If we do get this second referendum I'd be interested to hear why Nigel has now performed a volte-face on his views about keeping us in the SM/CU and having a Norway or Swiss-style deal.
It'd also be nice to hear why seemingly not a single Leave voter seems to pull up any of the prominent Leave campaigners for reneging on their promise to campaign to keep us in the SM/CU, whereas those who are trying to uphold the promises of the "winning" campaign are lambasted as saboteurs and traitors.
I never believed we would be able to stay in the SM/CU and leave the EU, so what some of them said mattered not to me.
It might not matter to you, but it would have mattered to a lot of people, especially those who do business in Europe that either necessitates, or is at least much easier and less costly by being in the SM/CU. We're not just talking a few fat cats, we're talking thousands upon thousands of small business owners/operators, many of whom may have voted leave, assured by Farage and his cronies that it wouldn't adversely impact them.
I would like to see a second referendum. But with one, key difference to the last one.
I think the referendum was flawed, in part because changing the course of the constitution on the basis of a simple majority is ridiculous. So, on the basis that the current direction we are heading in is to leave, I would like to see a straight leave/remain referendum, which requires a two-thirds majority for the direction of the constitution to change from leaving the EU to remaining.
If more than 67% of the population vote remain - which of course, they should, all facts considered - we reverse Article 50, scrap Brexit, retain our place on the world's top table, benefit from a strengthened pound and tie ourselves back to the growth from which the EU is benefiting and we are not. Decision made; argument won; debate put to bed.
If fewer than 67% vote to Remain, we carry on as we are. We head towards the exit door. The Government and other politicians in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast; the newspapers; the unions; elected Mayors around the UK; industry leaders; business groups; the civil service; journalists and members of the public continue to fight over how Brexit works. Chaos continues - but just the chaos that the population will clearly have signalled their desire for.
The risk, of course, is that between 50% and 67% of the turnout votes to remain. We will have to carry on heading towards the exit, as we should: because it's already been decided. But it will no longer be "the will of the people". Far from it - it will have been established that it's against the will of the people. That way, the most aggressive Brexit proponents (Farage, Gove, Leadsom, Rees-Mogg, Hannan...) will have to crawl back into their holes and let less harmful politicians take the lead.
We are leaving - that's what the first referendum was about. If there's a second one; if two-thirds want to stay, we stay; if not, the vote is actually about how we leave and who takes us there.
If we do get this second referendum I'd be interested to hear why Nigel has now performed a volte-face on his views about keeping us in the SM/CU and having a Norway or Swiss-style deal.
It'd also be nice to hear why seemingly not a single Leave voter seems to pull up any of the prominent Leave campaigners for reneging on their promise to campaign to keep us in the SM/CU, whereas those who are trying to uphold the promises of the "winning" campaign are lambasted as saboteurs and traitors.
I never believed we would be able to stay in the SM/CU and leave the EU, so what some of them said mattered not to me.
So you don't care whether politicians adhere to promises they make when campaigning, which is your prerogative. I like to think most people prefer a system where politicians can be held accountable for their pledges. Otherwise why bother having parties or manifestos?
Regardless of whether you thought regarding the SM/CU, the official campaign to Vote Leave promised we would stay in both. If we cannot leave the EU and uphold the promises made to voters during the campaign then we should not leave the EU, or have a second referendum and then Vote Leave can make it clear that the only thing they can promise is that the UK will be worse off after Brexit. At least if they still won on that honest message, no one could accuse the campaign of being dishonest.
I would like to see a second referendum. But with one, key difference to the last one.
I think the referendum was flawed, in part because changing the course of the constitution on the basis of a simple majority is ridiculous. So, on the basis that the current direction we are heading in is to leave, I would like to see a straight leave/remain referendum, which requires a two-thirds majority for the direction of the constitution to change from leaving the EU to remaining.
If more than 67% of the population vote remain - which of course, they should, all facts considered - we reverse Article 50, scrap Brexit, retain our place on the world's top table, benefit from a strengthened pound and tie ourselves back to the growth from which the EU is benefiting and we are not. Decision made; argument won; debate put to bed.
If fewer than 67% vote to Remain, we carry on as we are. We head towards the exit door. The Government and other politicians in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast; the newspapers; the unions; elected Mayors around the UK; industry leaders; business groups; the civil service; journalists and members of the public continue to fight over how Brexit works. Chaos continues - but just the chaos that the population will clearly have signalled their desire for.
The risk, of course, is that between 50% and 67% of the turnout votes to remain. We will have to carry on heading towards the exit, as we should: because it's already been decided. But it will no longer be "the will of the people". Far from it - it will have been established that it's against the will of the people. That way, the most aggressive Brexit proponents (Farage, Gove, Leadsom, Rees-Mogg, Hannan...) will have to crawl back into their holes and let less harmful politicians take the lead.
We are leaving - that's what the first referendum was about. If there's a second one; if two-thirds want to stay, we stay; if not, the vote is actually about how we leave and who takes us there.
The problem with upholding the first referendum as the status quo for the 67% threshold is that it implies the first referendum was legitimate and binding under electoral law (which it wasn't) and the Leave result enjoyed support from over half of the electorate (Which it didn't as only a third of the electorate voted to Leave). The fact is the first referendum ceased to have any legal existence as soon as polls shut and as such can not be described as being part of our constitution as it no longer exists as a legal instrument.
I would like to see a second referendum. But with one, key difference to the last one.
I think the referendum was flawed, in part because changing the course of the constitution on the basis of a simple majority is ridiculous. So, on the basis that the current direction we are heading in is to leave, I would like to see a straight leave/remain referendum, which requires a two-thirds majority for the direction of the constitution to change from leaving the EU to remaining.
If more than 67% of the population vote remain - which of course, they should, all facts considered - we reverse Article 50, scrap Brexit, retain our place on the world's top table, benefit from a strengthened pound and tie ourselves back to the growth from which the EU is benefiting and we are not. Decision made; argument won; debate put to bed.
If fewer than 67% vote to Remain, we carry on as we are. We head towards the exit door. The Government and other politicians in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast; the newspapers; the unions; elected Mayors around the UK; industry leaders; business groups; the civil service; journalists and members of the public continue to fight over how Brexit works. Chaos continues - but just the chaos that the population will clearly have signalled their desire for.
The risk, of course, is that between 50% and 67% of the turnout votes to remain. We will have to carry on heading towards the exit, as we should: because it's already been decided. But it will no longer be "the will of the people". Far from it - it will have been established that it's against the will of the people. That way, the most aggressive Brexit proponents (Farage, Gove, Leadsom, Rees-Mogg, Hannan...) will have to crawl back into their holes and let less harmful politicians take the lead.
We are leaving - that's what the first referendum was about. If there's a second one; if two-thirds want to stay, we stay; if not, the vote is actually about how we leave and who takes us there.
The problem with upholding the first referendum as the status quo for the 67% threshold is that it implies the first referendum was legitimate and binding under electoral law (which it wasn't) and the Leave result enjoyed support from over half of the electorate (Which it didn't as only a third of the electorate voted to Leave). The fact is the first referendum ceased to have any legal existence as soon as polls shut.
That could be argued. However, we are working towards leaving (whether legitimately or not). A second referendum, with a two-thirds threshold required to change direction (as should have been in place first time round) would legitimise the outcome. And it gives three possible outcomes.
1. Where Remain gets two-thirds of the vote, we stay in - this is what I call the good option. 2. Where Leave gets a majority, we leave - this is what I call the Farage option (and, obviously it's the worst possible result) 3. Where Remain gets a majority, but fewer than two-thirds of the vote. We leave, but remainers can sit back and watch the swivel-eyed loons implode in their attempts to drag bits of the country kicking and screaming out of the EU against their wishes. That's what I call the @seth plum option.
For me it underlines the crass stupidity of the timing of May triggering Article 50. It will go down in history as one of the most colossal political mistakes of recent times.
For me it underlines the crass stupidity of the timing of May triggering Article 50. It will go down in history as one of the most colossal political mistakes of recent times.
If you are going to make a top 10 of the most colossal political mistakes in recent UK history I imagine Theresa May would dominate at least 3 or 4 of the spots.
Raises some good points, especially the need for remain to find a new message. I think if it was run again tomorrow remain would shade victory (maybe 52:48 the other way), however really, with everything that has happened since article 50 was triggered it should be a lot more in favour of remain.
Get Farage and what remains of the leave campaign back on the anti establishment message and it shifts back to leave, without doubt.
There's no 'liberal elite' plot to undermine brexit, clearly, the leavers that are in charge of brexit are screwing it up by themselves. What there is is a political class bereft of ideas and absolutely no platform on which to communicate with the public, until that changes - we will be subject to the whim of populism.
I actually agree on the sentiment against career politicians. I have met a fair few of what is probably the next generation of career politicians and it's not a pretty sight, both sides of the aisle.
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
In most systems that make use of referenda, as a matter of routine policy making, there are clearly defined minimum requirements (not just 50% + 1) for change.
The easy way to avoid problems is requiring a super majority. If you set the bar at, for example, 65% for constitutional change, and that is achieved, the losing side is much less likely to continue arguing the case.
I fear that you are doing the Germans a disservice, to say nothing of being historically inaccurate.
Personally speaking, I do not think that learning from the history of your own nations failings is a bad thing. Indeed, I would be inclined to suggest that seeking to replace a desire to exterminate foreigners with a willingness to welcome refugees is the sort of emotion that should be encouraged in all of us. It's certainly not madness, but real kindness.
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
I think you need to withdraw that remark if you want to even have the slightest credibility in the future.
The people they killed, be they homosexual, disabled, trade unionists, Jewish, socialists or Gypsy were all very much citizens of that country and most were born in Germany. The foreigners they killed all lived in the countries they invaded although they did of course justify the early invasions by saying that the countries were part of a greater Germany.
Raises some good points, especially the need for remain to find a new message. I think if it was run again tomorrow remain would shade victory (maybe 52:48 the other way), however really, with everything that has happened since article 50 was triggered it should be a lot more in favour of remain.
Get Farage and what remains of the leave campaign back on the anti establishment message and it shifts back to leave, without doubt.
There's no 'liberal elite' plot to undermine brexit, clearly, the leavers that are in charge of brexit are screwing it up by themselves. What there is is a political class bereft of ideas and absolutely no platform on which to communicate with the public, until that changes - we will be subject to the whim of populism.
I actually agree on the sentiment against career politicians. I have met a fair few of what is probably the next generation of career politicians and it's not a pretty sight, both sides of the aisle.
Leavers are not in charge of Brexit. Theresa May amd most of her cabinet are Remainers. Every other political party in Parliament bar the DUP has a Remainer in charge. Whatever happens with Brexit it will not be because Leavers were in charge of the process.
It's a pertinent question; who is actually in charge of Brexit from the UK side of things?
It's certainly not Theresa, who is at arms length with negotiations and is Prime Minister in name only as her authority is ignored almost completely by her cabinet.
It can't be Davis, who constantly whinges about how he can't get on with the job.
Where the hell is Fox?
Johnson seems completely absent, keeping himself busy by trying to piss off as many people as possible.
The cabinet might have Remainers in it but they are cowed into silence by the backbenchers and the tabloids.
The backbenchers that make up the far right of the Tory party are arguably leading the policy direction on Brexit but have little constitutional power (although they are in concert with the fourth estate who are the real power in this country).
Arlene Foster, a Brexiter, has arguably had the most influence in negotiations by using her role as kingmaker to kybosh the border settlement.
And no one from Vote Leave or UKIP has bothered to stick their head above the parapet since polling day to defend their promises and pledges such as staying in the SM/CU.
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
I think you need to withdraw that remark if you want to even have the slightest credibility in the future.
The people they killed, be they homosexual, disabled, trade unionists, Jewish, socialists or Gypsy were all very much citizens of that country and most were born in Germany. The foreigners they killed all lived in the countries they invaded although they did of course justify the early invasions by saying that the countries were part of a greater Germany.
I agree with this but want to add that it's not the Germans of today that did that, it's the German's of yesterday. Many of today's Germans grew up in poverty in the 50s and 60s as a result of the actions of their predecessors. Better the call the holocaust perpetrators 'nazis' to differentiate. Better still not to perpetuate a nationalist view that imagines such homogeneity between peoples past and present.
If I was Farridge, I'd want a second referendum. When the proverbial hits the fan and we see living standards slide, he'll be one of the most hated men in the country. He needs something in place to say it wasn't his fault.
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
I think you need to withdraw that remark if you want to even have the slightest credibility in the future.
The people they killed, be they homosexual, disabled, trade unionists, Jewish, socialists or Gypsy were all very much citizens of that country and most were born in Germany. The foreigners they killed all lived in the countries they invaded although they did of course justify the early invasions by saying that the countries were part of a greater Germany.
I agree with this but want to add that it's not the Germans of today that did that, it's the German's of yesterday. Many of today's Germans grew up in poverty in the 50s and 60s as a result of the actions of their predecessors. Better the call the holocaust perpetrators 'nazis' to differentiate. Better still not to perpetuate a nationalist view that imagines such homogeneity between peoples past and present.
It's not the British of today that voted to be part of the the Common Market, it's the British of yesterday.
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
I think you need to withdraw that remark if you want to even have the slightest credibility in the future.
The people they killed, be they homosexual, disabled, trade unionists, Jewish, socialists or Gypsy were all very much citizens of that country and most were born in Germany. The foreigners they killed all lived in the countries they invaded although they did of course justify the early invasions by saying that the countries were part of a greater Germany.
I agree with this but want to add that it's not the Germans of today that did that, it's the German's of yesterday. Many of today's Germans grew up in poverty in the 50s and 60s as a result of the actions of their predecessors. Better the call the holocaust perpetrators 'nazis' to differentiate. Better still not to perpetuate a nationalist view that imagines such homogeneity between peoples past and present.
It's not the British of today that voted to be part of the the Common Market, it's the British of yesterday.
And it's the British of yesterday who voted us out of it too
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
I think you need to withdraw that remark if you want to even have the slightest credibility in the future.
The people they killed, be they homosexual, disabled, trade unionists, Jewish, socialists or Gypsy were all very much citizens of that country and most were born in Germany. The foreigners they killed all lived in the countries they invaded although they did of course justify the early invasions by saying that the countries were part of a greater Germany.
I agree with this but want to add that it's not the Germans of today that did that, it's the German's of yesterday. Many of today's Germans grew up in poverty in the 50s and 60s as a result of the actions of their predecessors. Better the call the holocaust perpetrators 'nazis' to differentiate. Better still not to perpetuate a nationalist view that imagines such homogeneity between peoples past and present.
It's not the British of today that voted to be part of the the Common Market, it's the British of yesterday.
Do you think we haven't benefitted from being a part of the common market?
I want a referendum about whether we should have any more referenda - just like the Swiss did a few decades back. Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count. Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
I think you need to withdraw that remark if you want to even have the slightest credibility in the future.
The people they killed, be they homosexual, disabled, trade unionists, Jewish, socialists or Gypsy were all very much citizens of that country and most were born in Germany. The foreigners they killed all lived in the countries they invaded although they did of course justify the early invasions by saying that the countries were part of a greater Germany.
When it comes to withdrawing remarks, I've got loads to do (mostly about KAG and Dasilva) that are a long way in front of anything in the above. As for credibility - who gives a toss in an online football forum ?
I notice there's no comment on the crazy idea about referenda from remainers though, other than NORN, and I would ask who is going to decide what the "winning line" looks like in a referendum - because I object and want a vote on that too
So much revisionist history regarding the 70s vote. We were in the EC before that voted, and the question asked was a simple stay in or leave, and the vote was to stay in. The result of which was 67% stay in Vs 32% leave.
Like our recent vote, the question was overly simple, there was no mention of the nature of the then current or future relationship. People who say we only voted for a trade relationship, nothing more are lying. The question didn't mention anything about the relationship at all, and the original charter of the EC on the day it was founded covered far more than just trade.
Comments
Farage is a career cultural stirrer now, a pro troll.
I think the referendum was flawed, in part because changing the course of the constitution on the basis of a simple majority is ridiculous. So, on the basis that the current direction we are heading in is to leave, I would like to see a straight leave/remain referendum, which requires a two-thirds majority for the direction of the constitution to change from leaving the EU to remaining.
If more than 67% of the population vote remain - which of course, they should, all facts considered - we reverse Article 50, scrap Brexit, retain our place on the world's top table, benefit from a strengthened pound and tie ourselves back to the growth from which the EU is benefiting and we are not. Decision made; argument won; debate put to bed.
If fewer than 67% vote to Remain, we carry on as we are. We head towards the exit door. The Government and other politicians in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast; the newspapers; the unions; elected Mayors around the UK; industry leaders; business groups; the civil service; journalists and members of the public continue to fight over how Brexit works. Chaos continues - but just the chaos that the population will clearly have signalled their desire for.
The risk, of course, is that between 50% and 67% of the turnout votes to remain. We will have to carry on heading towards the exit, as we should: because it's already been decided. But it will no longer be "the will of the people". Far from it - it will have been established that it's against the will of the people. That way, the most aggressive Brexit proponents (Farage, Gove, Leadsom, Rees-Mogg, Hannan...) will have to crawl back into their holes and let less harmful politicians take the lead.
We are leaving - that's what the first referendum was about. If there's a second one; if two-thirds want to stay, we stay; if not, the vote is actually about how we leave and who takes us there.
Regardless of whether you thought regarding the SM/CU, the official campaign to Vote Leave promised we would stay in both. If we cannot leave the EU and uphold the promises made to voters during the campaign then we should not leave the EU, or have a second referendum and then Vote Leave can make it clear that the only thing they can promise is that the UK will be worse off after Brexit. At least if they still won on that honest message, no one could accuse the campaign of being dishonest.
1. Where Remain gets two-thirds of the vote, we stay in - this is what I call the good option.
2. Where Leave gets a majority, we leave - this is what I call the Farage option (and, obviously it's the worst possible result)
3. Where Remain gets a majority, but fewer than two-thirds of the vote. We leave, but remainers can sit back and watch the swivel-eyed loons implode in their attempts to drag bits of the country kicking and screaming out of the EU against their wishes. That's what I call the @seth plum option.
My experience exactly, living here. But I am sure someone in Gravesend has their finger on the European pulse better than i do
Let the leavers sort it all out.
I don't think they can without severe damage, but so be it
Whooooooooosh ! :-)
https://brexittime.com/2018/01/11/time-for-a-re-think/
For me it underlines the crass stupidity of the timing of May triggering Article 50. It will go down in history as one of the most colossal political mistakes of recent times.
Get Farage and what remains of the leave campaign back on the anti establishment message and it shifts back to leave, without doubt.
There's no 'liberal elite' plot to undermine brexit, clearly, the leavers that are in charge of brexit are screwing it up by themselves. What there is is a political class bereft of ideas and absolutely no platform on which to communicate with the public, until that changes - we will be subject to the whim of populism.
I actually agree on the sentiment against career politicians. I have met a fair few of what is probably the next generation of career politicians and it's not a pretty sight, both sides of the aisle.
Problem would be if it was 52-48 either way, folk would say it doesn't count.
Then they would want to add-in the people who couldn't be bothered to vote (or had no preference) and say it wasn't representative of the population.
Any referendum we have in the future could be questioned in this way, even a referendum about how we should view the result of a referendum.
This is what would make the UK a laughing stock - not leaving the EU, and as for the Germans thinking we are mad, they are the guys that tried to exterminate all foreigners in their country and then a generation later invited foreigners to come and live there. Now, that is real madness.
The easy way to avoid problems is requiring a super majority. If you set the bar at, for example, 65% for constitutional change, and that is achieved, the losing side is much less likely to continue arguing the case.
I fear that you are doing the Germans a disservice, to say nothing of being historically inaccurate.
Personally speaking, I do not think that learning from the history of your own nations failings is a bad thing. Indeed, I would be inclined to suggest that seeking to replace a desire to exterminate foreigners with a willingness to welcome refugees is the sort of emotion that should be encouraged in all of us. It's certainly not madness, but real kindness.
The people they killed, be they homosexual, disabled, trade unionists, Jewish, socialists or Gypsy were all very much citizens of that country and most were born in Germany. The foreigners they killed all lived in the countries they invaded although they did of course justify the early invasions by saying that the countries were part of a greater Germany.
They are definitely leavers and one of them is secretary of state for Exiting the EU!
It's certainly not Theresa, who is at arms length with negotiations and is Prime Minister in name only as her authority is ignored almost completely by her cabinet.
It can't be Davis, who constantly whinges about how he can't get on with the job.
Where the hell is Fox?
Johnson seems completely absent, keeping himself busy by trying to piss off as many people as possible.
The cabinet might have Remainers in it but they are cowed into silence by the backbenchers and the tabloids.
The backbenchers that make up the far right of the Tory party are arguably leading the policy direction on Brexit but have little constitutional power (although they are in concert with the fourth estate who are the real power in this country).
Arlene Foster, a Brexiter, has arguably had the most influence in negotiations by using her role as kingmaker to kybosh the border settlement.
And no one from Vote Leave or UKIP has bothered to stick their head above the parapet since polling day to defend their promises and pledges such as staying in the SM/CU.
We truly are up Brexshit creek without a paddle.
As for credibility - who gives a toss in an online football forum ?
I notice there's no comment on the crazy idea about referenda from remainers though, other than NORN, and I would ask who is going to decide what the "winning line" looks like in a referendum - because I object and want a vote on that too
Like our recent vote, the question was overly simple, there was no mention of the nature of the then current or future relationship. People who say we only voted for a trade relationship, nothing more are lying. The question didn't mention anything about the relationship at all, and the original charter of the EC on the day it was founded covered far more than just trade.