Brexit delayed

[Mellsblue]

Triggering A50 was dumb. But then, almost everything May has done falls into that category.
What could she have done differently?
How about firstly acknowledging Brexit was going to be complex; that she would look at all options; that she would look to carry out a Brexit that minimised harm; and that she would seek consensus, not just at home but with the EU.
She could have gone to the EU for informal talks. She could have built up trust and goodwill, while at the same time having a very clear understanding of exactly what kind of Brexit could be achieved.
She could have stopped talking nonsense, painting herself into a corner, reined in some of her idiotic ministers and MPs, and been open about the impacts Brexit would have.
She could have commissioned impact assessments, made them freely available and been truthful to the public about the consequences of going down a particular route.
She could honestly have laid out the possibilities, while at the same time making it plain that trade offs would be inevitable.
She could have acted like a politician concerned with the national well being, rather than one whose main interest was in retraining power.
She could have worked towards a soft brexit position that would have been acceptable to a majority in the House.
She then could have triggered A50, in the knowledge that she had looked at the options and come out in favour of one that caused the least harm, and commanded enough support across the House to get through.
But she has done none of these things.

She couldnt have informal talks as the EU explicitly ruled it out.
There is no soft Brexit that would unite the house. If there was we'd be there by now.
Yes she's made a myriad of mistakes and I don't think she's a good PM. However, she's in an impossible position. She's fighting the EU, strident Brexiteers, strident reamainers, an opposition that have set six unobtainable tests and Lib Dem party that would vote against any Brexit whatsoever. It's a clusterfuck and if you think following your ten point plan would've made any difference I think your wrong; and that is before at least two are impossible.

[Mellsblue]

What’s the point of forming a position if it’s then blown out of the water by the EU? It also avoids the issue that a consensus would never be reached. You ask for a committee proportional to the Commons but this is just having the same argument amongst a smaller amount of people. Opinion would still be split five different ways, as it is parliament, and their recommendation would still need to go through parliament before becoming an official position, and if the basis of that position was agreed to by the EU after negotiations and changes it would then have go back to parliament to be voted on. You can avoid the parliamentary arithmetic.

Because how can you negotiate if you don't know what you want? Even if a plan was going to get blown out of the water by the EU on first contact, at least we'd know what direction we were aimed in. I don't get your idea that knowing what you would like isn't a prerequisite for a negotiation - how can you try and get things if you don't know what you want?

And the point of having a committee would be to turn the endeavour into a joint "Delivering the will of the people" and sharing the credit/blame, rather than having the absurd current situation where it's an argument over who's delivering the will of the people better and where MPs of similar opinions won't vote on an amendment because the enemy was the one who proposed it. Brexit is the complete renegotiation of our foreign policy, econonic policy and interactions with the world - it's as important as a war and should have been treated like one rather than being petty politics.

If the electorate didn’t vote based on Brexit - and I don’t believe that to be wholly true - then it’s safe to assume that it’s so low down people’s worries that all this media attention and self-flagellation is a monumental waste of time, and that the population as a whole aren’t that bothered about the result. So, let’s just get on with it. As much as I wish the whole sorry mess had never happened.

I'd mark it as another failure of our absurd voting system, which is designed to vote in local MPs individually, but where most people vote for a party or, worse, the leader. In a lot of areas, it's irrelevant who the actual people are, compared to what colour rosette they're wearing.

Puja

Well it's 18 months down the line with negotiations and a looming deadline and there's still no plan as the one we did put to the EU was blown out of the water. If only we'd done that before triggering article 50! Once your idea is blown out of the water it doesn't matter how much prep you've done as your position has been blown out of the water. If you are saying that we should've war gamed lots of different scenarios then I'd agree but once the EU said, childishly, no negotiations, even back channels, prior to triggering A50 then you're really just spending time pissing in the wind.
The committee can be as joint as endeavour as you like but whatever they recommend has to go through the house, which will still be divided as ever. There's also the problem that committees can lead to personal differences taking over the whole show. It's not the panacea you seem to think it is.



You may think the system absurd but you've thought there would at least be an increased % of the vote for the Lib Dems if the country were so disgusted by the Brexit situation. Instead the two Eurosceptic parties had their greatest share of the vote for goodness knows how long.

[Puja]

What’s the point of forming a position if it’s then blown out of the water by the EU? It also avoids the issue that a consensus would never be reached. You ask for a committee proportional to the Commons but this is just having the same argument amongst a smaller amount of people. Opinion would still be split five different ways, as it is parliament, and their recommendation would still need to go through parliament before becoming an official position, and if the basis of that position was agreed to by the EU after negotiations and changes it would then have go back to parliament to be voted on. You can avoid the parliamentary arithmetic.

Because how can you negotiate if you don't know what you want? Even if a plan was going to get blown out of the water by the EU on first contact, at least we'd know what direction we were aimed in. I don't get your idea that knowing what you would like isn't a prerequisite for a negotiation - how can you try and get things if you don't know what you want?

And the point of having a committee would be to turn the endeavour into a joint "Delivering the will of the people" and sharing the credit/blame, rather than having the absurd current situation where it's an argument over who's delivering the will of the people better and where MPs of similar opinions won't vote on an amendment because the enemy was the one who proposed it. Brexit is the complete renegotiation of our foreign policy, econonic policy and interactions with the world - it's as important as a war and should have been treated like one rather than being petty politics.

If the electorate didn’t vote based on Brexit - and I don’t believe that to be wholly true - then it’s safe to assume that it’s so low down people’s worries that all this media attention and self-flagellation is a monumental waste of time, and that the population as a whole aren’t that bothered about the result. So, let’s just get on with it. As much as I wish the whole sorry mess had never happened.

I'd mark it as another failure of our absurd voting system, which is designed to vote in local MPs individually, but where most people vote for a party or, worse, the leader. In a lot of areas, it's irrelevant who the actual people are, compared to what colour rosette they're wearing.

Puja

Well it's 18 months down the line with negotiations and a looming deadline and there's still no plan as the one we did put to the EU was blown out of the water. If only we'd done that before triggering article 50! Once your idea is blown out of the water it doesn't matter how much prep you've done as your position has been blown out of the water. If you are saying that we should've war gamed lots of different scenarios then I'd agree but once the EU said, childishly, no negotiations, even back channels, prior to triggering A50 then you're really just spending time pissing in the wind.

The plan would never be completely blown out of the water, because at least we'd know what we want! We'd know which direction we wanted to go and have something that we could negotiate towards.

I think we must be talking at cross-purposes - I'm not talking about a detailed plan with all the i's dotted and the t's crossed and no room for negotiation that we would present to the EU as a 'take it or leave it' - I'm literally talking about having vague idea of what we wanted Brexit to be and knowing what we wanted to get out of the process.

The committee can be as joint as endeavour as you like but whatever they recommend has to go through the house, which will still be divided as ever. There's also the problem that committees can lead to personal differences taking over the whole show. It's not the panacea you seem to think it is.

But at least then it wouldn't be, "Here is the plan of the Conservatives. Here is the plan of Labour. If you vote for the other side, then you are a traitor to your cause." It would be, "Here is the plan. Vote for it if you think it is right."

You may think the system absurd but you've thought there would at least be an increased % of the vote for the Lib Dems if the country were so disgusted by the Brexit situation. Instead the two Eurosceptic parties had their greatest share of the vote for goodness knows how long.

The Lib Dems were utterly ineffective and having a charismaless void in place of a leader during a very personality-driven election. FPtP incentivises tactical voting and in areas where it was between Conservatives and Labour, Lib Dem would've been a wasted vote, and Labour ran with enough vagueness that they were seen as the soft-Brexit (or even "They'll change their mind after the election" for some more deluded people) option. Plus, the election pitted two polarising leaders against each other and campaigning was partisan, personal, and vicious - people were less likely to vote for a smaller party if it meant The Enemy would get in.

You're right that Brexit wasn't a big issue in the election - people manifestly voted on other things, as can be seen by the fact that Britain's still split down the middle on the subject, while only 12.5% of the vote when to Remain parties. However, that doesn't mean that Brexit's a) not important to people, or b) not important in general. The electorate is just very stupid.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

May went in knowing what she wanted and kaboom. We’re back to square one beyond a vague agreement on security. Plan gone. She knows what road she wants to go down but the EU have closed the road. Months of planning out of the window.

The committee might put something forward on a majority basis but that’s not consensus. It might put things forward on a unanimous basis, as the Brexit committee has previously, only for that to also go kaboom as members then poo poo it, as Gove and friends did last time. That’s before you get to ultra-remainers and ultra-brexiteers not giving a **** what the committee puts forward as all they want is remain/FTA and two fingers to anything else. With the current arithmetic of the house (especially so with Lab refusing to take a position other than we’ll vote against anything the Tories put forward) you won’t find a consensus however you package it up.

Ah, the electorate is stupid. You may be right, though I’d argue that it’s the headliners who have lost the plot at the moment, but it’s not an argument that will gain much traction in one of the worlds oldest and most successful democracies. It’s also not really an answer to any of our problems. Might be good for the next Lab election campaign, though. ‘For the many, not the few. Even if the many are stupid.’ It does have a certain ring to it.

[Puja]

May went in knowing what she wanted and kaboom. We’re back to square one beyond a vague agreement on security. Plan gone. She knows what road she wants to go down but the EU have closed the road. Months of planning out of the window.

The committee might put something forward on a majority basis but that’s not consensus. It might put things forward on a unanimous basis, as the Brexit committee has previously, only for that to also go kaboom as members then poo poo it, as Gove and friends did last time. That’s before you get to ultra-remainers and ultra-brexiteers not giving a **** what the committee puts forward as all they want is remain/FTA and two fingers to anything else. With the current arithmetic of the house (especially so with Lab refusing to take a position other than we’ll vote against anything the Tories put forward) you won’t find a consensus however you package it up.

May went in knowing what she wanted? What was all that "Brexit means Brexit" bollocks then? If you're referring to Chequers, then we needed to know that shit about 22 months ago, not 2 months ago. Plus, Chequers wasn't an ambition or a desire, it was "I think I might be able to get enough of my party behind this, maybe, and not have to rely on too many Labour votes".

If the two party leaders had met and decided to thrash out a common approach back in 2016, then the current arithmetic of the house wouldn't be an issue - it wouldn't be Labour voting against anything the Tories put forward, but a joint proposal. Of course, this requires people being adults and talking to one another in a spirit of national interest, instead of seizing on the most important thing in this generation's politics to use as a stick to beat the other side with, so maybe it was always doomed to failure.

Ah, the electorate is stupid. You may be right, though I’d argue that it’s the headliners who have lost the plot at the moment, but it’s not an argument that will gain much traction in one of the worlds oldest and most successful democracies. It’s also not really an answer to any of our problems. Might be good for the next Lab election campaign, though. ‘For the many, not the few. Even if the many are stupid.’ It does have a certain ring to it.

There's a reason I'm not a politician (apart from the incident with the superglue and the goats). I regard the electorate as a whole as utterly incompetent and underinformed (and yes, I include myself in that, although to a lesser extent than some) and the will of the people to be worth its weight in gold. "For the many, not the few, cause we reckon we can sucker the many with logical fallacies, oversimplifications, and propaganda" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

I also don't have any answers to what would be a sensible form of government, just that polling a load of people with no particular expertise or education in the issues shouldn't hold the mystical quality of righteousness that some people ascribe to it.

Puja

[Digby]

May did perhaps go in knowing what she wanted, but in saying a plan was needed I don’t think people are saying we wanted just the PM or even cabinet to have signed off on a plan, it needed some cross party involvement along with EU buy in on the outline before it was worth signalling our intent to leave

That would have been most likely a crapfest, but still better than what we have now

[Digby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45625 ... ssion=true

It's the math stupid. Yet I'm reasonably confident none of them are the least bit dissuaded by their standing on a platform of bullshit

[Digby]

Keir Starmer very well received at conference saying nobody is ruling out remain as an option, clearly the Labour conference would back remain if they weren't being blocked from voting on such a motion in the interests of democracy, only that's not what the shadow chancellor had been saying, interestingly it's not even in the text of his speech that Keir had approved so he's chosen the biggest stage he could to stick it to John and Jeremy

[Stom]

On the vote thing, I don't personally know many leavers. But I do know my fair share of Tory voters. And without fail they all say the same thing: The people voted for Brexit, there's no point in digging it up again, it's what it is, let's make the most of it.

It just so happens that these Tory voter "let's just get on with it"ers are all Baby Boomers, generally from working class roots who worked their way up to a stable lower middle class position and sent their kids to university.

Now, I hate to generalise here, but this is a fairly large demographic in the UK and when it comes to their media consumption, it's pretty much The Times or The Telegraph, and the BBC. Both the newspapers have pushed this exact message, while the BBC continually conflates impartial with not criticising one side or the other for sheer and utter incompetence.

And it's INFURIATING!

Anyway, back to work.

[Digby]

That's the exact message in the Times? Or is their bias more if it has to be done it should be done competently with a view to minimising damage?

[Mellsblue]

That's the exact message in the Times? Or is their bias more if it has to be done it should be done competently with a view to minimising damage?

Why let facts get in the way of the old ‘right wing press’ line. Even their biggest Brexiteer, Ian Martin, wants some form of compromise along the lines of Chequers. Meanwhile, you have the likes of Rachel Sylvester, Parris and Rifkind harpooning the whole think as vigourously as possible every week. Not to mention the distinctly negative coverage of May’s handling of it all in the Brexit news section.

[Mellsblue]

May went in knowing what she wanted and kaboom. We’re back to square one beyond a vague agreement on security. Plan gone. She knows what road she wants to go down but the EU have closed the road. Months of planning out of the window.

The committee might put something forward on a majority basis but that’s not consensus. It might put things forward on a unanimous basis, as the Brexit committee has previously, only for that to also go kaboom as members then poo poo it, as Gove and friends did last time. That’s before you get to ultra-remainers and ultra-brexiteers not giving a **** what the committee puts forward as all they want is remain/FTA and two fingers to anything else. With the current arithmetic of the house (especially so with Lab refusing to take a position other than we’ll vote against anything the Tories put forward) you won’t find a consensus however you package it up.

May went in knowing what she wanted? What was all that "Brexit means Brexit" bollocks then? If you're referring to Chequers, then we needed to know that shit about 22 months ago, not 2 months ago. Plus, Chequers wasn't an ambition or a desire, it was "I think I might be able to get enough of my party behind this, maybe, and not have to rely on too many Labour votes".

If the two party leaders had met and decided to thrash out a common approach back in 2016, then the current arithmetic of the house wouldn't be an issue - it wouldn't be Labour voting against anything the Tories put forward, but a joint proposal. Of course, this requires people being adults and talking to one another in a spirit of national interest, instead of seizing on the most important thing in this generation's politics to use as a stick to beat the other side with, so maybe it was always doomed to failure.

Ah, the electorate is stupid. You may be right, though I’d argue that it’s the headliners who have lost the plot at the moment, but it’s not an argument that will gain much traction in one of the worlds oldest and most successful democracies. It’s also not really an answer to any of our problems. Might be good for the next Lab election campaign, though. ‘For the many, not the few. Even if the many are stupid.’ It does have a certain ring to it.

There's a reason I'm not a politician (apart from the incident with the superglue and the goats). I regard the electorate as a whole as utterly incompetent and underinformed (and yes, I include myself in that, although to a lesser extent than some) and the will of the people to be worth its weight in gold. "For the many, not the few, cause we reckon we can sucker the many with logical fallacies, oversimplifications, and propaganda" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

I also don't have any answers to what would be a sensible form of government, just that polling a load of people with no particular expertise or education in the issues shouldn't hold the mystical quality of righteousness that some people ascribe to it.

Puja

Getting cross party consensus when we can’t even get intra-party consensus is for the birds. That said, I’d pay a small fortune to watch May, Corbyn and their advisers locked in a room to thrash it out. It would almost make the past two years of hell worth it. Almost.
Anyhoo we are going round in circles. Luckily, we have come up with a strap line should any political party want to commit suicide. Sadly, they’ve proven they don’t need any outside help.

[Stom]

That's the exact message in the Times? Or is their bias more if it has to be done it should be done competently with a view to minimising damage?

Well, from what I've seen, it pretty much is: we have brexit, let's do it right. It's not: Brexit is the most unfathomably idiotic idea for 98% of British people, why the hell are we pushing through with it? Come on you guys, most of you aren't Brexiteers, let's turn around and say no...

My wife - and others from Transylvania - are constantly amazed that there have been no real protests! If this had happened in Romania, there would have been non-stop marches on parliament for weeks and weeks, with people heading to the capital from hundreds of miles away just to stand in the cold with a group of others and shout at a building.

Seriously.

I find it insane: the amount of bloody headaches I have now over Brexit is insane. What happens to my pension? What happens to Student loans? What happens to companies? What happens to VAT? What happens to flights to visit family? What happens to British goods they don't make here? Marmite, decent tea? What happens to my freedom of movement? What happens to my family's freedom of movement if they want to visit us?

It's a fucking mess and because it's Britain, there's absolutely no recourse. Because you "Keep Calm and Get on With It". Fucking idiots.

[Sandydragon]

Keir Starmer very well received at conference saying nobody is ruling out remain as an option, clearly the Labour conference would back remain if they weren't being blocked from voting on such a motion in the interests of democracy, only that's not what the shadow chancellor had been saying, interestingly it's not even in the text of his speech that Keir had approved so he's chosen the biggest stage he could to stick it to John and Jeremy

I’m amazed he has lasted this long.

[Sandydragon]

That's the exact message in the Times? Or is their bias more if it has to be done it should be done competently with a view to minimising damage?

Well, from what I've seen, it pretty much is: we have brexit, let's do it right. It's not: Brexit is the most unfathomably idiotic idea for 98% of British people, why the hell are we pushing through with it? Come on you guys, most of you aren't Brexiteers, let's turn around and say no...

My wife - and others from Transylvania - are constantly amazed that there have been no real protests! If this had happened in Romania, there would have been non-stop marches on parliament for weeks and weeks, with people heading to the capital from hundreds of miles away just to stand in the cold with a group of others and shout at a building.

Seriously.

I find it insane: the amount of bloody headaches I have now over Brexit is insane. What happens to my pension? What happens to Student loans? What happens to companies? What happens to VAT? What happens to flights to visit family? What happens to British goods they don't make here? Marmite, decent tea? What happens to my freedom of movement? What happens to my family's freedom of movement if they want to visit us?

It's a fucking mess and because it's Britain, there's absolutely no recourse. Because you "Keep Calm and Get on With It". Fucking idiots.

It may be idiotic, but more people voted for it than for remain. I don’t like the result, but I respect it was a fair one. It’s a bit hard to march on parliament when a majority wanted this situation, it hasn’t been foisted on the public by the government.

If hard Brexit is the only option then things might change. After all the vote didn’t specify what type of Brexit and that would be the most damaging. I suspect many pro EU groups are waiting to see what the deal would look like before taking any action. Too many demonstrations just become noise.

[Digby]

Keir Starmer very well received at conference saying nobody is ruling out remain as an option, clearly the Labour conference would back remain if they weren't being blocked from voting on such a motion in the interests of democracy, only that's not what the shadow chancellor had been saying, interestingly it's not even in the text of his speech that Keir had approved so he's chosen the biggest stage he could to stick it to John and Jeremy

I’m amazed he has lasted this long.

We'll have to wait and see, he easily had a majority standing to applaud but there were a sizeable minority who stonily remained seated who are perhaps more alligned with the leadership.

For now I'd characterise Corbyn as a raging hypocrite when it comes to his delusional views on democracy, but if he does get behind his members and back remain he makes it easier for those who'd decry my mocking of him

[Stom]

That's the exact message in the Times? Or is their bias more if it has to be done it should be done competently with a view to minimising damage?

Well, from what I've seen, it pretty much is: we have brexit, let's do it right. It's not: Brexit is the most unfathomably idiotic idea for 98% of British people, why the hell are we pushing through with it? Come on you guys, most of you aren't Brexiteers, let's turn around and say no...

My wife - and others from Transylvania - are constantly amazed that there have been no real protests! If this had happened in Romania, there would have been non-stop marches on parliament for weeks and weeks, with people heading to the capital from hundreds of miles away just to stand in the cold with a group of others and shout at a building.

Seriously.

I find it insane: the amount of bloody headaches I have now over Brexit is insane. What happens to my pension? What happens to Student loans? What happens to companies? What happens to VAT? What happens to flights to visit family? What happens to British goods they don't make here? Marmite, decent tea? What happens to my freedom of movement? What happens to my family's freedom of movement if they want to visit us?

It's a fucking mess and because it's Britain, there's absolutely no recourse. Because you "Keep Calm and Get on With It". Fucking idiots.

It may be idiotic, but more people voted for it than for remain. I don’t like the result, but I respect it was a fair one. It’s a bit hard to march on parliament when a majority wanted this situation, it hasn’t been foisted on the public by the government.

If hard Brexit is the only option then things might change. After all the vote didn’t specify what type of Brexit and that would be the most damaging. I suspect many pro EU groups are waiting to see what the deal would look like before taking any action. Too many demonstrations just become noise.

The leave campaign has been shown to be a lie. And a referrendum is not binding anyway. So the only reasons it's being pushed on with are because "Keep Bloody Calm and Get the Fuck On" and because some people stand to make an absolute fortune from it, at the expense of me, you and everyone else in the UK.

[belgarion]

Well, from what I've seen, it pretty much is: we have brexit, let's do it right. It's not: Brexit is the most unfathomably idiotic idea for 98% of British people, why the hell are we pushing through with it? Come on you guys, most of you aren't Brexiteers, let's turn around and say no...

My wife - and others from Transylvania - are constantly amazed that there have been no real protests! If this had happened in Romania, there would have been non-stop marches on parliament for weeks and weeks, with people heading to the capital from hundreds of miles away just to stand in the cold with a group of others and shout at a building.

Seriously.

I find it insane: the amount of bloody headaches I have now over Brexit is insane. What happens to my pension? What happens to Student loans? What happens to companies? What happens to VAT? What happens to flights to visit family? What happens to British goods they don't make here? Marmite, decent tea? What happens to my freedom of movement? What happens to my family's freedom of movement if they want to visit us?

It's a fucking mess and because it's Britain, there's absolutely no recourse. Because you "Keep Calm and Get on With It". Fucking idiots.

It may be idiotic, but more people voted for it than for remain. I don’t like the result, but I respect it was a fair one. It’s a bit hard to march on parliament when a majority wanted this situation, it hasn’t been foisted on the public by the government.

If hard Brexit is the only option then things might change. After all the vote didn’t specify what type of Brexit and that would be the most damaging. I suspect many pro EU groups are waiting to see what the deal would look like before taking any action. Too many demonstrations just become noise.

The leave campaign has been shown to be a lie. And a referrendum is not binding anyway. So the only reasons it's being pushed on with are because "Keep Bloody Calm and Get the Fuck On" and because some people stand to make an absolute fortune from it, at the expense of me, you and everyone else in the UK.

May not be but can you see a Government of ANY colour holding a referendum & not getting the result they want then saying to the electorate
'Thanks for that but we're just going to carry on as normal nothing is going to change', they wouldn't last 5 minutes & wouldn't get back into power
for at least a generation. This whole UKexit has been a balls-up from day one but the majority, stupid, racist or whatever, voted for it.

[Stom]

It may be idiotic, but more people voted for it than for remain. I don’t like the result, but I respect it was a fair one. It’s a bit hard to march on parliament when a majority wanted this situation, it hasn’t been foisted on the public by the government.

If hard Brexit is the only option then things might change. After all the vote didn’t specify what type of Brexit and that would be the most damaging. I suspect many pro EU groups are waiting to see what the deal would look like before taking any action. Too many demonstrations just become noise.

The leave campaign has been shown to be a lie. And a referrendum is not binding anyway. So the only reasons it's being pushed on with are because "Keep Bloody Calm and Get the Fuck On" and because some people stand to make an absolute fortune from it, at the expense of me, you and everyone else in the UK.

May not be but can you see a Government of ANY colour holding a referendum & not getting the result they want then saying to the electorate
'Thanks for that but we're just going to carry on as normal nothing is going to change', they wouldn't last 5 minutes & wouldn't get back into power
for at least a generation. This whole UKexit has been a balls-up from day one but the majority, stupid, racist or whatever, voted for it.

BUT THEY DIDN'T! At least not within margin of error. It was less than 1% AND they were lied to. So if a fair referendum was rerun, it would not have the same results. But it goes against the will of the 1% who will make an absolute killing out of this. In fact, they've already started. You really think those investors who put all that money into the leave campaign give a shit about anything but their money?

A government who says: the referendum was too tight to say there is a mandate. So we will rerun it with tighter checks on spending and message. Would be entirely correct.

[belgarion]

The leave campaign has been shown to be a lie. And a referrendum is not binding anyway. So the only reasons it's being pushed on with are because "Keep Bloody Calm and Get the Fuck On" and because some people stand to make an absolute fortune from it, at the expense of me, you and everyone else in the UK.

May not be but can you see a Government of ANY colour holding a referendum & not getting the result they want then saying to the electorate
'Thanks for that but we're just going to carry on as normal nothing is going to change', they wouldn't last 5 minutes & wouldn't get back into power
for at least a generation. This whole UKexit has been a balls-up from day one but the majority, stupid, racist or whatever, voted for it.

BUT THEY DIDN'T! At least not within margin of error. It was less than 1% AND they were lied to. So if a fair referendum was rerun, it would not have the same results. But it goes against the will of the 1% who will make an absolute killing out of this. In fact, they've already started. You really think those investors who put all that money into the leave campaign give a shit about anything but their money?

A government who says: the referendum was too tight to say there is a mandate. So we will rerun it with tighter checks on spending and message. Would be entirely correct.

The size of the majority is irrelevant, it was still a majority. Admittedly the circumstances would be different but would we be discussing the legitimacy
of the referendum result if it was the Remain side winning by only 1%? I don't think so

[Puja]

May not be but can you see a Government of ANY colour holding a referendum & not getting the result they want then saying to the electorate
'Thanks for that but we're just going to carry on as normal nothing is going to change', they wouldn't last 5 minutes & wouldn't get back into power
for at least a generation. This whole UKexit has been a balls-up from day one but the majority, stupid, racist or whatever, voted for it.

BUT THEY DIDN'T! At least not within margin of error. It was less than 1% AND they were lied to. So if a fair referendum was rerun, it would not have the same results. But it goes against the will of the 1% who will make an absolute killing out of this. In fact, they've already started. You really think those investors who put all that money into the leave campaign give a shit about anything but their money?

A government who says: the referendum was too tight to say there is a mandate. So we will rerun it with tighter checks on spending and message. Would be entirely correct.

The size of the majority is irrelevant, it was still a majority. Admittedly the circumstances would be different but would we be discussing the legitimacy
of the referendum result if it was the Remain side winning by only 1%? I don't think so

I think the referendum should have had a minimum margin needed to effect change when it was set up, but that wasn't how it was set up, so we can't really postdate it.

Puja

[belgarion]

Exactly, the referendum was held, a majority (no matter how small) voted to leave so we're leaving. Crying about the terms of the
referendum now is an exercise in futility before the vote was the time to moan about the conditions set.

Oh & by the way the argument for having a 2nd referendum on the grounds that 'hard UKexit' wasn't what people voted for
is answered by the above

[Stom]

Exactly, the referendum was held, a majority (no matter how small) voted to leave so we're leaving. Crying about the terms of the
referendum now is an exercise in futility before the vote was the time to moan about the conditions set.

Oh & by the way the argument for having a 2nd referendum on the grounds that 'hard UKexit' wasn't what people voted for
is answered by the above

But it's a referendum, not an election. It means nothing of the sort. And there are plenty of ways to "fix" it so you don't have to leave if it were binding...

This concept of: "well, I hate it, but that's what it is" is something I really don't like in the British psyche and it's something preyed on by the people who stand to gain most from unpopular decisions. Constantly.

[Digby]

I did think a second referendum wasn't much of an idea, but the deal we're heading for is shockingly bad so it's an idea I would now support. I thought we'd have to wait at least a decade to try and get back in, but if the deal really is a shocker then having a chance to abort or confirm leaving trumps any economic pain seems actually eminently viable

And if there are concerns about time I simply cannot imagine the EU wouldn't be willing to extend the article 50 leaving period to allow for another referendum which could well see the UK remain

[Puja]

Exactly, the referendum was held, a majority (no matter how small) voted to leave so we're leaving. Crying about the terms of the
referendum now is an exercise in futility before the vote was the time to moan about the conditions set.

Oh & by the way the argument for having a 2nd referendum on the grounds that 'hard UKexit' wasn't what people voted for
is answered by the above

I disagree on the latter - the situation has evolved significantly since the first referendum was held and it's become more clear what's actually available to us. I see no reason why the people shouldn't be polled again given the situation has changed - referring to "the will of the people" from 2 years ago when the situation was different as though it is inviolate and unchanging seems bizarre.

Mind, I wouldn't've asked the people in the first place - delegating decisions on massive constitutional change to the general populace (who can be described as "not experts" at kindest and "fucking idiots" otherwise) seems ridiculous - but since we've decided that this is a decision best made by plumbers, teachers, mortgage brokers, and dentists, rather than by actual experts, we may as well ask again now that the situation has changed.

Puja