This guy was until recently Liam Fox's top civil service advisor.
Now let me think. Whom do I believe more on the issue of our trade prospects? The most senior civil servant in the Dept of Trade, for years (it's his job)? Or a morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, previously a GP, who has mysteriously been politically rehabilitated on the basis of his strong hard right Brexit views. Tough one.
Sir Martin Donnelly refused to be drawn on his old boss, like a good civil servant. He instead wants to debate the facts. So I look forward to our two "trade-led" Brexiteers, @stonemuse and @Dippenhall taking on his factual points. I am sure you will both do better than Boris Johnson just now. Come and 'ave a go, if you think yer 'ard enough :-)
This guy was until recently Liam Fox's top civil service advisor.
Now let me think. Whom do I believe more on the issue of our trade prospects? The most senior civil servant in the Dept of Trade, for years (it's his job)? Or a morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, previously a GP, who has mysteriously been politically rehabilitated on the basis of his strong hard right Brexit views. Tough one.
Sir Martin Donnelly refused to be drawn on his old boss, like a good civil servant. He instead wants to debate the facts. So I look forward to our two "trade-led" Brexiteers, @stonemuse and @Dippenhall taking on his factual points. I am sure you will both do better than Boris Johnson just now. Come and 'ave a go, if you think yer 'ard enough :-)
A senior civil servant to breaking cover, speaks volumes.
Sadly for O'Toole's analysis, progressive, pro EU Social Democracy is in decline across Europe and with no sign of recovering. An important aspect of why this has happened is that they have aligned themselves so closely to the EU project-which is unpopular in many sections of the historically Social Democrat white working class across Europe. But let us not let reality get in the way of wishful thinking.
Reality? Are you claiming command of the concept of reality? Are you defining what is political and social reality across Europe? Quite a claim if you are.
OK Seth, happy to bow to your superior knowledge. Which Social Democratic parties are doing well in mainland Europe? In Germany the SPD is now down to a level with the far right, in Italy they are about to be beaten, in Spain they are losing support, in Holland they lost out badly.
But I am sure you can let me know which ones are doing well.
Your mistake is conflating a reduced level of support for a party with the assumption that it's because their voters have all moved to some extremist anti-EU position.
I notice that the word "France" was notably lacking from your list, and as for Holland, you might want to read carefully about the make up of the myriad parties that now have representation in Parliament. In my experience it has always been a mistake to assume the Dutch are "just like us" simply because both are great trading nations and former colonialists. With Spain I am sure @CharltonMadrid will be along to provide a reasoned and informed viewpoint. As for Italy it has always been a political basket case. If I were able to rewrite the history of the EU going back to the early 60s, I would rewrite those fuckers out of it.
The traditional Social Democratic party in Spain (the PSOE) have certainly lost a lot of support over the last years but so have the ruling PP Conservatives who are now in a coalition with the rising centre to centre right Citizens party. The latter are basically the Spanish equivalent of Macron and his party, pro-Europe but wanting to modernise it, and tipped to win the next election. They and the left wing party Podemos have basically broken the long term two party system that have shared power since Franco's death and the return to democracy in 1978. Podemos have slipped back a bit though, mainly due to infighting and links to Venezuela which makes people very suspicious of them. Really all the parties are very much pro-EU because they recognise Spain is part of Europe and they have already had their years of isolationism from the 1930s to the 70s and don't want to return to it.
Generally the picture here is of a need for change but in all my years here I have never seen any real anti-EU sentiment apart from the very small anarchist or far-right groups that do a parade but have barely any following. The EU is just a part of life and people don't see it as some kind of authoritative figure that is suppressing them or something. The Spanish are very anti-authoritarian generally and the regions are often wary of control by central government so they would not have any issue in calling out the EU if they felt it was somehow taking away their rights or sovereignty. People want change but that means an end to corruption and nepotism. In complete contrast I guess to many in the UK the EU is actually seen as something 'clean', modern and efficient which I guess is due to the poor state historically of politics here. I think most people in Spain would rather put their trust in the EU than their own politicians.
I think finally it is important to note that when people on here or elsewhere predict the demise of the EU they need to understand that actually being part of it for many countries is something people are proud of, often due to their own experience of real oppression in living memory. So when people in Spain or in other European countries see the UK leaving as they want to be 'free' you can imagine why they would find that very strange.
It always amuses me that Brexiters, in their rush to return to the 50s, think that the residents of mainland Europe are in a similar rush to get back to the nationalism and hatred of the 30s.
This guy was until recently Liam Fox's top civil service advisor.
Now let me think. Whom do I believe more on the issue of our trade prospects? The most senior civil servant in the Dept of Trade, for years (it's his job)? Or a morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, previously a GP, who has mysteriously been politically rehabilitated on the basis of his strong hard right Brexit views. Tough one.
Sir Martin Donnelly refused to be drawn on his old boss, like a good civil servant. He instead wants to debate the facts. So I look forward to our two "trade-led" Brexiteers, @stonemuse and @Dippenhall taking on his factual points. I am sure you will both do better than Boris Johnson just now. Come and 'ave a go, if you think yer 'ard enough :-)
Must of the stuff we export is from foreign owned companies who are located here. Many of whom will be on their way without a meaningful Customs Union. Plus we will be so skint as a nation we won't be able to afford to import that much anyway. Who needs trade deals
Sadly for O'Toole's analysis, progressive, pro EU Social Democracy is in decline across Europe and with no sign of recovering. An important aspect of why this has happened is that they have aligned themselves so closely to the EU project-which is unpopular in many sections of the historically Social Democrat white working class across Europe. But let us not let reality get in the way of wishful thinking.
Reality? Are you claiming command of the concept of reality? Are you defining what is political and social reality across Europe? Quite a claim if you are.
OK Seth, happy to bow to your superior knowledge. Which Social Democratic parties are doing well in mainland Europe? In Germany the SPD is now down to a level with the far right, in Italy they are about to be beaten, in Spain they are losing support, in Holland they lost out badly.
But I am sure you can let me know which ones are doing well.
Your mistake is conflating a reduced level of support for a party with the assumption that it's because their voters have all moved to some extremist anti-EU position.
I notice that the word "France" was notably lacking from your list, and as for Holland, you might want to read carefully about the make up of the myriad parties that now have representation in Parliament. In my experience it has always been a mistake to assume the Dutch are "just like us" simply because both are great trading nations and former colonialists. With Spain I am sure @CharltonMadrid will be along to provide a reasoned and informed viewpoint. As for Italy it has always been a political basket case. If I were able to rewrite the history of the EU going back to the early 60s, I would rewrite those fuckers out of it.
The traditional Social Democratic party in Spain (the PSOE) have certainly lost a lot of support over the last years but so have the ruling PP Conservatives who are now in a coalition with the rising centre to centre right Citizens party. The latter are basically the Spanish equivalent of Macron and his party, pro-Europe but wanting to modernise it, and tipped to win the next election. They and the left wing party Podemos have basically broken the long term two party system that have shared power since Franco's death and the return to democracy in 1978. Podemos have slipped back a bit though, mainly due to infighting and links to Venezuela which makes people very suspicious of them. Really all the parties are very much pro-EU because they recognise Spain is part of Europe and they have already had their years of isolationism from the 1930s to the 70s and don't want to return to it.
Generally the picture here is of a need for change but in all my years here I have never seen any real anti-EU sentiment apart from the very small anarchist or far-right groups that do a parade but have barely any following. The EU is just a part of life and people don't see it as some kind of authoritative figure that is suppressing them or something. The Spanish are very anti-authoritarian generally and the regions are often wary of control by central government so they would not have any issue in calling out the EU if they felt it was somehow taking away their rights or sovereignty. People want change but that means an end to corruption and nepotism. In complete contrast I guess to many in the UK the EU is actually seen as something 'clean', modern and efficient which I guess is due to the poor state historically of politics here. I think most people in Spain would rather put their trust in the EU than their own politicians.
I think finally it is important to note that when people on here or elsewhere predict the demise of the EU they need to understand that actually being part of it for many countries is something people are proud of, often due to their own experience of real oppression in living memory. So when people in Spain or in other European countries see the UK leaving as they want to be 'free' you can imagine why they would find that very strange.
It always amuses me that Brexiters, in their rush to return to the 50s, think that the residents of mainland Europe are in a similar rush to get back to the nationalism and hatred of the 30s.
It is important to also point out that the only reason why Brexiters feel the EU is this foreign dictatorship that they feel is destroying the UK and not one of the most important peacetime projects carried out in human history and one that the UK has been a central and leading part of, is because there is a 20 mile gap of seawater between us and the rest of Europe. There seems to be no other explanation for this infantile attitude that is not replicated anywhere else on the continent. Admittedly Ireland also shares this characteristic but I think centuries of being oppressed by an actual unelected foreign dictator has probably warmed them to a progressive democratic alliance and not a nation that still seems to view the Emerald Isle with total contempt.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
I already completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
And there you have it. It doesn't matter how destructive Brexit is. It could be proved beyond any doubt that it terrible for the country and it's inhabitants and none of that would matter. A few people getting their feelings hurt is the only thing that matters.
That is such an unbelievably childish point of view, you want your sweeties and even if mummy and daddy should say no because you're already massively overweight and diabetic, they're supposed to say yes so you don't cry.
The governments job isn't to give in to every whim of the electorate, it's supposed to be to run and protect the country. The two may be at odds at times, in which case the government has to put the well being of the country ahead of the temporary feelings of part of the electorate.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
The benefit you talk about we already have as an EU member.
If we don't leave the EU it is because it would recognise that the referendum was not a legitimate democratic exercise as it was corrupt and hijacked by antidemocratic forces to defraud the British people. The benefits for long term British economic and democratic interests in dismissing the referendum result would far outweigh the minor upset caused to a handful of cretins who don't understand how Parliamentary democracy actually works.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
What you have said is factually disputable because it is a lie and I and other posters have exposed it as a lie repeatedly. You cling onto this lie because it is the only reason you have in your head for dismissing the concerns of Remainers. The problem is your definition of 'elite' is so broad and vague it encompasses just as many Leave voters as it does Remain. As proven by post vote analysis. You have no proof for your conjecture, apart from that we should take your word from it. Until you present some proof then the rest of the people on here will carry on dismissing your posts as the error and lie riddled nonsensical rants that they are.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I wonder if Southbank would accept as democratic another referendum at some point in the future that asked the question 'Should we rejoin the European Union?'.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I wonder if Southbank would accept as democratic another referendum at some point in the future that asked the question 'Should we rejoin the European Union?'.
Pollsters have consistently returned the opinion that Remain would comfortably win a second referendum for the best part of a year, so chances are low that Southbank would back a second referendum because it would disrupt the far-right agenda he supports, even if it is democratically the right thing to do.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I wonder if Southbank would accept as democratic another referendum at some point in the future that asked the question 'Should we rejoin the European Union?'.
Pollsters have consistently returned the opinion that Remain would comfortably win a second referendum for the best part of a year, so chances are low that Southbank would back a second referendum because it would disrupt the far-right agenda he supports, even if it is democratically the right thing to do.
Yes I know that - but I'm talking hypothetically for a situation in years to come long after we've left with, let's say, Southbank's desire for a hard brexit. Would he see it as democratic to ask the question of the electorate, or would he claim something like - 'the decision was made x years ago and there is no going back as it would be a betrayal of the will of the people'.
Liam Fox says a free trade agreement with the EU would solve the Irish border problem (he also used the phrase 'as frictionless as possible'), so no solution there then. I have sat and watched his speech and he says there will be jam tomorrow where staying in the EU means bread and butter today.
Liam Fox says a free trade agreement with the EU would solve the Irish border problem (he also used the phrase 'as frictionless as possible'), so no solution there then. I have sat and watched his speech and he says there will be jam tomorrow where staying in the EU means bread and butter today.
When will these people understand that there is no free trade deal with the EU unless it is on the EU's terms?
And there is no free trade deal that would be better for the average British person than remaining a member of the EU and all the benefits that it brings the British people that the UK government simply lacks the capacity to secure on its own.
But, you know, a few members of the alt-right might kick and scream about elites and democracy so onwards to mediocrity we plough.
The choice has never been "free trade with the EU and no trade with the rest of the world" or "out of the EU and free trade with the rest of the world". The reality is we are leaving "free trade with the EU, the EEA and the EU's trade partners and being in a decent position to trade with every other country as a member of the world's most successful, influential and desirable trade bloc" and instead going to "having a very bad trade deal or no trade deal with the EU, and maybe, within the next 20 years, having some kind of trade deal but unlikely to be a free trade deal with a handful of non-EU countries".
This guy was until recently Liam Fox's top civil service advisor.
Now let me think. Whom do I believe more on the issue of our trade prospects? The most senior civil servant in the Dept of Trade, for years (it's his job)? Or a morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, previously a GP, who has mysteriously been politically rehabilitated on the basis of his strong hard right Brexit views. Tough one.
Sir Martin Donnelly refused to be drawn on his old boss, like a good civil servant. He instead wants to debate the facts. So I look forward to our two "trade-led" Brexiteers, @stonemuse and @Dippenhall taking on his factual points. I am sure you will both do better than Boris Johnson just now. Come and 'ave a go, if you think yer 'ard enough :-)
I can't help thinking of In the Thick of It and wondering how Fox's spin doctors and advisors reacted to the wall to wall coverage this morning of this guy's proposed speech this evening completely undermining the carefully planned speech by their man.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Dear @Southbank . In 1992, I voted for Neil Kinnock's Labour. I was convinced that this time enough of my fellow countrymen had had enough of the Tories too. Indeed, in a severe case of premature ejaculation I uncorked a bottle of shampoo while watching the early results from Sunderland North etc. (no exit polls then to speak of). Imagine how i felt next day when i woke up with a hangover to find that John Major was still my effing Prime Minister. Worse was to come. Under that total idiot Norman Lamont, I saw my mortgage rate shoot up 5 % in one day, until the pound crashed out of the ERM. Then they went on to privatise the railways. But I did not bleat about my vote being "wasted". I just accepted that not everyone saw it as I did. Yet. In 1997 they were all finally turfed out, because enough of my fellow citizens had finally had enough. Things change. People's opinions evolve, as they discover more. We are not China, and will not be seeking to change the constitution so that Theresa May can go on and on. There will be another general election. As people's understanding of Brexit also evolves, and if the opinion polls continue to chart a shift in opinion, it would be undemocratic not to ask the electorate if they still want to proceed with Brexit now that the full implications of doing so are clear.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I wonder if Southbank would accept as democratic another referendum at some point in the future that asked the question 'Should we rejoin the European Union?'.
Pollsters have consistently returned the opinion that Remain would comfortably win a second referendum for the best part of a year, so chances are low that Southbank would back a second referendum because it would disrupt the far-right agenda he supports, even if it is democratically the right thing to do.
Yes I know that - but I'm talking hypothetically for a situation in years to come long after we've left with, let's say, Southbank's desire for a hard brexit. Would he see it as democratic to ask the question of the electorate, or would he claim something like - 'the decision was made x years ago and there is no going back as it would be a betrayal of the will of the people'.
Well I for one would accept that another referendum, at least 25 years down the road would be fine.
All this nonsense about the youth being shat on is the equivalent to what I wanted in 1975 but failed to get my wish.
I was too young to vote but just shrugged and got on with life rather than bitch and slag off my parents who voted to remain.
And while I'm on the subject, this constant assertion that the leave vote isn't valid as the 17.5m isn't a majority of voters, well what about the minority of voters that confirmed our membership? Should this be invalid too?
17.3m voted to remain out of over 40m registered voters and perhaps 60m population. The constant whinging of certain people about the percentages is boring in the extreme.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I wonder if Southbank would accept as democratic another referendum at some point in the future that asked the question 'Should we rejoin the European Union?'.
Yes, once we have carried out the result of the first referendum. Otherwise what is the point of having a referendum if they are not carried out?
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
The people who stand to 'benefit' from Brexit, were it to go ahead, are those 17.4 million people who used their right as citizens in a country they live and pay taxes in, to decide the future political direction of the country.
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
This post has a lot going for it regarding the value of a person's vote in a referendum. The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms. If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
Southbank's definition of democracy is only including voters who agree with him (hence why he only ever refers to the 17m Leave voters) and that everyone else is either anti-democratic or an elite. And he evidently doesn't realise that 17m is a minority of both the electorate and the UK population.
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I wonder if Southbank would accept as democratic another referendum at some point in the future that asked the question 'Should we rejoin the European Union?'.
Yes, once we have carried out the result of the first referendum. Otherwise what is the point of having a referendum if they are not carried out?
Labour Remainers often get accused of betraying their white working class voter base, but only 37% of Labour voters voted Leave whereas 42% of Tory voters voted to Remain, yet Tory Brexiters are never referred to as betraying their voter base (and the analysis of Remain voter make up is that the white split was almost 50/50, and Remainers were made up more of private renters, mortgage holders, small business owners, professionals and managers). Those with the most to lose from Brexit voted Remain whilst those who will virtually see no impact on their personal fortune voted to Leave. Virtually no one will benefit from Brexit, save the handful of barons who have been betting against Britain and hope to make a windfall from the asset stripping that will occur following our eventual exit. The Rolands of the political sphere.
Is this the group Southbank refers to as 'the elite'?
A few months ago I completely and comprehensively destroyed Southbank's nonsense that the elite voted for Remain using the analysis from Ashcroft. You can look at every demographic that voted to Remain and none of them would fit any reasonable definition of 'elite'. It didn't stop him repeating his lie here on a daily basis though.
No you did not. You wilfully misrepresented what I said. It is called a straw man argument.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
You're forgetting the unions, academia, medical professionals, regulators, law enforcement and so on from your definition of elite Remain campaigners. Again.
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
Yes I admitted to mention that a majority of academics, union leaders, civil servants etc etc also backed Remain. Thanks for reminding me.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.
Comments
This guy was until recently Liam Fox's top civil service advisor.
Now let me think. Whom do I believe more on the issue of our trade prospects? The most senior civil servant in the Dept of Trade, for years (it's his job)? Or a morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, previously a GP, who has mysteriously been politically rehabilitated on the basis of his strong hard right Brexit views. Tough one.
Sir Martin Donnelly refused to be drawn on his old boss, like a good civil servant. He instead wants to debate the facts. So I look forward to our two "trade-led" Brexiteers, @stonemuse and @Dippenhall taking on his factual points. I am sure you will both do better than Boris Johnson just now. Come and 'ave a go, if you think yer 'ard enough :-)
That is a 'benefit' that many millions of people in China and elsewhere can only dream about. Those with the most to lose are the 17.4 million people who, were Brexit not to go ahead, would discover that their vote was worthless, and they may as well have stayed at home on referendum day like those who decided they could not be bothered to vote either way.
We then would all lose because our democracy would be shown to be not worth the ballot paper it was written on. It would increase the alienation from politics that many people already feel and would have long term consequences far worse than whatever short term economic difficulties occur.
Oh well, back to being part of the proletariat.
That is such an unbelievably childish point of view, you want your sweeties and even if mummy and daddy should say no because you're already massively overweight and diabetic, they're supposed to say yes so you don't cry.
The governments job isn't to give in to every whim of the electorate, it's supposed to be to run and protect the country. The two may be at odds at times, in which case the government has to put the well being of the country ahead of the temporary feelings of part of the electorate.
If we don't leave the EU it is because it would recognise that the referendum was not a legitimate democratic exercise as it was corrupt and hijacked by antidemocratic forces to defraud the British people. The benefits for long term British economic and democratic interests in dismissing the referendum result would far outweigh the minor upset caused to a handful of cretins who don't understand how Parliamentary democracy actually works.
What I have said and is factually indisputable ( but do please try ) is that the majority of big business, politicians, the rich, both in the UK and across the world ( no need to call them an elite, they just are that whatever you want to call them) campaigned for Remain, while only a minority of those people campaigned to Leave.
You tried to pretend that I said that all those who voted Remain were part of an elite.
If you cannot see the difference between those two things then I am sure other people can.
The massive problem is what that vote means in practical and philosophical terms.
If there was a referendum result where the population 'democratically, voted for eternal life and it turns out it can't be delivered, do the population then feel betrayed and turn their back on 'democracy'?
So don't be surprised if he does think that something can be democratic if it is an alt-right/far-right agenda supported by a minority of the electorate that must exist in perpetuity and can never be overturned.
I have sat and watched his speech and he says there will be jam tomorrow where staying in the EU means bread and butter today.
And there is no free trade deal that would be better for the average British person than remaining a member of the EU and all the benefits that it brings the British people that the UK government simply lacks the capacity to secure on its own.
But, you know, a few members of the alt-right might kick and scream about elites and democracy so onwards to mediocrity we plough.
The choice has never been "free trade with the EU and no trade with the rest of the world" or "out of the EU and free trade with the rest of the world". The reality is we are leaving "free trade with the EU, the EEA and the EU's trade partners and being in a decent position to trade with every other country as a member of the world's most successful, influential and desirable trade bloc" and instead going to "having a very bad trade deal or no trade deal with the EU, and maybe, within the next 20 years, having some kind of trade deal but unlikely to be a free trade deal with a handful of non-EU countries".
BTW, did you notice that your friends in what you call Holland, but they call the Netherlands have decided that referenda are a thoroughly flawed idea?
All this nonsense about the youth being shat on is the equivalent to what I wanted in 1975 but failed to get my wish.
I was too young to vote but just shrugged and got on with life rather than bitch and slag off my parents who voted to remain.
And while I'm on the subject, this constant assertion that the leave vote isn't valid as the 17.5m isn't a majority of voters, well what about the minority of voters that confirmed our membership? Should this be invalid too?
17.3m voted to remain out of over 40m registered voters and perhaps 60m population. The constant whinging of certain people about the percentages is boring in the extreme.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975
I understand that you may find it difficult to reconcile your conspiracy theory with the reality that a huge cross section of informed, yet disparate, groups advised against your own view but you could at least acknowledge this happened.
The point is that a majority of people voted leave DESPITE the fact that rich, powerful and influential people advised them against it. That is what was wonderful about the result. It showed that the people are capable of making up their own minds despite people in and with power telling them not to.