Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[dsr]

Given our current track record I'm not convinced that the hundreds of side deals will be agreed quickly, never mind overnight.

Leave and sort the details out later sounds like a plan if you ignore the details. As a personal example, I'm meant to be travelling to the US for work in the first week of April. At the moment (due to the possible ending of the side deal I mentioned earlier) we don't know whether we'll be able to store the data we'll get from the US on our network in the UK (we won't be anle to do the job otherwise) and, if we do, whether we'll have to follow different procedures from normal. I'm sure there are plenty of others in the same situations.

Presumably the same problem came up between October 2015 and July 2016 when the previous deal was invalid. What did you do then? Did it make a significant difference?

[Lancasterclaret]

Lancaster please don't do that.

Please don't insult my intelligence or waste our time with silly transparent stuff like this.

ANYONE proposing a delay of one or two years has only one aim or ambition in mind - the total obliteration or dropping of Brexit...nothing less than that.

The Referendum was 2 years 8 months ago [the delays were not caused by those on the winning side, that's not gonna be likely is it? ]

- even now many are calling for us to just 'drop Brexit' because the vote was a long time ago.

Comments like..'many of those dopey pensioners who did not know what they are voting for, are now six foot under...a lot more young people are now eligible to vote and should be given the chance'

Add two more years on and those comments will be more widespread and a lot louder.

This is what your duplicitous comment about a 'two year postponement' is about....it's about delay, and more delay so that at some point punters will be legitimately able to say - the Referendum result is irrelevant now, it was too long ago....and loads more of us will be totally fed up and bored to death of the whole embarrassing fiasco.

This may well be the direction we now go in, again kicking that well-battered can down the street..who knows,.. and we are going to need permission to do this from the EU, who may play hardball.

At least be honest though about why you think a two year delay is a sensible move.


If we go down the 'extra two years' route [we may be forced down it] then a proper Brexit will not happen.

Once again... that will cause untold damage going forward, as a freely offered one-off democratic vote of the British public is tossed into the waste-bin, because some people [the losers] did not like the result.

Its a common sense call Hampers. We need time to sort out our economy to deal with a "No Deal" and we need time to sort out with our electorate what it is we want.

You can call it what you want, but your response isn't a rational one.

Me and Summit agreed on this , claretandy and me agreed on a CU, there is scope for a Brexit that works for most, not just some.

[claretspice]

claretspice...good afternoon..if I answer your question responsibly, with a semi-detailed response I will get a lorry-load of responses, follow up questions and the like, either being abusive or trying to catch me out - I quite like that game sometimes, but I can't spend all afternoon on here tapping on my keyboard...I really have better more fulfilling things to do.

I know in my own head I think, what 'proper Brexit' is, and we ain't going to get it.

But that's the point, isn't it. With the possible exception of a handful of dogmatic and evangelical pro-Europeans, every one of us - whatever way we voted in the referendum - has in our heads what a Brexit we'd be happy with/be able to tolerate looks like. And everyone's opinion on that is valid, whichever way they voted in the referendum.

Ken Clarke has sacrificed his ambition to be Prime Minister to advocate European integration, but he voted for Brexit last night on the 29th of March based on the PM's deal. Nicky Morgan has done likewise. Almost every remain voting MP in the House of Commons voted for the Brexit legislation in the first place. Who has compromised more - those MPS, or Jacob Rees Mogg, stuck on his island of Brexit purity?

Brexit won the referendum, but what that didn't do is give those who believe in a particular form of Brexit that wasn't specifically on the ballot paper to seize total control over a process that should reflect the concerns and welfare of the entire nation.

[Lancasterclaret]

Which they are going to do unless something brings together the opposition.

[AndrewJB]

claretspice...good afternoon..if I answer your question responsibly, with a semi-detailed response I will get a lorry-load of responses, follow up questions and the like, either being abusive or trying to catch me out - I quite like that game sometimes, but I can't spend all afternoon on here tapping on my keyboard...I really have better more fulfilling things to do.

I know in my own head I think, what 'proper Brexit' is, and we ain't going to get it.

I think it's quite likely we'll get no brexit at all now (and to be honest I'm glad). No support in the house for any particular style of brexit - certainly not for a no-deal - and the EU will only let us extend if there's a substantive change in UK politics. I would imagine the government will be too scared to outright revoke article fifty, and May won't want to fight another election, so that brings it all back to the only remaining thing the EU will allow an extension for, which is a second referendum. This has seemed to me the inevitable path of events since the end of summer.

[NCClaret]

My reason for voting to Leave was for sovereignty issues. 3 years on that hasn't changed. However, I have, and still do, (just) believe that to exit we need to do so by negotiation and compromise. In other words we need to 'manage' our Brexit for the good of the UK and all its citizens, regardless of how they voted. Indeed for the EU too - to try to facilitate a degree of unanimity and harmony about the issue. However, a thought and question. If the result of the referendum had been the other way round would there have been a negotiated and managed 'Remain'?

[Jakubclaret]

It's not the facts of what the EU is doing that we can't agree on; it's the action the UK should take as a result. My attitude is that the EU isn't going to play ball, so we have to leave and get on with it; Remainers' attitude seems to be that the EU isn't going to play ball, so we must either delete the referendum result, or we must do as they say and eat the scraps off their table.

That’s it, you lose the will to argue when people can’t see further than the end of they nose, I don’t blame ringo for swerving from the debates.

[claretspice]

My reason for voting to Leave was for sovereignty issues. 3 years on that hasn't changed. However, I have, and still do, (just) believe that to exit we need to do so by negotiation and compromise. In other words we need to 'manage' our Brexit for the good of the UK and all its citizens, regardless of how they voted. Indeed for the EU too - to try to facilitate a degree of unanimity and harmony about the issue. However, a thought and question. If the result of the referendum had been the other way round would there have been a negotiated and managed 'Remain'?

To some extent, the UU's relationship with the EU was already a result of internal compromise within the UK. In Europe, but not in the EU or Schengen, etc. Of course, parliament and the government would have had to take into account internal UK opinion in determining the UKs position on a host of issues going forwards. And there's every chance that a narrow remain victory would have emphasised the strength of negative feeling the UK and made in both the interests of the government and the EU to look at the EU's direction of travel to avoid that feeling becoming a majority in future.

So in short, yes.

[AndrewJB]

My reason for voting to Leave was for sovereignty issues. 3 years on that hasn't changed. However, I have, and still do, (just) believe that to exit we need to do so by negotiation and compromise. In other words we need to 'manage' our Brexit for the good of the UK and all its citizens, regardless of how they voted. Indeed for the EU too - to try to facilitate a degree of unanimity and harmony about the issue. However, a thought and question. If the result of the referendum had been the other way round would there have been a negotiated and managed 'Remain'?

The issues many people have with the EU would not have gone away. Unfortunately I think too much of the Remain effort was focused on negativity, rather than challenging the more outlandish claims made about the EU (and about how rosy things will be out of it). Farage said that a defeat for leave would not see the end of his efforts, and either a Labour or Tory government would probably have been tasked with engaging to reform the EU.

[aggi]

Presumably the same problem came up between October 2015 and July 2016 when the previous deal was invalid. What did you do then? Did it make a significant difference?

I seem to remember there was a grace period in the guidance subsequent to the ruling which meant that it wasn't the current cliff-edge position.

[aggi]

Reading the European coverage of Brexit is interesting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47554566" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One comment in particular from an Austrian newspaper resonated:

"They have forgotten that the Brexit vote was a scarce 52 to 48%. They seem incapable of compromise, which could initiate the desperately needed reconciliation process in the deeply divided country."

[NCClaret]

To some extent, the UU's relationship with the EU was already a result of internal compromise within the UK. In Europe, but not in the EU or Schengen, etc. Of course, parliament and the government would have had to take into account internal UK opinion in determining the UKs position on a host of issues going forwards.

So in short, yes.

I take the point that over years HMG has fought for, won and lost on issues as part of being in the EU. My point is that it is a torturous process. That is why, first and foremost, I want the UK to have the ability to determine its own sovereign path, as a sovereign nation state without recourse too another unless it is our will. My point on 'managed remain' is that for many 'Leavers', the referendum result was definitive but many of us could see the need to negotiate and indeed compromise. I don't believe 'Remain' would have been managed nor in reality could be because our relationship with the EU is not totally self-determining (27 other states to consider) ... which takes me back to my original point as to why I voted Leave.

[aggi]

If the result of the referendum had been the other way round would there have been a negotiated and managed 'Remain'?

I would say Yes. Maybe not in the nature of our current relationship (which is already a better deal than the other countries) but more in the future. Things like an EU army, schengen, watering down the vetoes, the UK joining the Euro, some aspects of immigration, etc would have been pushed back on.

[claretspice]

I take the point that over years HMG has fought for, won and lost on issues as part of being in the EU. My point is that it is a torturous process. That is why, first and foremost, I want the UK to have the ability to determine its own sovereign path, as a sovereign nation state without recourse too another unless it is our will. My point on 'managed remain' is that for many 'Leavers', the referendum result was definitive but many of us could see the need to negotiate and indeed compromise. I don't believe 'Remain' would have been managed nor in reality could be because our relationship with the EU is not totally self-determining (27 other states to consider) ... which takes me back to my original point as to why I voted Leave.

Which is absolutely fine (I don't agree with you generally, but I understand your perspective), but it doesn't avoid the point that if we are leaving, it surely ought to be done in a manner which is acceptable to as much of the population (and indeed all 4 nations within the UK, whose needs must be taken into account) as possible, and that necessarily involves compromise and therefore a slightly softer form of brexit. As indeed does virtually any massive change to the status quo in any context.

The idea that because Brexit won, the concerns of your neighbour (who stands at risk of losomg his job from the brexit you think the country voted for) don't matter a jot - that's not right, is it?

[Lancasterclaret]

*Checks notes*

We are not in Schengen, we are not in the Euro, we are not liable for Euro bail outs

So a pretty definite "yes"

[NCClaret]

The issues many people have with the EU would not have gone away. Unfortunately I think too much of the Remain effort was focused on negativity, rather than challenging the more outlandish claims made about the EU (and about how rosy things will be out of it). Farage said that a defeat for leave would not see the end of his efforts, and either a Labour or Tory government would probably have been tasked with engaging to reform the EU.

I think you're absolutely 'spot-on' with this analysis AndrewJB. Whilst a committed 'Leaver' I can see how a better relationship with Europe and a reformed relationship with the EU is essential and if approached differently in the past could well have ensured Brexit didn't need to happen.

[DocFoster]

An excellent article from the Telegraph.
I would imagine a few on here can identify with this. You know exactly who you are

Brexit has shown up the Establishment as a bunch of small-minded, mediocre bullies.

JULIE BURCHILL

No matter what happens next with Brexit, I’ll always be grateful that I was alive during the past three years – ever since David Cameron announced on February 20, 2016 the date of the EU referendum. This is probably the last truly momentous event in the long and fascinating history of my country that I’ll experience, and it’s been a pleasure and privilege to witness my countrymen coming nearer to becoming actual revolutionaries than anyone ever dreamed they could be.
The vote for Brexit being a revolutionary act, of course the Establishment would fight it tooth and nail, not least in devising the “deal” that Theresa May has spent the past few months flogging. But since the morning of June 24, 2016, I’ve been an incorrigible Pollyanna and believed that some essential decency would make the nest-feathering pen-pushers, who have tried so hard to keep us as good little easily-managed euro-portions, give way to the voice of the people in the end.
Even now, at high noon, a part of me believes that an everyday miracle could happen, and that with one bound we could be free at last, despite the increasingly deranged and desperate measures taken by the Project Fear mob to maintain the status quo.
But even if we Leavers are denied Brexit, we won’t be forgiven for an achievement which can never be taken from our side; the way the ordinary people of this country have shown The Great And The Good (who found in the European Dream their ultimate feel-good do-nothing playpen-politics) to be a small-minded, mediocre bunch of bullies who would rather defy democracy itself than risk any adjustment to their own sense of entitlement.
Yes, something nasty in the woodshed has been revealed about a sizeable section of British society, but that thing is not the alleged racism of my fellow Brexiteers. It is the long-concealed contempt of the Remainers for most of their fellow citizens.
They have felt free to indulge in the forbidden taste-thrill of bigotry for once in their self-censoring lives. The parasexual kick derived from hating the old and the working-class has energised a supine and smug ruling-class who have outed themselves as the true enemy within.
We Brexiteers, by contrast, were rebels sick of treading water in the shallow end of history and who spoke as surely as we did in 1945 when we voted for a Labour Government. If we are thwarted, I fully expect it to poison the political life of this country forever. If you think you’ve seen extremism and thought you could stifle it, you’ve seen nothing yet.
What was previously a good-natured nationalism stands every chance of becoming a poisoned chalice and you can expect this country to follow the fate of other European nations as diverse as Italy and Hungary, perhaps electing leaders who make Nigel Farage look like Clement Attlee.
Coincidentally, June 23 is Midsummer’s Eve, when pagans and then Christians from Cornwall to Croatia lit bonfires to drive out the evil spirits which were thought to roam freely on that night. In the morning, the sun would regenerate and good would triumph.
One thing which we can all agree on, no matter which side we deem good, is that no one will triumph if Brexit is stopped. And one thing we should all take very seriously is that these bonfires will keep burning for many years to come.

[Lancasterclaret]

Nice

JUlie Burchill is batshit mental, and articles like this could be written by Tommy Robinson.

[Lancasterclaret]

Think I prefer this from Marina Hyde on the tactics of Brexiteer MPs

https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/ ... 7500794881" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrosspoolClarets]

Brexit won the referendum, but what that didn't do is give those who believe in a particular form of Brexit that wasn't specifically on the ballot paper to seize total control over a process that should reflect the concerns and welfare of the entire nation.

I could quote your lengthy reply to me earlier, but the above reply to another better suits my comment.

I would normally be fully supportive of compromises et al, but I have two problems with the thrust of your point.

The first is the point the above poster NCClaret makes - if the roles were reversed and Remain had won 52-48, we wouldn’t be going for a compromise “Remain-lite” which, for example, moved us to an outer ring like Norway. We’d have been integrated even more heavily than before, claiming a mandate to do so.

The second problem I have is that we all voted with beliefs on a spectrum. Say the Brexit with the furthest distance from the EU is a 10, and a full “in the Euro” Remain is a 1. Arguably Remain voters sit somewhere in the 1-5 range, and Leave voters in the 6-10 range. I consider myself an 8 (a believer in free trade deals and independence but also wanting migration to continue but in a managed way).

The “compromise” view would have us leaving with a 5.5 - worse than any Brexiteer held in their heads on 2 June 2016. That hardly seems fair, especially with reference to my first problem. An 8 (the average of Brexiteer positions) would seem much fairer, that way half of all Brexiteers would be disappointed, but all would get a proper Brexit. They did, after all, win. If 52% of us vote for a Tory Government we would get a full Tory Government.

Whereas Parliament have debated this using your logic - which is that options 1 to 10 all remain on the table, meaning the 5.5 average is the likely outcome (a Customs Union with no ability to do trade deals or adjust our own tariffs or quotas).

MPs, like many of us, are clever people of course. They see this perfectly well. That’s why I don’t feel that using terms like “sabotaging” is in any way excessive.

[Lord Rothbury]

Nice

JUlie Burchill is batshit mental, and articles like this could be written by Tommy Robinson.

What utter nonsense.
It seems likely now that the will of the people will be ignored and that Brexit will be abandoned.What happens next surely a general election.This could be the greatest shake up to the present party system this country has ever seen

[Lancasterclaret]

How does a GE sort out the current issue?

[Devils_Advocate]

I watched it ....hard going to be honest. It is some bloke who provides no logical sequence of evidence to back up his statement that both sides broke the law (although he does quote a figure showing that remain spent more in total - which quotes the electoral commission as its source). On the other hand we have that same electoral commission telling us that "Remain" did NOT break the law.

This sort of thing just adds to my conviction that the argument for Leaving the EU falls into two subdivisions - the ignorant and the liars.

Is Jakub a youtube star in his spare time cos from the above description it certainly sounds like it

[Lancasterclaret]

This is how mad this all this

"Sabine Weyand told EU ambassadors that decision to vote on Malthouse compromise - already rejected by Brussels umpteen times - showed that parliament was “divorced from reality”.

We are wasting precious time on stuff like this, we have a serious problem to sort!

[NCClaret]

Claret Spice: "The idea that because Brexit won, the concerns of your neighbour (who stands at risk of losomg his job from the brexit you think the country voted for) don't matter a jot - that's not right, is it?"

Personally, I don't see things in terms of "we won ... you didn't" (unless its a Rovers match). I see the need for compromise and most definitely a solution that will set in place a path that will begin to address the disharmony there is in the UK over Brexit and many other issues. What I say with the greatest possible respect to those who have a different view on this to me is that I am pretty moderate in all this, but even I am wearying of what at times, to me, seems to be endless dilution of Brexit. I'm not happy with May's deal for instance but on balance, and as the Attorney General said yesterday, as a political decision, I would go with it.
Without doubt there are many in Parliament and other Remain establishment figures for whom Brexit should not happen. Those calling for a so called 'People's Vote' for instance, which I believe would be catastrophic for our democracy and as a nation would set us back decades sorely test my resolve to compromise on all this. People's views on this are hardening ... that is dangerous.

[claretspice]

I could quote your lengthy reply to me earlier, but the above reply to another better suits my comment.

I would normally be fully supportive of compromises et al, but I have two problems with the thrust of your point.

The first is the point the above poster NCClaret makes - if the roles were reversed and Remain had won 52-48, we wouldn’t be going for a compromise “Remain-lite” which, for example, moved us to an outer ring like Norway. We’d have been integrated even more heavily than before, claiming a mandate to do so.

The second problem I have is that we all voted with beliefs on a spectrum. Say the Brexit with the furthest distance from the EU is a 10, and a full “in the Euro” Remain is a 1. Arguably Remain voters sit somewhere in the 1-5 range, and Leave voters in the 6-10 range. I consider myself an 8 (a believer in free trade deals and independence but also wanting migration to continue but in a managed way).

The “compromise” view would have us leaving with a 5.5 - worse than any Brexiteer held in their heads on 2 June 2016. That hardly seems fair, especially with reference to my first problem. An 8 (the average of Brexiteer positions) would seem much fairer, that way half of all Brexiteers would be disappointed, but all would get a proper Brexit. They did, after all, win. If 52% of us vote for a Tory Government we would get a full Tory Government.

Whereas Parliament have debated this using your logic - which is that options 1 to 10 all remain on the table, meaning the 5.5 average is the likely outcome (a Customs Union with no ability to do trade deals or adjust our own tariffs or quotas).

MPs, like many of us, are clever people of course. They see this perfectly well. That’s why I don’t feel that using terms like “sabotaging” is in any way excessive.

Except that a compromise was on the table yesterday that is significantly further along the spectrum than your 5.5, by any rational measure. Secondly, you've absolutely no basis apart from your own deep suspicion of the other side of the debate for the first point you make. Thirdly, your suggestion that the compromise should only be between Brexiter interests/perspectives and should ignore the interests (and views, and indeed rights) of the rest of the population strikes me as incredibly narrow minded. It doesn't involve reaching out to the nation at all, and it involves being completely indifferent to the impact of Brexit on particular parts of and people in the EU. It's simply self-serving logic, and perhaps by that standard it's no surprise you consider anyone seeking to bring the interests of the balance of the whole country a "saboteur".

Your language is bellicose, if you don't mind me saying. And that isn't helping anyone.

[aggi]

The second problem I have is that we all voted with beliefs on a spectrum. Say the Brexit with the furthest distance from the EU is a 10, and a full “in the Euro” Remain is a 1. Arguably Remain voters sit somewhere in the 1-5 range, and Leave voters in the 6-10 range. I consider myself an 8 (a believer in free trade deals and independence but also wanting migration to continue but in a managed way).

The “compromise” view would have us leaving with a 5.5 - worse than any Brexiteer held in their heads on 2 June 2016. That hardly seems fair, especially with reference to my first problem. An 8 (the average of Brexiteer positions) would seem much fairer, that way half of all Brexiteers would be disappointed, but all would get a proper Brexit. They did, after all, win. If 52% of us vote for a Tory Government we would get a full Tory Government.

I'd have said from your analysis that something like a 5.2 would be fair ...

[DocFoster]

Nice

JUlie Burchill is batshit mental, and articles like this could be written by Tommy Robinson.

But she absolutely nailed it with ...

"The parasexual kick derived from hating the old and the working-class has energised a supine and smug ruling-class who have outed themselves as the true enemy within."

Recognise anyone?

[Lord Rothbury]

How does a GE sort out the current issue?

It doesn,t but it gives the electorate the chance to show the present incumbents at the H of P what they think of their betrayal of democracy.

[Falcon]

An excellent article from the Telegraph.
I would imagine a few on here can identify with this. You know exactly who you are

Brexit has shown up the Establishment as a bunch of small-minded, mediocre bullies.

JULIE BURCHILL

No matter what happens next with Brexit, I’ll always be grateful that I was alive during the past three years – ever since David Cameron announced on February 20, 2016 the date of the EU referendum. This is probably the last truly momentous event in the long and fascinating history of my country that I’ll experience, and it’s been a pleasure and privilege to witness my countrymen coming nearer to becoming actual revolutionaries than anyone ever dreamed they could be.
The vote for Brexit being a revolutionary act, of course the Establishment would fight it tooth and nail, not least in devising the “deal” that Theresa May has spent the past few months flogging. But since the morning of June 24, 2016, I’ve been an incorrigible Pollyanna and believed that some essential decency would make the nest-feathering pen-pushers, who have tried so hard to keep us as good little easily-managed euro-portions, give way to the voice of the people in the end.
Even now, at high noon, a part of me believes that an everyday miracle could happen, and that with one bound we could be free at last, despite the increasingly deranged and desperate measures taken by the Project Fear mob to maintain the status quo.
But even if we Leavers are denied Brexit, we won’t be forgiven for an achievement which can never be taken from our side; the way the ordinary people of this country have shown The Great And The Good (who found in the European Dream their ultimate feel-good do-nothing playpen-politics) to be a small-minded, mediocre bunch of bullies who would rather defy democracy itself than risk any adjustment to their own sense of entitlement.
Yes, something nasty in the woodshed has been revealed about a sizeable section of British society, but that thing is not the alleged racism of my fellow Brexiteers. It is the long-concealed contempt of the Remainers for most of their fellow citizens.
They have felt free to indulge in the forbidden taste-thrill of bigotry for once in their self-censoring lives. The parasexual kick derived from hating the old and the working-class has energised a supine and smug ruling-class who have outed themselves as the true enemy within.
We Brexiteers, by contrast, were rebels sick of treading water in the shallow end of history and who spoke as surely as we did in 1945 when we voted for a Labour Government. If we are thwarted, I fully expect it to poison the political life of this country forever. If you think you’ve seen extremism and thought you could stifle it, you’ve seen nothing yet.
What was previously a good-natured nationalism stands every chance of becoming a poisoned chalice and you can expect this country to follow the fate of other European nations as diverse as Italy and Hungary, perhaps electing leaders who make Nigel Farage look like Clement Attlee.
Coincidentally, June 23 is Midsummer’s Eve, when pagans and then Christians from Cornwall to Croatia lit bonfires to drive out the evil spirits which were thought to roam freely on that night. In the morning, the sun would regenerate and good would triumph.
One thing which we can all agree on, no matter which side we deem good, is that no one will triumph if Brexit is stopped. And one thing we should all take very seriously is that these bonfires will keep burning for many years to come.

This is possibly the biggest load of b0llox I've ever seen on this board, which is really saying something.

[Lancasterclaret]

"The parasexual kick derived from hating the old and the working-class has energised a supine and smug ruling-class who have outed themselves as the true enemy within."

Says a lot more about you that I'm afraid.

It doesn,t but it gives the electorate the chance to show the present incumbents at the H of P what they think of their betrayal of democracy.

Okay, assuming that millions are going to suddenly change the way they vote because we are leaving the EU, who are they going to vote for to change the status quo?

[summitclaret]

Gloves coming off now. ERG amendment for tomorrow to add ruling out a second referendum to thd extension vote. Quite right imo. If people want compromise then once no deal is ruled out today then it is surely only fair yo rule out something from the other extreme.

[Lancasterclaret]

ERG have 70 MPs

They have ****** this up from the start.

If it wasn't for them,we would have passed Mays deal and we would be leaving without a 2nd ref on March 29th.

Everything that goes wrong from now is 100% the ERGs fault. They have gambled on the future of the country so they can get their own way.

If they won't compromise, then I don't see why anyone else should.

[Greenmile]

You oaf.

Ask decent questions, and have a large cup of strong coffee.
I am stating the obvious... if you think I’m not, check out tomorrow’s newspapers (any of them)..

They will say the same as me.

Lancs gone to bed..?

So I've had a look through some of the papers today, and didn't find any type of story that you appear to be alluding to (but not being specific about). Got any links?

[Greenmile]

I watched it ....hard going to be honest. It is some bloke who provides no logical sequence of evidence to back up his statement that both sides broke the law (although he does quote a figure showing that remain spent more in total - which quotes the electoral commission as its source). On the other hand we have that same electoral commission telling us that "Remain" did NOT break the law.

This sort of thing just adds to my conviction that the argument for Leaving the EU falls into two subdivisions - the ignorant and the liars.

Thanks Keith. You've saved me 5 minutes by watching that so I didn;t have to.

Sounds a lot like the type of stuff Jakub would take as gospel (provided it confirms his preconceptions of course) - he certainly falls into one of your categories of brexiter, and I'm not calling him a liar.

[nil_desperandum]

Gloves coming off now. ERG amendment for tomorrow to add ruling out a second referendum to thd extension vote. Quite right imo. If people want compromise then once no deal is ruled out today then it is surely only fair yo rule out something from the other extreme.

Two potential problems with that.
1. Yesterday Bercow didn't permit any of the amendments to be voted on, so to be consistent he might not do so again.
2. Parliament might be reluctant to back it because it would reduce the chances of the EU agreeing to the extension. If even the possibility of a 2nd ref is ruled out then the EU might justifiably argue that we have not sufficient grounds for an extension.
(So if no deal is off the table, and no extension on the table then the remaining option is revoke Article 50. So basically the ERG need to be careful what they vote for).

[AndrewJB]

I could quote your lengthy reply to me earlier, but the above reply to another better suits my comment.

I would normally be fully supportive of compromises et al, but I have two problems with the thrust of your point.

The first is the point the above poster NCClaret makes - if the roles were reversed and Remain had won 52-48, we wouldn’t be going for a compromise “Remain-lite” which, for example, moved us to an outer ring like Norway. We’d have been integrated even more heavily than before, claiming a mandate to do so.

The second problem I have is that we all voted with beliefs on a spectrum. Say the Brexit with the furthest distance from the EU is a 10, and a full “in the Euro” Remain is a 1. Arguably Remain voters sit somewhere in the 1-5 range, and Leave voters in the 6-10 range. I consider myself an 8 (a believer in free trade deals and independence but also wanting migration to continue but in a managed way).

The “compromise” view would have us leaving with a 5.5 - worse than any Brexiteer held in their heads on 2 June 2016. That hardly seems fair, especially with reference to my first problem. An 8 (the average of Brexiteer positions) would seem much fairer, that way half of all Brexiteers would be disappointed, but all would get a proper Brexit. They did, after all, win. If 52% of us vote for a Tory Government we would get a full Tory Government.

Whereas Parliament have debated this using your logic - which is that options 1 to 10 all remain on the table, meaning the 5.5 average is the likely outcome (a Customs Union with no ability to do trade deals or adjust our own tariffs or quotas).

MPs, like many of us, are clever people of course. They see this perfectly well. That’s why I don’t feel that using terms like “sabotaging” is in any way excessive.

What leaving looked like or meant was never discussed properly during the referendum, as the leave camp was divided on what it would be exactly. Once the referendum was over there should have been a period of consultation across the country, but the government wanted to keep it all to themselves. After her disastrous snap election, May absolutely should have seen the signs, and at the very least convened a cross party committee, but still she kept it all in-house. So when brexit supporting people say we should all get behind it - what do they mean? Belief and confidence, in what exactly? Should we all have supported May's secretly negotiated deal? Like the first two brexit secretaries did? I'm all for pulling together as a country, but when the government itself is divided who do you get behind?

If you're looking for someone to blame for brexit not happening, I'd say May is your first port of call (for not nailing down what brexit is before going off to negotiate), but then also the ERG have to take some responsibility.

[Lancasterclaret]

Fun fact

"The tariffs for the Uk Government, some of them are set in Euros"

Taking back control eh?

[Pstotto]

May has put forward to the house, the option of MPs voting for a fascist coup by blocking a No Deal Brexit.

They have to support democracy today by accepting that the process now is Hard Brexit.

The leave voters did not vote for a deal or for May's deal, in fact the opposite.

The D.U.P. should have been told two years ago that if they wanted a soft border then they would have to leave the union. What has followed is the biggest farce in UK history.

100 years ago women got the vote.They've been screwing our world ever since. Oh let them have a go... for parity's sake.... tragic. The Queen has presided over the worst period in UK history since 1666.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMgm5xoxOrw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Meanwhile, journalist bitch in the Guardian calling for an EU invasion, no doubt still on her GAP year in her mind preparing for motherhood after missionary work in the D.R.Congo...

[nil_desperandum]

If you're looking for someone to blame for brexit not happening, I'd say May is your first port of call (for not nailing down what brexit is before going off to negotiate), but then also the ERG have to take some responsibility.

But remember Mrs May was totally clear about what it mean't:
"Brexit means brexit" !!!!!!!
As you imply, what chance did we have?

[Greenmile]

I've posted several links showing that remain broke the same rules as leave.
I doubt you have bothered to read them or have just outright ignored what they say because, and this goes back to my original comment, you base your entire opinions on the view of a small handful of like minded people

No you haven't. You've posted one link that says (amongst other things) :-

"The High Court agreed with the Electoral Commission finding in July that Vote Leave had broken the law..."

I'm looking for something that says the same about the Remain campaign. Perhaps I've just missed it and you can point it out to me.

On the other hand, Claret-on-a-T-Rex did find a link which says :-

"The Electoral Commission has rejected allegations that the Remain campaign broke electoral law..."

So you really need to find me a credible source (ie not a random YouTuber) which says the Remain campaign "broke the law".

Or you can just keep repeating the same lie again and again, but don't expect me to engage further with you if you do (other than to point out the fact that you're lying so nobody else is taken in by you) - my time would be better spent trying to explain what evidence is to Ringo, or who sets the minimum wage to Jakub (that's an exaggeration, obviously).

I tend to base my opinion on known facts, rather than things I would like to be true, like you do.

[summitclaret]

And what about the many mps that have tried every trick in the book to undermine the referendum result since 24 june 2016?

[Erasmus]

I noticed today that Philip Hammond announced unexpected high income from taxation, but said he wouldn't be using it to improve public services because of the Brexit problem. Meanwhile my son's school has told us they are going to be closing half a day a week because of lack of funds.

This seems to be a clear example of the fact that Brexit is already damaging people's lives in a tangible way and I have heard nothing to suggest that even in the long run Brexit will improve lives in any tangible way. For those who put forward freedom as an argument, I would say that poverty, individual, communal and national, is the biggest factor that inhibits freedom.

[aggi]

And what about the many mps that have tried every trick in the book to undermine the referendum result since 24 june 2016?

Agreed. Rees Mogg and his ERG cronies are doing everything in their power to stop Brexit at the moment.

[SmudgetheClaret]

What is the point of non binding amendments ?

[SmudgetheClaret]

The sooner we clear these puppets out of Westminster the better anyone who votes red or blue from now on needs to have a word with themselves...

[Lancasterclaret]

You are not wrong Smudge

We haven't got time for this kind of stuff. Whatever way we are going, we need to know by the end of this week so we can try to sort stuff out.

[nil_desperandum]

What is the point of non binding amendments ?

Not sure.
Are they a bit like "non-binding" referenda?

[AndyClaret]

ERG have 70 MPs

They have ****** this up from the start.

If it wasn't for them,we would have passed Mays deal and we would be leaving without a 2nd ref on March 29th.

Everything that goes wrong from now is 100% the ERGs fault. They have gambled on the future of the country so they can get their own way.

If they won't compromise, then I don't see why anyone else should.

Not true, even if everyone in the ERG had voted for the deal, it would have still failed.

[Right_winger]

ERG have 70 MPs

They have ****** this up from the start.

If it wasn't for them,we would have passed Mays deal and we would be leaving without a 2nd ref on March 29th.

Everything that goes wrong from now is 100% the ERGs fault. They have gambled on the future of the country so they can get their own way.

If they won't compromise, then I don't see why anyone else should.

Absolutely nothing to do with the ERG. Themselves and the DUP are the only ones actually standing up for the democratic voice in the UK.

The blame has to go with the hardcore remainer MPs who have since day 1 never accepted the result and put every effort into subverting the result.

It’s still looking unlikely there will be a majority agreement on anything perhaps the looming collapse of the government is the only way forward.