I think May has kept a lid on it by treading the middle ground between the two camps. Neither are happy, but they are posturing and trying to move the position their way. When one side feels they have lost that battle the other side will act. Soubry is an intelligent woman and realises what a disaster a hard Brexit will be. It seems to me, she has already reached that point, but when it becomes clear - as was pointed out on here, that May has her feet in the hard Brexit camp, a few more will follow her. If they are not going to get a referendum, Remainers will have to settle for an election and try to turn it into a referendum.
I think another referendum would be a good thing. It could go either way, but at least it would clarify things. And yes, it could be a lot clearer than yes or no. I don't think we will get one under this government though.
One bit of collective consensus emerging from almost all of the posters on this thread is that nobody wants another referendum.
I do. And this time I want it spelled out clearly to everyone just exactly what they are voting for.
I do too, but I think it might be wrapped up in something else like a referendum on the Brexit package or in a general election with main parties offering something different. That may or may not be a first stage to a stay/leave referendum.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
If it was an opinion poll (albeit with an official voting process) rather than a referendum then any number of questions could be posed.
Do you wish to accept the exit deal as negotiated? Do you wish to reject the exit deal as negotiated and leave the EU with no formal agreement in place? Do you wish to reject the exit deal as negotiated and reverse the EU leaving process?
The results could then inform (but not constrain) parliament.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU of which the UK is a paid up member and helped shape Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts on which a UK judge sits and has defended UK interests far more than it has overridden Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy where UK elected MEPs help shape policy
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions actually this is a mistake, we were asked whether or not the UK should remain a member of the EU, none of the above points were covered on the referendum ballot paper and we and we in this case meaning 17.4 million Leave voters which is a minority of the 46.5 million registered voters said no by a majority of over a million again this is wrong, only a third of voters voted to Leave. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions because you refuse to read anything that doesn't back up your blinkered worldview, as there have been multiple citations of public view shifting away from Leave as the lies of the Leave campaign and Brexiters are being exposed.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU We are part of the EU, so it is us setting the immigration law in cooperation with the other members of the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts In simple terms, yes, a check and balance on our courts, outside of possible political meddling by our own government is a vital protection Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy. I literally don't care where policies "originate", I only care if they are good policies or not. Any EU policy requires unanimous vote in the EU parliament and we have vetos for everything else
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
Ah yes, same old shit. Be positive people, stop moaning, everything is going to be fine. That's what he said when people had questions about the London Olympics.
And his legacy. 700m on a stadium, of which half was spent converting it to Brady and Gullivan's spec. The concession agreement he signed off is now costing us taxpayers an extra £12m per year for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile West Ham have leapt into the European big league in revenue terms at least and maintain a high wage/turnover ratio because, well, they have no other overheads to speak of.
Still at least unlike Soros, he is British, one of us....What? Oh.....
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
But as we know, there is no such thing as 'soft' Brexit. There are only three options available. The first is leaving the EU and all its institutions, which also means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, this is Brexit. The second is staying in the Single market and the Customs Union, therefore staying under the aegis of the ECJ, having to accept freedom of movement and becoming a rule taker while having no ability to operate independent trade policies. This is not leaving the EU under any definition but it is what is referred to as 'soft' Brexit. It is senseless. The third is to stay in the EU and overturn the referendum.
Overturning the referendum would mean passing a law that annulled the law that legislated for it (which would be totally meaningless as the referendum ceased to have any legal significance once polls had shut). No one is suggesting we do that. Therefore whinging about overturning the referendum is inaccurate.
Staying in the EU after counting the votes would recognise 17million people voted to leave but it is not a majority of either the UK electorate or the population. It would also help recognise the fact that the Vote Leave campaign was fraudulent and the referendum should not have taken place under the utterly crap terms Cameron drew up because he was stupid enough to believe Remain would win because he forgot to stipulate either a minimum threshold, what would happen in any of the possible outcomes, or any electoral laws banning the kind of fraudulent campaigning that misled enough voters to cause an upset.
Brexiters need to get their head around the fact that the referendum has zero legal meaning and that they were not the majority in terms of the electorate or the population and therefore have no right to dictate to those of us who weren't misled by the fraudulent campaigning what will or won't happen.
There is no clear will of the people. Just groups of very angry people with no group being bigger or more important than the other.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
But as we know, there is no such thing as 'soft' Brexit. There are only three options available. The first is leaving the EU and all its institutions, which also means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, this is Brexit. The second is staying in the Single market and the Customs Union, therefore staying under the aegis of the ECJ, having to accept freedom of movement and becoming a rule taker while having no ability to operate independent trade policies. This is not leaving the EU under any definition but it is what is referred to as 'soft' Brexit. It is senseless. The third is to stay in the EU and overturn the referendum.
Then the referendum needs to be re-run because that is not what the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving, nobody else. If a vote for leave isn't a vote what the leave campaign repeatedly said it was then it's a vote for nothing, your vote was essentially worthless as what you thought it meant didn't exist as an option, and what they said it meant isn't (for you and presumably may others) actually leaving.
As Fiiish said above, there's no way less than 4% of leave voters completely ignored what the leave campaign said and believed that they were voting to leave both the SM and CU. So by your definition of leave, the majority of voters voted to remain.
Now that's where your repeated claims of respecting the majority of voters hits a stumbling block isn't it. There's simply no way that anything approaching a majority voted to leave the SM and CU, it's simply not possible.
But let's just ignore democracy and do what the minority want because they shout the loudest, that is after-all why we had a referendum in the first place.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
But as we know, there is no such thing as 'soft' Brexit. There are only three options available. The first is leaving the EU and all its institutions, which also means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, this is Brexit. The second is staying in the Single market and the Customs Union, therefore staying under the aegis of the ECJ, having to accept freedom of movement and becoming a rule taker while having no ability to operate independent trade policies. This is not leaving the EU under any definition but it is what is referred to as 'soft' Brexit. It is senseless. The third is to stay in the EU and overturn the referendum.
Then the referendum needs to be re-run because that is not what the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving, nobody else. If a vote for leave isn't a vote what the leave campaign repeatedly said it was then it's a vote for nothing, your vote was essentially worthless as what you thought it meant didn't exist as an option, and what they said it meant isn't (for you and presumably may others) actually leaving.
As Fiiish said above, there's no way less than 4% of leave voters completely ignored what the leave campaign said and believed that they were voting to leave both the SM and CU. So by your definition of leave, the majority of voters voted to remain.
Now that's where your repeated claims of respecting the majority of voters hits a stumbling block isn't it. There's simply no way that anything approaching a majority voted to leave the SM and CU, it's simply not possible.
But let's just ignore democracy and do what the minority want because they shout the loudest, that is after-all why we had a referendum in the first place.
Exactly. Any democratic exercise only has legitimacy if what was promised before the deliberation is enacted after the deliberation. Vote Leave has done very well to erase as much of its campaign from cyberspace as possible because they know they ran on a platform of lies. What we saw in 2016 was not democracy, it was an open and blatant act of defrauding the British electorate.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
But as we know, there is no such thing as 'soft' Brexit. There are only three options available. The first is leaving the EU and all its institutions, which also means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, this is Brexit. The second is staying in the Single market and the Customs Union, therefore staying under the aegis of the ECJ, having to accept freedom of movement and becoming a rule taker while having no ability to operate independent trade policies. This is not leaving the EU under any definition but it is what is referred to as 'soft' Brexit. It is senseless. The third is to stay in the EU and overturn the referendum.
Then the referendum needs to be re-run because that is not what the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving, nobody else. If a vote for leave isn't a vote what the leave campaign repeatedly said it was then it's a vote for nothing, your vote was essentially worthless as what you thought it meant didn't exist as an option, and what they said it meant isn't (for you and presumably may others) actually leaving.
As Fiiish said above, there's no way less than 4% of leave voters completely ignored what the leave campaign said and believed that they were voting to leave both the SM and CU. So by your definition of leave, the majority of voters voted to remain.
Now that's where your repeated claims of respecting the majority of voters hits a stumbling block isn't it. There's simply no way that anything approaching a majority voted to leave the SM and CU, it's simply not possible.
But let's just ignore democracy and do what the minority want because they shout the loudest, that is after-all why we had a referendum in the first place.
Just for my own interest, can you refer me to a link which confirms, that before the referendum, ‘the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving’.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
But as we know, there is no such thing as 'soft' Brexit. There are only three options available. The first is leaving the EU and all its institutions, which also means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, this is Brexit. The second is staying in the Single market and the Customs Union, therefore staying under the aegis of the ECJ, having to accept freedom of movement and becoming a rule taker while having no ability to operate independent trade policies. This is not leaving the EU under any definition but it is what is referred to as 'soft' Brexit. It is senseless. The third is to stay in the EU and overturn the referendum.
Then the referendum needs to be re-run because that is not what the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving, nobody else. If a vote for leave isn't a vote what the leave campaign repeatedly said it was then it's a vote for nothing, your vote was essentially worthless as what you thought it meant didn't exist as an option, and what they said it meant isn't (for you and presumably may others) actually leaving.
As Fiiish said above, there's no way less than 4% of leave voters completely ignored what the leave campaign said and believed that they were voting to leave both the SM and CU. So by your definition of leave, the majority of voters voted to remain.
Now that's where your repeated claims of respecting the majority of voters hits a stumbling block isn't it. There's simply no way that anything approaching a majority voted to leave the SM and CU, it's simply not possible.
But let's just ignore democracy and do what the minority want because they shout the loudest, that is after-all why we had a referendum in the first place.
Just for my own interest, can you refer me to a link which confirms, that before the referendum, ‘the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving’.
I ask, because that is not my recollection.
First time I have ever looked at the Vote Leave website, but I wanted to double check. I see nothing there about staying in the SM and the CU.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
But as we know, there is no such thing as 'soft' Brexit. There are only three options available. The first is leaving the EU and all its institutions, which also means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, this is Brexit. The second is staying in the Single market and the Customs Union, therefore staying under the aegis of the ECJ, having to accept freedom of movement and becoming a rule taker while having no ability to operate independent trade policies. This is not leaving the EU under any definition but it is what is referred to as 'soft' Brexit. It is senseless. The third is to stay in the EU and overturn the referendum.
Then the referendum needs to be re-run because that is not what the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving, nobody else. If a vote for leave isn't a vote what the leave campaign repeatedly said it was then it's a vote for nothing, your vote was essentially worthless as what you thought it meant didn't exist as an option, and what they said it meant isn't (for you and presumably may others) actually leaving.
As Fiiish said above, there's no way less than 4% of leave voters completely ignored what the leave campaign said and believed that they were voting to leave both the SM and CU. So by your definition of leave, the majority of voters voted to remain.
Now that's where your repeated claims of respecting the majority of voters hits a stumbling block isn't it. There's simply no way that anything approaching a majority voted to leave the SM and CU, it's simply not possible.
But let's just ignore democracy and do what the minority want because they shout the loudest, that is after-all why we had a referendum in the first place.
Just for my own interest, can you refer me to a link which confirms, that before the referendum, ‘the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving’.
I ask, because that is not my recollection.
First time I have ever looked at the Vote Leave website, but I wanted to double check. I see nothing there about staying in the SM and the CU.
I actually posted a direct link to it a few months ago but they have removed it. Some people out there were wary of Vote Leave attempting to retrospectively change its campaign and have archived the original pages.
As Fiiish says, they've gone back an edited their website to remove any mention, but there's plenty out there, lots of YouTube clips of Gove/Johnson/Farage talking up staying in one or both of the SM and CU, about taking a Norway option, etc.
We were there and we heard what they said. The initial line is well Remain lied too so it evens things out. Well nobody can erase the clear recollection of multiple Brexiters saying we would stay in the single market. Some are now even saying that because Remainers said we wouldn't, people knew it at the time. I think that in itself is off the scale dishonesty.
But irrespective of that, the period of negotiation has been a complete dogs dinner and anybody with half a brain, even if they don't like the EU ought to expect the government to try to buy a bit more time to get something as important as this right. As I said before, the solution is now to leave but to have a minimum of six years transition under Norway's terms. Then give everybody time to do something as complicated as this properly.
The problem is you can be a Leaver who wants a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. You could be a Remainer who would prefer a soft Brexit to a hard one. But, you might be a leaver who would prefer a hard Brexit to no Brexit. So finding a form of words to vote on might not be that easy if you genuinely wanted to gauge public opinion. I suppose you would have to have a vote in two parts - yes or no. But then if the result is yes, do you want a soft or hard brexit. Leavers would never allow it because a hard Brexit could not be achieved by asking the people these questions. That is why all these hard Brexiters hiding behind democracy are a bunch of dishonest charlatans!
Well you are hiding behind meaningless terms like 'hard' and 'soft'. If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask: Do you want immigration law set by the EU Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
We were not asked these questions - and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. We were asked on the ballot paper whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU or whether it should leave the EU. What people understood that meant could only be taken from what they were told by both sides during the referendum campaign and it is pretty clear that both sides were in competition as to who could lie the hardest.
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
But as we know, there is no such thing as 'soft' Brexit. There are only three options available. The first is leaving the EU and all its institutions, which also means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, this is Brexit. The second is staying in the Single market and the Customs Union, therefore staying under the aegis of the ECJ, having to accept freedom of movement and becoming a rule taker while having no ability to operate independent trade policies. This is not leaving the EU under any definition but it is what is referred to as 'soft' Brexit. It is senseless. The third is to stay in the EU and overturn the referendum.
Then the referendum needs to be re-run because that is not what the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving, nobody else. If a vote for leave isn't a vote what the leave campaign repeatedly said it was then it's a vote for nothing, your vote was essentially worthless as what you thought it meant didn't exist as an option, and what they said it meant isn't (for you and presumably may others) actually leaving.
As Fiiish said above, there's no way less than 4% of leave voters completely ignored what the leave campaign said and believed that they were voting to leave both the SM and CU. So by your definition of leave, the majority of voters voted to remain.
Now that's where your repeated claims of respecting the majority of voters hits a stumbling block isn't it. There's simply no way that anything approaching a majority voted to leave the SM and CU, it's simply not possible.
But let's just ignore democracy and do what the minority want because they shout the loudest, that is after-all why we had a referendum in the first place.
Just for my own interest, can you refer me to a link which confirms, that before the referendum, ‘the leave campaign advertised Brexit as being, they were the ones who insisted we could and would stay in the SM and CU after leaving’.
I ask, because that is not my recollection.
First time I have ever looked at the Vote Leave website, but I wanted to double check. I see nothing there about staying in the SM and the CU.
I actually posted a direct link to it a few months ago but they have removed it. Some people out there were wary of Vote Leave attempting to retrospectively change its campaign and have archived the original pages.
Thanks for that. As you know, I made my own mind up for the reasons I have related on numerous occasions, so didn’t need their ‘input’.
Once again, proves our political class are clueless and duplicitous.
"Exactly. Any democratic exercise only has legitimacy if what was promised before the deliberation is enacted after the deliberation."
We were told by the government, promised by the government, warned by the government, that we would leave the EU once and for all and forever if the leave box got the most ticks. Brexit means Brexit. What are Remainers confused about?
So you obviously agree the only legitimate outcome is the default position stated absolutely, unambiguously in the government's campaign leaflet, the only campaigner with the authority and obligation to abide by what it had promised - Brexit means Brexit.
Whatever might have been said or claimed by the leave campaign it had no authority to make promises as it had no capacity to deliver, it was not a parliamentary vote as you quite rightly imply, and whatever the outcome of the referendum it was not binding. So why bother worrying about what was, and was not, said by mere actors on both sides, apart from believing what the government said would happen given they were the only side with authority to deliver what it stated as a fact, rather than a promise - Brexit means Brexit.
The only grounds on which the government can get away with not leaving the EU lock stock and barrel is through a parliamentary decision supported by force of argument in favour of a "partial" Brexit, or "semi EU" membership, which is what ought to be the aim of the anti Brexit campaign.
The campaign seems unable or unwilling to reach a consensus on a viable alternative to what it calls a "Hard" Brexit. No more than the government is able to. In failing to produce any proposals that will change minds through force of argument, the anti Brexit campaign instead seeks to find synthetic legal arguments and spurious claims of what people didn't vote for, to undermine the legitimacy of a non binding referendum, a contradiction in terms, in order to block the parliamentary process they initiated.
A parliamentary process Remainers are fighting to subvert recognising the process will not achieve the aim of stopping Brexit entirely - something they think is legitimate based on the specious arguments that the referendum and the campaign wasn't "fair" - it doesn't matter IT WAS A NON BINDING REFERENDUM.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
The problem with the supposition of the above, that the government promised that Brexit means Brexit, is that the government was not an active participant in campaigning. The government can either state unambiguously what will happen in the event of either option winning and then allow no campaigning, or otherwise it allows two campaigns and it enacts whichever one got the result. Instead the government promised one thing, the official Leave campaign another and we are left with a total mess on our hands.
The government may not have been an ‘active’ participant in campaigning, but the government leaflet was unambiguous in that it transparently advocated that we should remain. The choice it gave was that if we did not vote remain, we would leave the European Union.
I am not saying that the entire populace was as clued up as me, but I clearly interpreted that as meaning we leave both the SM and the CU.
Yes, but one side said we would and quite a few of the other side said we wouldn't. The government leaflet represented one side and was not neutral, so that doesn't let the other side off IMO.
The government gave money to the Leave campaigners who unequivocally stated that we would not leave the single market and customs union. Did the government ever officially rebuke this statement?
As I state above, all the pamphlet said was the government would implement the result. The result was no one side got more than 50% of the electorate to vote for it.
Anyway, it should be a given that everybody that respects democracy should want another referendum on the final agreement or lack of one and the losers would have to shut up!
Comments
Do you wish to accept the exit deal as negotiated?
Do you wish to reject the exit deal as negotiated and leave the EU with no formal agreement in place?
Do you wish to reject the exit deal as negotiated and reverse the EU leaving process?
The results could then inform (but not constrain) parliament.
Isn't going to happen, of course.
If you wanted to genuinely guage public opinion you could ask:
Do you want immigration law set by the EU
Do you want the European Court of Justice to overrule our courts
Do you want government policies that originate in the EU bureacracy.
But oh wait-we were already asked precisely these questions and we said no by a majority of over a million. I see no evidence that there has been any change of attitude towards these questions.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/12/eu-endgame-is-political-unity-not-free-trade-argues-boris-johnson
https://brexittime.com/2018/02/13/litigating-brexit-law-and-its-limits/
Ah yes, same old shit. Be positive people, stop moaning, everything is going to be fine. That's what he said when people had questions about the London Olympics.
And his legacy. 700m on a stadium, of which half was spent converting it to Brady and Gullivan's spec. The concession agreement he signed off is now costing us taxpayers an extra £12m per year for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile West Ham have leapt into the European big league in revenue terms at least and maintain a high wage/turnover ratio because, well, they have no other overheads to speak of.
Still at least unlike Soros, he is British, one of us....What? Oh.....
You could say, well it doesn't matter what people want, the vote was to leave. But it was such a poorly worded question, there is no reference to when. So it has a bit for everybody to interpret as they will. The arrogant people are the ones that assume because they know why they voted, that everybody else did. This is probably one of the most annoying traits of many leavers.
If you look at the polls there is a clear majority for a soft Brexit. If you decide that you want to try to understand the will of the people - Brexiters are not really bothered about this as much as they cry about democracy - simple maths and probability will tell you that the majority of the British people are likely to want a soft Brexit as opposed to a hard one simply based on the referendum result. It isn't too hard to come to the conclusion that all those who voted remain would prefer a soft Brexit than a Hard one. So that is 48% of voters, so if just 4% of those voting to leave prefer a soft Brexit, there would be a majority for it! Only 4% FFS. The current polls show a much higher percentage!
Staying in the EU after counting the votes would recognise 17million people voted to leave but it is not a majority of either the UK electorate or the population. It would also help recognise the fact that the Vote Leave campaign was fraudulent and the referendum should not have taken place under the utterly crap terms Cameron drew up because he was stupid enough to believe Remain would win because he forgot to stipulate either a minimum threshold, what would happen in any of the possible outcomes, or any electoral laws banning the kind of fraudulent campaigning that misled enough voters to cause an upset.
Brexiters need to get their head around the fact that the referendum has zero legal meaning and that they were not the majority in terms of the electorate or the population and therefore have no right to dictate to those of us who weren't misled by the fraudulent campaigning what will or won't happen.
There is no clear will of the people. Just groups of very angry people with no group being bigger or more important than the other.
As Fiiish said above, there's no way less than 4% of leave voters completely ignored what the leave campaign said and believed that they were voting to leave both the SM and CU. So by your definition of leave, the majority of voters voted to remain.
Now that's where your repeated claims of respecting the majority of voters hits a stumbling block isn't it. There's simply no way that anything approaching a majority voted to leave the SM and CU, it's simply not possible.
But let's just ignore democracy and do what the minority want because they shout the loudest, that is after-all why we had a referendum in the first place.
I ask, because that is not my recollection.
voteleavetakecontrol.org/a_framework_for_taking_back_control_and_establishing_a_new_uk_eu_deal_after_23_june.html
I actually posted a direct link to it a few months ago but they have removed it. Some people out there were wary of Vote Leave attempting to retrospectively change its campaign and have archived the original pages.
To get you started here's a fairly good list:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce
But irrespective of that, the period of negotiation has been a complete dogs dinner and anybody with half a brain, even if they don't like the EU ought to expect the government to try to buy a bit more time to get something as important as this right. As I said before, the solution is now to leave but to have a minimum of six years transition under Norway's terms. Then give everybody time to do something as complicated as this properly.
Once again, proves our political class are clueless and duplicitous.
We were told by the government, promised by the government, warned by the government, that we would leave the EU once and for all and forever if the leave box got the most ticks. Brexit means Brexit. What are Remainers confused about?
So you obviously agree the only legitimate outcome is the default position stated absolutely, unambiguously in the government's campaign leaflet, the only campaigner with the authority and obligation to abide by what it had promised - Brexit means Brexit.
Whatever might have been said or claimed by the leave campaign it had no authority to make promises as it had no capacity to deliver, it was not a parliamentary vote as you quite rightly imply, and whatever the outcome of the referendum it was not binding. So why bother worrying about what was, and was not, said by mere actors on both sides, apart from believing what the government said would happen given they were the only side with authority to deliver what it stated as a fact, rather than a promise - Brexit means Brexit.
The only grounds on which the government can get away with not leaving the EU lock stock and barrel is through a parliamentary decision supported by force of argument in favour of a "partial" Brexit, or "semi EU" membership, which is what ought to be the aim of the anti Brexit campaign.
The campaign seems unable or unwilling to reach a consensus on a viable alternative to what it calls a "Hard" Brexit. No more than the government is able to. In failing to produce any proposals that will change minds through force of argument, the anti Brexit campaign instead seeks to find synthetic legal arguments and spurious claims of what people didn't vote for, to undermine the legitimacy of a non binding referendum, a contradiction in terms, in order to block the parliamentary process they initiated.
A parliamentary process Remainers are fighting to subvert recognising the process will not achieve the aim of stopping Brexit entirely - something they think is legitimate based on the specious arguments that the referendum and the campaign wasn't "fair" - it doesn't matter IT WAS A NON BINDING REFERENDUM.
So fully support your frustration @Fiiish.
Two other points:
1) Vote Leave was the government sanctioned Leave campaign so it is safe to assume that the government endorsed their vision of leaving the EU.
2) The government pamphlet makes zero mention of what would happen depending on the result. All it says is 'we will implement what you decide'. Well a third voted to Leave, a third voted to Remain and a third did not vote. Good luck reconciling that.
I am not saying that the entire populace was as clued up as me, but I clearly interpreted that as meaning we leave both the SM and the CU.
As I state above, all the pamphlet said was the government would implement the result. The result was no one side got more than 50% of the electorate to vote for it.