muppets who egg them on are driving an even bigger wedge between people and levering it ever wider. It is crazy. Absolutely crazy. The repercussions would make the decision as to whether to stay in the EU totally immaterial. The likes of Greening, Soubry, Clegg, Blair etc are doing more damage to this country than has been done since WW2.

The reason why there is a big wedge is because the country was split almost 50-50 after the referendum, nothing more, nothing less!

Some want to believe otherwise.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:27 pm

Spijed wrote:The reason why there is a big wedge is because the country was split almost 50-50 after the referendum, nothing more, nothing less!

Some want to believe otherwise.

The other big reason is that May took the country into an unnecessary general election and lost her working majority. Now she can be held to ransom by a handful of MPs, whether they support Remain or Leave.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:36 pm

claretandy wrote:You misunderstand, Mays deal would win by default, even though it might only get 30% in the first round.

But if out really meant out as a lot of the Brexiteers on here have been saying then May's deal wouldn't get second. It will only get second if either the tide as switched away from Remain so that a lot of Remainers now would prefer May's fudge or if actually a lot of the leave voters didn't want anything close to a No Deal Brexit in which case Democracy would be failing to force the people down a no deal Brexit which was only supported by a minority

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:26 pm

martin_p wrote:Go on then, what did it vote for?

They voted to leave, not partially leave.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:38 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:They voted to leave, not partially leave.

Like it or not, May’s proposal will mean we are no longer a member of the EU. Not sure what people don’t understand about that.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:47 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Yes it does! Let's test your democratic credentials or otherwise shall we!?

Do you accept the result of the referendum held on 23rd June 2016?

Yes or No?

A democratically elected government is carrying out the result of that referendum, and you can’t stop whinging about exactly how they are choosing to go about it, so where does that leave your democratic credentials?

Would May’s proposals involve us leaving the EU?

Yes or no?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:52 pm

Looks like Jacob Rees Mogg is calling the shots now. He and his ERG pals have had their 4 amendments to the Chequers deal accepted by May, which according to most commentators kills the deal. May’s credentials as the weakest PM we’ve ever had are enhanced.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:01 pm

Greenmile wrote:A democratically elected government is carrying out the result of that referendum, and you can’t stop whinging about exactly how they are choosing to go about it, so where does that leave your democratic credentials?

Would May’s proposals involve us leaving the EU?

Yes or no?

No. If we're still paying the fees and are legally obliged to follow the rules, then we are de facto members even if technically we aren't.

If Scotland had voted for independence and the UK had tried this same dealing - leave things as they are but declare that Scotland is no longer in the UK - would you think that satisfied the referendum? And parhaps more relevantly, do you think Nicola Sturgeon would think it satisfied the referendum?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:03 pm

And a prominent Leave campaigner is now pretty much admitting he lied during the referendum campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... tion-fears

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:06 pm

dsr wrote:No. If we're still paying the fees and are legally obliged to follow the rules, then we are de facto members even if technically we aren't.

If Scotland had voted for independence and the UK had tried this same dealing - leave things as they are but declare that Scotland is no longer in the UK - would you think that satisfied the referendum? And parhaps more relevantly, do you think Nicola Sturgeon would think it satisfied the referendum?

There’s no such thing as a de facto member, as Ringo would no doubt argue, it’s a binary question, are we in or out. As you’ve identified, we’re out. Democracy triumphs!

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:06 pm

martin_p wrote:Like it or not, May’s proposal will mean we are no longer a member of the EU. Not sure what people don’t understand about that.

I don't understand , that you can't understand, that if May's proposal gives Brussels sovereignty over Britain, in any form, we aren't leaving the EU.
HER proposal includes allowing Brussels powers that the people who voted leave, don't want them to have. I say her proposal, because as yet the EU have proposed nothing. Understandably, considering they are sat in a room full of spineless wonders.
Donald Trump, as much as I dislike him, is right. Any deal that takes so long to push through is bad. It's taken so long because Tory remainers, are hoping beyond hope, to water down the leave agenda, that was voted for by the people.
As has been stated by both sides, you can't be half in/half out. No having your cake and eating it. If we go, we need to go. Then we can start to negotiate what sort of a future we have with Europe outside the EU. I realise that people want to know what that is before we leave, but that isn't realistic.
It needs to be fate accompli, before either side starts to take it seriously, instead of playing around with it like a toy.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:07 pm

martin_p wrote:There’s no such thing as a de facto member, as Ringo would no doubt argue, it’s a binary question, are we in or out. As you’ve identified, we’re out. Democracy triumphs!

I really hope you don't believe that.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:09 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:I don't understand , that you can't understand, that if May's proposal gives Brussels sovereignty over Britain, in any form, we aren't leaving the EU.
HER proposal includes allowing Brussels powers that the people who voted leave, don't want them to have. I say her proposal, because as yet the EU have proposed nothing. Understandably, considering they are sat in a room full of spineless wonders.
Donald Trump, as much as I dislike him, is right. Any deal that takes so long to push through is bad. It's taken so long because Tory remainers, are hoping beyond hope, to water down the leave agenda, that was voted for by the people.
As has been stated by both sides, you can't be half in/half out. No having your cake and eating it. If we go, we need to go. Then we can start to negotiate what sort of a future we have with Europe outside the EU. I realise that people want to know what that is before we leave, but that isn't realistic.
It needs to be fate accompli, before either side starts to take it seriously, instead of playing around with it like a toy.

Do you have anything that outlines what the Leave agenda was when we voted? Because the way I remember it was various Leave campaigners telling different stories about what Brexit might look like. If you can point me to the official Leave view on the post Brexit world I’d appreciate it

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:10 pm

dsr wrote:I really hope you don't believe that.

He can I not believe it, it’s a fact! You’re either a member of the EU or you aren’t!

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:18 pm

martin_p wrote:He can I not believe it, it’s a fact! You’re either a member of the EU or you aren’t!

The bit I hope you don't believe is that it would mean "Democracy triumphs". It's the same sort of argument that Remainers were using when they claimed the result was advisory only. "Democracy" means doing what the people wanted, not finding a technicality that enables you to ignore what the people wanted.

The FA has the same problem with banning directors. Say the owner of a randomly chosen football club - let's say Leeds City - is banned by the FA from being the managing director and owner of the club, so he puts the shares in his wife's name and makes her managing director and tells her exactly what to do - he is de facto owner and director. Is that "The FA triumphs"?

Or suppose the Irish abortion referendum was not liked by thew government so they abolished constitution amendment 8 as ordered, but introduced a new law saying that abortion was illegal. They would have done what the referendum demanded. "Democracy triumphs"? Of course it wouldn't.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:19 pm

dsr wrote:No. If we're still paying the fees and are legally obliged to follow the rules, then we are de facto members even if technically we aren't.

If Scotland had voted for independence and the UK had tried this same dealing - leave things as they are but declare that Scotland is no longer in the UK - would you think that satisfied the referendum? And parhaps more relevantly, do you think Nicola Sturgeon would think it satisfied the referendum?

If you genuinely believe we would still be a member of the EU if May’s proposals are carried out, then you might want to do some reading up on the matter (you should really have done this before you voted, but better late than never, I suppose).

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:20 pm

dsr wrote:The bit I hope you don't believe is that it would mean "Democracy triumphs". It's the same sort of argument that Remainers were using when they claimed the result was advisory only. "Democracy" means doing what the people wanted, not finding a technicality that enables you to ignore what the people wanted.

The FA has the same problem with banning directors. Say the owner of a randomly chosen football club - let's say Leeds City - is banned by the FA from being the managing director and owner of the club, so he puts the shares in his wife's name and makes her managing director and tells her exactly what to do - he is de facto owner and director. Is that "The FA triumphs"?

Or suppose the Irish abortion referendum was not liked by thew government so they abolished constitution amendment 8 as ordered, but introduced a new law saying that abortion was illegal. They would have done what the referendum demanded. "Democracy triumphs"? Of course it wouldn't.

So where can I find out ‘what the people wanted’ then? Was there some sort of Leave manifesto that defined what leave meant? You’re the third person I’ve asked, no response from anyone. What exactly did the people want?

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:21 pm

There wasn't various forms of leave, or various forms of remain on the ballot sheet, no matter what people might have said.
It was Leave or Remain. I along with a majority voted Leave. So we should Leave. If people had an issue with that, the time to say so was before the ballot papers were printed.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:21 pm

dsr wrote:The bit I hope you don't believe is that it would mean "Democracy triumphs". It's the same sort of argument that Remainers were using when they claimed the result was advisory only. "Democracy" means doing what the people wanted, not finding a technicality that enables you to ignore what the people wanted.

The FA has the same problem with banning directors. Say the owner of a randomly chosen football club - let's say Leeds City - is banned by the FA from being the managing director and owner of the club, so he puts the shares in his wife's name and makes her managing director and tells her exactly what to do - he is de facto owner and director. Is that "The FA triumphs"?

Or suppose the Irish abortion referendum was not liked by thew government so they abolished constitution amendment 8 as ordered, but introduced a new law saying that abortion was illegal. They would have done what the referendum demanded. "Democracy triumphs"? Of course it wouldn't.

The only thing we know (some of) “the people” wanted was to leave the EU. May’s proposals would achieve that (no matter how much you want to lie to yourself and others that they don’t). Ergo, the will of (some of) the people will have been respected.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:22 pm

martin_p wrote:So where can I find out ‘what the people wanted’ then? Was there some sort of Leave manifesto that defined what leave meant? You’re the third person I’ve asked, no response from anyone. What exactly did the people want?

Independence from the EU would certainly be on the list. Whatever else people may have thought they were voting for, they weren't voting for a choice between the EU setting the rules while we have 1/28th of the votes, or the EU setting the rules while we have no vote at all.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:25 pm

dsr wrote:Independence from the EU would certainly be on the list. Whatever else people may have thought they were voting for, they weren't voting for a choice between the EU setting the rules while we have 1/28th of the votes, or the EU setting the rules while we have no vote at all.

Turns out they were though, doesn’t it? If only they had put a bit more thought into the ballot papers (and the entire vote, come to think of it).

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:27 pm

dsr wrote:Independence from the EU would certainly be on the list. Whatever else people may have thought they were voting for, they weren't voting for a choice between the EU setting the rules while we have 1/28th of the votes, or the EU setting the rules while we have no vote at all.

So where can I find that written down then, because I remember some Leave campaigners talking about the Norway model.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:28 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:There wasn't various forms of leave, or various forms of remain on the ballot sheet, no matter what people might have said.
It was Leave or Remain. I along with a majority voted Leave. So we should Leave. If people had an issue with that, the time to say so was before the ballot papers were printed.

Just to reiterate, the May deal means we leave the EU.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:30 pm

Greenmile wrote:The only thing we know (some of) “the people” wanted was to leave the EU. May’s proposals would achieve that (no matter how much you want to lie to yourself and others that they don’t). Ergo, the will of (some of) the people will have been respected.

And as in the Irish example, if the Irish government abolished the eighth amendment and passed a law making abortion illegal, they would have complied with the legal question written on the referendum paper. But would that be democracy?

Incidentally, you have misunderstood the line where I said "then we are de facto members even if technically we aren't". Maybe I didn't make it clear enough? "Technically we aren't [members]" means that we are not members. I'm saying that if the politicians find a technicality to justify the letter of their position while disregarding the truth of the public vote, then that's not democracy. I'm sorry you entirely missed the point.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:31 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:There wasn't various forms of leave, or various forms of remain on the ballot sheet, no matter what people might have said.
It was Leave or Remain. I along with a majority voted Leave. So we should Leave. If people had an issue with that, the time to say so was before the ballot papers were printed.

And under Mays proposal we are leaving as the majority wished. You seem to think there was more than just vote Leave on the ballot paper as you seem to think there is a clear definition of what putting a cross next to Leave meant

I think the question you was asked was can you show us where in the Leave campaign this was clearly defined?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:33 pm

martin_p wrote:Just to reiterate, the May deal means we leave the EU.

And if you're happy with that level of integrity from your politicians, in all respects not just the EU vote, then that's your prerogative.

And to answer the point below, if your opinion is genuinely that all that people wanted was to cross our name off the official list but otherwise to carry on as before, that's also your prerogative.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:33 pm

dsr wrote:And as in the Irish example, if the Irish government abolished the eighth amendment and passed a law making abortion illegal, they would have complied with the legal question written on the referendum paper. But would that be democracy?

Incidentally, you have misunderstood the line where I said "then we are de facto members even if technically we aren't". Maybe I didn't make it clear enough? "Technically we aren't [members]" means that we are not members. I'm saying that if the politicians find a technicality to justify the letter of their position while disregarding the truth of the public vote, then that's not democracy. I'm sorry you entirely missed the point.

I’m still waiting to see some documentation on what ‘the truth of the vote’ was. All it said on my ballot paper was Remain or Leave, so the truth of the vote is ‘Leave the EU’, nothing more. Anything else is personal opinion.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:36 pm

dsr wrote:And if you're happy with that level of integrity from your politicians, in all respects not just the EU vote, then that's your prerogative.

Integrity and politician are not words that have belonged together for a long time. See my post further up linking to Michael Gove’s admission that using Turkish immigration as a Leave scare tactic was wrong. On that basis I’m not happy with the integrity of the referendum, never mind anything else!

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:37 pm

dsr wrote: And to answer the point below, if your opinion is genuinely that all that people wanted was to cross our name off the official list but otherwise to carry on as before, that's also your prerogative.

But that is literally all we had the opportunity to vote on!

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:42 pm

dsr wrote:And as in the Irish example, if the Irish government abolished the eighth amendment and passed a law making abortion illegal, they would have complied with the legal question written on the referendum paper. But would that be democracy?

Incidentally, you have misunderstood the line where I said "then we are de facto members even if technically we aren't". Maybe I didn't make it clear enough? "Technically we aren't [members]" means that we are not members. I'm saying that if the politicians find a technicality to justify the letter of their position while disregarding the truth of the public vote, then that's not democracy. I'm sorry you entirely missed the point.

So your answer to my original question (to Ringo) ...

Greenmile wrote:Would May’s proposals involve us leaving the EU?

Yes or no?

Is actually ”yes” and not - as you originally wrote - “no”.

Thanks for clearing up your mistake.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:48 pm

Greenmile wrote:So your answer to my original question (to Ringo) ...

Is actually ”yes” and not - as you originally wrote - “no”.

Thanks for clearing up your mistake.

Not a mistake. It's just a difference in emphasis. You're concerned with strict legal technicalities, I'm concerned with the real world effects. If you ca't see the difference, so be it.

But do me the credit of at least understanding that my answer was more than one word. It was one word followed by a sentence of explanation. You may not agree with the explanation, you may even not understand it, but it was part of the answer and to gleefully ignore it as you have done, is not reasonable debate.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:56 pm

dsr wrote:Not a mistake. It's just a difference in emphasis. You're concerned with strict legal technicalities, I'm concerned with the real world effects. If you ca't see the difference, so be it.

But do me the credit of at least understanding that my answer was more than one word. It was one word followed by a sentence of explanation. You may not agree with the explanation, you may even not understand it, but it was part of the answer and to gleefully ignore it as you have done, is not reasonable debate.

I asked Ringo (in the style of Ringo, hence no real room for reasonable debate) for a yes or no answer, so yes or no is all I'm accepting, I'm afraid.

You got it wrong first time, but you persevered and got there in the end. Well done.

FWIW, your sentence of explanation is no doubt 100% true, for you, but there's no way you can honestly and knowingly extrapolate that to 17.4m other people, because that wasn't on the ballot paper.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:01 pm

Greenmile wrote:I asked Ringo (in the style of Ringo, hence no real room for reasonable debate) for a yes or no answer, so yes or no is all I'm accepting, I'm afraid.

Yes, well. Normal conversation doesn't involve setting the rules for how the other person speaks.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:02 pm

claretandy wrote:This only works if May's deal comes third, if May's deal comes second then i think it wins everytime because remainers will but no deal last and leavers would put remain last.

And what's wrong with that? Aside from your favoured option not winning.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:04 pm

claretandy wrote:You misunderstand, Mays deal would win by default, even though it might only get 30% in the first round.

There is no "win by default". If it wins then it wins because of the two most favoured option that one got a majority. Whatever option wins will be the consensus option.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:05 pm

dsr wrote:Yes, well. Normal conversation doesn't involve setting the rules for how the other person speaks.

When you ask a question of Ringo, normal conversation isn't really on the menu. Not my fault you chose to answer for him.

(you may have noticed that the post I quoted when I first asked the question was phrased in exactly the same terms)

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:18 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:It needs to be fate accompli, before either side starts to take it seriously, instead of playing around with it like a toy.

Are my eyes playing tricks on me? Have we really gone from 'well I knew what I was voting for when I voted leave' to 'fait accompli, uncertainty and ambiguity by design'?

I can understand the 'reset button' approach because it's a true Brexit. Don't agree with it, and I don't think every single leave voter had that in mind when in the ballot box, but it's a drastic step with massive ramifications and consequences. Perhaps the people should be consulted before taking such drastic action, I dunno. Any sane country would, in light of new evidence and clearer information, double check with the people that it's definitely what the people want. Can't wonder why some leave voters are against doing that, though. Guess we'll never know.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:21 pm

You are arguing with what is in effect cult members

They believe. That is all they need.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:24 pm

Funny you say that, Lancaster, because I had a paragraph typed out (deleted it, didn't think it followed on from the rest) about how this is all becoming a bit dogmatic sounding.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:27 pm

martin_p wrote:Just to reiterate, the May deal means we leave the EU.

And just to reiterate to you, seeing as you obviously choose to ignore it. If the deal is only acceptable to the EU if they have the power to decide over and above Westminster, we are not leaving. If trade deals are only available if we are under the authority of Brussels, we aren't leaving. If borders are only open if we accept Brussels telling us how to man those borders, we are not leaving.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:27 pm

Course to be perfectly honest, Brexit plus what is going on with President Pee Tape is potentially an utter disaster for this country.

But hey, blue passports and all that jazz

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:30 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:And just to reiterate to you, seeing as you obviously choose to ignore it. If the deal is only acceptable to the EU if they have the power to decide over and above Westminster, we are not leaving. If trade deals are only available if we are under the authority of Brussels, we aren't leaving. If borders are only open if we accept Brussels telling us how to man those borders, we are not leaving.

No, it means we’re leaving.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:33 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And what's wrong with that? Aside from your favoured option not winning.

Because nobody wants it.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:34 pm

Spiral wrote:Are my eyes playing tricks on me? Have we really gone from 'well I knew what I was voting for when I voted leave' to 'fait accompli, uncertainty and ambiguity by design'?

I can understand the 'reset button' approach because it's a true Brexit. Don't agree with it, and I don't think every single leave voter had that in mind when in the ballot box, but it's a drastic step with massive ramifications and consequences. Perhaps the people should be consulted before taking such drastic action, I dunno. Any sane country would, in light of new evidence and clearer information, double check with the people that it's definitely what the people want. Can't wonder why some leave voters are against doing that, though. Guess we'll never know.

I didn't mean to say that fate accompli was necessary, when we voted Leave. Common sense should have sorted the fine details out long ago.
What I'm saying is that because of Remainers rocking the boat, common sense has gone out the window. The EU isn't going to negotiate anything whilst there is in-fighting at Westminster. As long as they think that we will water down the Leave vote, they are hardly likely to offer us anything.
In order to break the dead log, they have to be made aware that we are leaving. With a deal or without a deal, we are leaving. Only then are they likely to come to the table and try and sort this mess out.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:36 pm

Still blaming remainers and the EU?

JFW

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:37 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:I didn't mean to say that fate accompli was necessary, when we voted Leave. Common sense should have sorted the fine details out long ago.
What I'm saying is that because of Remainers rocking the boat, common sense has gone out the window. The EU isn't going to negotiate anything whilst there is in-fighting at Westminster. As long as they think that we will water down the Leave vote, they are hardly likely to offer us anything.
In order to break the dead log, they have to be made aware that we are leaving. With a deal or without a deal, we are leaving. Only then are they likely to come to the table and try and sort this mess out.

Ah, it’s Remain’s fault. Maybe the best thing to do then is let Remain sort it out!

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:46 pm

martin_p wrote:Ah, it’s Remain’s fault. Maybe the best thing to do then is let Remain sort it out!

No the best thing would be to tell those who lost the vote to stay out of it, and let people who actually believe in Leaving get the deal done. I certainly don't blame the EU. If I was in their shoes, I'd do exactly the same. This is a problem caused by those people continuing to moan about a vote they lost 2 years ago.
Democracy took its course. If I'd lost the vote I would have been sick as a parrot, but I wouldn't be crying tears 2 years later asking for a harder stance, or a re vote.