As for Davis? He's a duplicitous, thicko who'd been sidelined months ago anyway and was just waiting for his opportunity to distance himself before the whole house of cards came tumbling down on his watch.
And for unpopular balance, an alternative view might be that he has taken a career ending decision for the good of the country, and who could have resigned long ago from what is clearly an un winnable task.
The boy brought up on a south London council estate by his single mum, who gained a masters degree, a molecular science degree and a couple of years at Harvard all funded by his time in the TA SAS, and almost 2 decades in business behind him,probably is, as you inform us, and by your standards, a thicko.
I suspect he's very cruel to animals, hates football, and spends his time doing evil deeds to the liberal elite just for his own self serving pleasure. The absolute bastard.
For the good of the country? What might that be then? That the so-called and incomprehensible 'will of the people' comes before everything else?
If it is not the will of the people it is the will of the people already in charge. Which do you prefer? This has always been about democracy more than anything else. The government and most of the opposition and all their cheerleaders in big business want it to be about what they want, not what the people voted for. The Brexit vote was the most radical thing that has happened in Britain in our lefetimes and now it is close to being ignored by those in charge.
Both main parties lied to the electorate last year when they said they were in favour of Brexit. Their duplicity meant that no third pro-Brexit force was likely to emerge at that stage, in fact it effectively killed off UKIP. The 17.4 m who voted No have little representation in Government or Opposition. This may be a cause of satisfaction for some Remainers, who will get their way-but it should be deeply worrying for anybody who cares about democracy-or indeed anybody who hopes or expects change to happen through the political process. All we will be left with is deep and widespread cynicism. If the wishes of 17.4 million people can be ignored, what does that mean for any attempt to challenge the status quo through the ballot?
Then let the people vote whether or not to accept the negotiated deal. If this is just about democracy then why is every leaver against a second referendum, why do they support the cabinet getting unilateral powers to ignore our democratically elected representatives in parliament.
Seems to me it's only about democracy when the vote goes your way.
By the time we actually leave it will be 3 years since the vote. You propose that we should ignore everything that's happened in that 3 years and stick with a narrow result, at least partly won by electoral fraud rather than actually asking the people to democratically decide if the deal we're getting is a deal we actually want.
I now, more than ever, believe that quitters never even wanted to quit, they engineered this clusterfuck in order to give them something more to moan about in years to come. What other reason could they have voted this way given they were so aware of the intentions of the political classes - and that Nigel and his pals were being disingenuous when talking about us accepting the Norway or Swiss models of course - they all knew this was bollocks and were only ever voting for a hard brexit.
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Yet Remainers are quite happy for Parliament to be continuously sidelined by decisions made in Europe, which is now in May's draft plan and the reason Davis gave for resignation.
It may well be that once the EU has rejected May's plan that it will be clear that there will be no deal or complete capitulation by the Government to the EU (not for the first time or the last), so what it should always have been, completely leave or remain-which is what we were asked in 2016 so we do not need another referendum, we need a Government that will carry out our wishes.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
So I assume you are ok with electoral fraud and Putin's efforts to undermine the EU by getting involved in the UK democratic process. It is complete nonsense for Brexiteers to keep harping on about the 'will of the people' and the end of our democracy. It is hypocrisy of the highest order!
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
So what happens if Brexit is proved to your satisfaction to be a terrible idea that will inflict long term damage on the UK. What would you have parliament do, blindly pursue the "will of the people" or protect the UK from itself?
What, in your view, is parliaments purpose, to pursue to will of the noisy many at the expense of everybody else, or to consider the consequences of decisions and minimise harm?
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
That's not how it would go down is it though?
If brexit wins again, another barrage of demands for a re-vote occurs. If remain wins, brexit supporters demand best of 3.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
So what happens if Brexit is proved to your satisfaction to be a terrible idea that will inflict long term damage on the UK. What would you have parliament do, blindly pursue the "will of the people" or protect the UK from itself?
What, in your view, is parliaments purpose, to pursue to will of the noisy many at the expense of everybody else, or to consider the consequences of decisions and minimise harm?
I am saying that if MPs are elected on a promise to leave the EU and then renege on that promise they should go back to the people in a General Election and convince them it is the right thing, thereby enabling the electorate to agree or choose a representative who they do agree with. It is clear that last year's election sas fraudulent, bot because of Russia but because a majority of MPs flatly lied to the electorate.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
So what happens if Brexit is proved to your satisfaction to be a terrible idea that will inflict long term damage on the UK. What would you have parliament do, blindly pursue the "will of the people" or protect the UK from itself?
What, in your view, is parliaments purpose, to pursue to will of the noisy many at the expense of everybody else, or to consider the consequences of decisions and minimise harm?
I am saying that if MPs are elected on a promise to leave the EU and then renege on that promise they should go back to the people in a General Election and convince them it is the right thing, thereby enabling the electorate to agree or choose a representative who they do agree with. It is clear that last year's election sas fraudulent, bot because of Russia but because a majority of MPs flatly lied to the electorate.
I accepted the referendum result to leave the EU but I also expected parliament to deliver a Brexit that minimised the damage to our country, thereby fulfilling parliament's primary obective of protecting citizens.
Parliament/this government is unable to do that - and no hard Brexit candidates at any future election would be able to deliver it either. It is undeliverable without taking huge risks. But I'm getting to the point now where I want us to just leave, build the wall, and hang the consequences.
As Alistair Campbell (like him or loathe him) said on Radio 5 this morning - democracy isn't a moment in time, it is an ongoing process.
I now, more than ever, believe that quitters never even wanted to quit, they engineered this clusterfuck in order to give them something more to moan about in years to come. What other reason could they have voted this way given they were so aware of the intentions of the political classes - and that Nigel and his pals were being disingenuous when talking about us accepting the Norway or Swiss models of course - they all knew this was bollocks and were only ever voting for a hard brexit.
The game should have been up long ago when David Davis talked about doing a trade deal with Germany ffs
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
As for Davis? He's a duplicitous, thicko who'd been sidelined months ago anyway and was just waiting for his opportunity to distance himself before the whole house of cards came tumbling down on his watch.
And for unpopular balance, an alternative view might be that he has taken a career ending decision for the good of the country, and who could have resigned long ago from what is clearly an un winnable task.
The boy brought up on a south London council estate by his single mum, who gained a masters degree, a molecular science degree and a couple of years at Harvard all funded by his time in the TA SAS, and almost 2 decades in business behind him,probably is, as you inform us, and by your standards, a thicko.
I suspect he's very cruel to animals, hates football, and spends his time doing evil deeds to the liberal elite just for his own self serving pleasure. The absolute bastard.
For the good of the country? What might that be then? That the so-called and incomprehensible 'will of the people' comes before everything else?
If it is not the will of the people it is the will of the people already in charge. Which do you prefer? This has always been about democracy more than anything else.
Well not really. There seems to be more opinions and interpretations regarding what brexit is 'about' than atoms in the universe. You say it is about 'democracy' most. For others it is about the financials, about trade, about laws, about immigration, about border control and free movement...do you get my drift? If you say that for you it is about democracy then fair enough, but remember yours is one opinion amongst many.
The government and most of the opposition and all their cheerleaders in big business want it to be about what they want, not what the people voted for. The Brexit vote was the most radical thing that has happened in Britain in our lefetimes and now it is close to being ignored by those in charge.
Once again, what the people voted for remains a complete mystery, see above. Theresa May can come up with her proposals and declare that this is what the people voted for, my brexit means brexit, then others in her own party disagree. So what the people voted for is impossible to define or pin down, what is seemingly obvious is not obvious at all.
Both main parties lied to the electorate last year when they said they were in favour of Brexit.
I don't see how anybody lied because saying you are in favour of brexit implies you know both what brexit is, and how to achieve it. None of the parties have cracked that any more than any of the brexiteers.
Their duplicity meant that no third pro-Brexit force was likely to emerge at that stage, in fact it effectively killed off UKIP. The 17.4 m who voted No have little representation in Government or Opposition.
I think they have representation in a kind of blind leading the blind form. Plenty of politicians go on about wanting to respect the will of the people, but as yet nobody is able to suss out what that will is in any meaningful or practical sense.
This may be a cause of satisfaction for some Remainers, who will get their way-but it should be deeply worrying for anybody who cares about democracy-or indeed anybody who hopes or expects change to happen through the political process. All we will be left with is deep and widespread cynicism. If the wishes of 17.4 million people can be ignored
Those so called wishes have been driving the political debate for more than two years, hardly 'being ignored'.
, what does that mean for any attempt to challenge the status quo through the ballot?
What it means is that perhaps you and others need to re visit what you mean by democracy. I have said before there are versions of, and nuances to, what democracy means. Indeed I have said that the EU is a perfectly good and functioning democracy, especially when measured agains the UK version of democracy. If a referendum simply means a method of challenging the status quo I think that we are learning that it is a method that does not actually work, nor would ever be likely to have worked.
Been doing garden work so apologies for the late response.
Ok. I will happily admit I got it wrong. I should have never voted to leave. Please can we have a 2nd Referendum & I will vote to remain. I expect hundreds of thousands will do the same & the UK can stay in the EU. You can then thank me & my kind for helping to save the country.
However....I will then forthwith never accept what any politician/party says ever again. I will continue to vote in General Elections but will either vote for the Monster Raving Loony party or spoil my ballot paper with the words LIAR or NUMPTY.
good day to you all.
Great post. Don't forget Lord Buckethead if you get the chance.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Yet Remainers are quite happy for Parliament to be continuously sidelined by decisions made in Europe, which is now in May's draft plan and the reason Davis gave for resignation.
It may well be that once the EU has rejected May's plan that it will be clear that there will be no deal or complete capitulation by the Government to the EU (not for the first time or the last), so what it should always have been, completely leave or remain-which is what we were asked in 2016 so we do not need another referendum, we need a Government that will carry out our wishes.
Parliament is sidelined by the decision to leave the EU. When in the EU the UK Parliament was as full a participant as any of the other 28 nations and their Parliaments. The UK has not been under the thrall of some alien EU authority bending to it's will, but it may be now following the cherry picking approach to leaving. That is entirely down to the people who voted brexit.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
I think the individual candidates matter more than what their associated parties say.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
I emphasised ALL of them, because this is what is now on offer-find me one Leaver now or then who would be happy with ALL of them.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
I emphasised ALL of them, because this is what is now on offer-find me one Leaver now or then who would be happy with ALL of them.
The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules, but also the following horizontal policies: consumer protection, company law, environment, social policy, statistics. In addition, the EEA Agreement provides for cooperation in several flanking policies such as research and technological development, education, training and youth, employment, tourism, culture, civil protection, enterprise, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises. The EEA Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Single Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Through Article 6 of the EEA Agreement, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is also of relevance to the EEA Agreement, as the provisions of the EEA Agreement shall be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court given prior to the date of signature (i.e. 2 May 1992).
What's missing?
Do I take it that you would agree with the main Leave campaigners that the EEA model would be acceptable?
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Why should I?
If it is your contention that 17.4 million people uniformly voted for a type of Brexit that suits your interpretation, or that of David Davis, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg, feel free to provide (at the bare minimum) the polling evidence that supports your view...
All the evidence that I have seen has indicated that at least some Leave voters voted as they did for reasons that had nothing to do with the reasons you outline.
All I am pointing out is that none of the issues you listed above were on the ballot paper as the subject of the referendum vote.
A binary option was offered to the public - to remain in the EU, or to leave the EU.
It pains me to say it, because I think that it is a bad decision for the UK and for the EU, but the UK has demonstrated a consistent willingness to leave the EU next March. And leaving the EU is the only mandate that the referendum has provided UK politicians - any arguments that the referendum provides a clear public decision in favour of anything else are purely attempts to force the result to mean more than what people voted for.
There is no mandate in favour of your desired outcome as things stand right now; any departure from the EU meets the will expressed by the majority of those who voted in the referendum.
If you want the UK to be outside of the Single Market, Customs Union, the ECJ and the Four Freedoms, why not campaign for a referendum to that effect. If you are confident that that is what all Leave voters wanted in 2016, it should be a doddle to win such a vote.
Hopefully this will kill the half baked May proposals that the EU will throw out anyway if presented. It covered goods which are an ever falling element of exports to the EU, but in which we have a trade deficit with the EU and ignores services which are an ever growing proportion of EU exports in which we enjoy a surplus.
We don't need to be in the customs union, a protection racket to raise tax on non EU imports with the UK acting as an EU tax collector. 99% of all businesses are small businesses and 90% of them don't export to the EU, they employ over half of UK employees and over 70% are in services industries which in turn generates over 70% of private sector turnover.
No Brexit is better than what we are sliding towards. The May proposal is a half baked cake and having a small bit of it to eat. The EU will regard it no different had it been the original aspiration of having a fully baked cake and eating as much as we could keep.
Brexit without the ability to move to greater free trade and elimination of third country import taxes is non-starter as far as I am concerned. We should be able to obtain access to the single market on free trade terms the EU would have no problem agreeing with any other State and can eliminate the Irish border issue at a stroke if it is more important than screwing consumers for taxes.
If we had provided clarity at the outset on what we wanted, as opposed to what we thought the EU might agree to, in the hope the sentiment would be reciprocated, we would not be in this situation and each side would be clear on what the outcome of no deal represented and what was worth sacrificing.
It's sheer utter incompetence of government and lack of confidence of Remainers in the nation's ability to forge a new 21st century relationship with a changing World outside of an EU trapped in the 20th century.
If by having confidence in the UK's ability to thrive outside the restrictions of an inward looking, ever less relevant EU, I am accused of "patriotism" then I am guilty.
Remainers exhibit the classic signs of negligent conservatism preferring to make no changes comfortable in the cosy idea that the past will be repeated and taking a new direction whose outcome can't be measured against the past cannot be contemplated.
Such people are typically the well educated career politicians, academics and bureaucrats, who do not welcome disruption of their comfortable lives through change or innovation. History shows us that nations decay and new nations prosper. Assuming the future will be an extension of the past, regardless of events outside your control, is the fast track to decay.
@seth plum will you ever be honest to yourself and admit that "democracy" is judged against a very simple barometer which is how close are the citizens to controlling the decision making process. You can't vote for a party in Poland or Germany or Latvia which will feed into the EU "democratic" process whose policies you prefer to any UK party, and presumably you don't care and don't think it relevant. Nor is there an EU Manifesto on which your MEP can state positions before you vote for him, because it will be the Heads of State who decide what can be voted on agreed behind closed doors. The Heads of State can't stand on a platform of EU policies as they don't know what policies each other will put forward let alone agree to. By contrast, in the UK you could vote for the SNP if they put a candidate up in your constituency.
I can accept that's how it must be, I don't see much alternatives, but please don't kid yourself the EU runs a sound "democratic" system.
The EU is as near to being a functioning democracy as Russia, but good luck with your continuing non-convincing arguments.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
I emphasised ALL of them, because this is what is now on offer-find me one Leaver now or then who would be happy with ALL of them.
So the official leave campaign, along with most of the unofficial leave campaigns, all proposed a solution that you're not happy with, and the you claim no leaver would be happy with. They repeatedly made those proposals all clear well before and all the way up to the referendum, and yet you, and 17 million others still voted with them despite that.
You heard everything the leave campaign said and then completely ignored and voted for the voices in your head, and now you're upset that we'll get the Brexit that was originally proposed and repeatedly touted as the only possible Brexit that could work, and you're upset because reality hasn't completely changed to match your desires.
If the Norway option pushed by prominent leavers wasn't what you wanted then you should have spoiled your ballot and started a petition for whatever you consider a proper Brexit. As a massive fan of democracy I'm sure you'd be more than happy relying on your fellow citizens to democratically back or reject your vision.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
I emphasised ALL of them, because this is what is now on offer-find me one Leaver now or then who would be happy with ALL of them.
Do you think Remainers should care what Leavers want when it has been clear all along that Leavers could not give a fig about the views and fears of the approx 50% of the country who voted Remain?
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
I emphasised ALL of them, because this is what is now on offer-find me one Leaver now or then who would be happy with ALL of them.
The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules, but also the following horizontal policies: consumer protection, company law, environment, social policy, statistics. In addition, the EEA Agreement provides for cooperation in several flanking policies such as research and technological development, education, training and youth, employment, tourism, culture, civil protection, enterprise, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises. The EEA Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Single Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Through Article 6 of the EEA Agreement, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is also of relevance to the EEA Agreement, as the provisions of the EEA Agreement shall be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court given prior to the date of signature (i.e. 2 May 1992).
What's missing?
Do I take it that you would agree with the main Leave campaigners that the EEA model would be acceptable?
I am talking of Leave voters-not politicians. Nobody has come up with one because they do not exist. Ironically, the same people who argued that the Brexit vote was anti-immigrant are now arguing that Brexit was not to stop the free movement of Labour, amongst other things.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
I think he meant "refusing to carry out Brexit the way I want".
Brexiteers have a habit of reading all sorts of additional elements to the question "should the UK leave the European Union?" and then pretending that democratic will is somehow not being adhered to if the end deal for leaving the EU isn't exactly what they personally envisaged.
The referendum solely asked us to determine whether we stay in the EU or not, anything after that is up for grabs.
Given the duplicitous nature of the General Election Tory and Labour manifestos on Brexit last year, we should have another General Election in which the Parties stand for what they really think on Brexit and which would enable pro-Brexit people to stand against them. That way we would have a Parliament which really represented the people on this massive issue. We would also then have a Government, either way, which had been elected to carry out what the people believe in.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
And what would happen if the majority of MPs who got elected were all "remainers"? The referendum was far too close for this to ever work out without endless bickering from both "sides".
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
The Parties are both refusing to carry out Brexit. They should put this to the electorate and allow pro-Brexit candidates a chance to stand against them. If they win then so be it, either way.
You do realise that you are directly contradicting what you said less than half an hour ago?
Parliament voted for a Referendum Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed. Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill. Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Find me a single Leave voter who wishes for all of these: to continue to have free movement of labour, control by the ECJ and to remain in the single market and customs union. Just one person will do. Because this is where we are heading.
Nigel Farage did:
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
I emphasised ALL of them, because this is what is now on offer-find me one Leaver now or then who would be happy with ALL of them.
The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules, but also the following horizontal policies: consumer protection, company law, environment, social policy, statistics. In addition, the EEA Agreement provides for cooperation in several flanking policies such as research and technological development, education, training and youth, employment, tourism, culture, civil protection, enterprise, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises. The EEA Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Single Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Through Article 6 of the EEA Agreement, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is also of relevance to the EEA Agreement, as the provisions of the EEA Agreement shall be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court given prior to the date of signature (i.e. 2 May 1992).
What's missing?
Do I take it that you would agree with the main Leave campaigners that the EEA model would be acceptable?
I am talking of Leave voters-not politicians. Nobody has come up with one because they do not exist. Ironically, the same people who argued that the Brexit vote was anti-immigrant are now arguing that Brexit was not to stop the free movement of Labour, amongst other things.
Comments
Seems to me it's only about democracy when the vote goes your way.
By the time we actually leave it will be 3 years since the vote. You propose that we should ignore everything that's happened in that 3 years and stick with a narrow result, at least partly won by electoral fraud rather than actually asking the people to democratically decide if the deal we're getting is a deal we actually want.
Parliament voted to trigger Article 50
The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed.
Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill.
Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Yet Remainers are quite happy for Parliament to be continuously sidelined by decisions made in Europe, which is now in May's draft plan and the reason Davis gave for resignation.
It may well be that once the EU has rejected May's plan that it will be clear that there will be no deal or complete capitulation by the Government to the EU (not for the first time or the last), so what it should always have been, completely leave or remain-which is what we were asked in 2016 so we do not need another referendum, we need a Government that will carry out our wishes.
Having another refendum would not help this process-if one referendum can be ignored then so can anoother. We need a Government which stands for what it believes in more than anything else.
That's why I put the 'blame' of this farce solely at Cameron's door for using a referendum on such an important topic as part of a campaign.
What, in your view, is parliaments purpose, to pursue to will of the noisy many at the expense of everybody else, or to consider the consequences of decisions and minimise harm?
If brexit wins again, another barrage of demands for a re-vote occurs. If remain wins, brexit supporters demand best of 3.
It is clear that last year's election sas fraudulent, bot because of Russia but because a majority of MPs flatly lied to the electorate.
Parliament voted for a Referendum
Parliament voted to trigger Article 50
The General election returned a Government supposedly committed to Brexit, against an Opposition also so committed.
Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Bill.
Parliament has been promised a meaningful vote on the outcome of negotiations
The idea that somehow Parliament has been sidelined through this process is nonsense.
Either the two main political parties in Westminster are refusing to carry out Brexit, or they are voting as you have described (I might question the degree to which the present party of "government" is allowing Parliament a meaningful role in the process).
In any event, HMG have advised the EU27 that it is leaving under Article 50 (which I regret), provided that no dramatic political and economic change happens, that would destabilise proceedings, the UK is not going to be a member of the EU after 29 March 2019.
The referendum asked whether people wished to remain in the EU or leave, both Labour and the Conservatives have indicated that they will respect the outcome of the referendum (no matter how stupid or damaging they may believe it to be), but the only mandate that the referendum provides (because of the lack of supporting information contained within the ballot paper) is to no longer be a member of the EU.
Without finding a way of dispassionately asking every single person that voted in favour of leaving for their reason(s) for so voting, any step taken, beyond the specific outcome that people voted for is not democratically valid.
Neither the Conservatives, nor Labour, are advocating remaining within the EU at present, both are stating that the UK will leave the EU.
I struggle to see how that is "refusing to carry out Brexit".
Parliament/this government is unable to do that - and no hard Brexit candidates at any future election would be able to deliver it either. It is undeliverable without taking huge risks. But I'm getting to the point now where I want us to just leave, build the wall, and hang the consequences.
As Alistair Campbell (like him or loathe him) said on Radio 5 this morning - democracy isn't a moment in time, it is an ongoing process.
Been doing garden work so apologies for the late response.
Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing
Aaron Banks did:
Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK
Matthew Elliot did:
The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people
When in the EU the UK Parliament was as full a participant as any of the other 28 nations and their Parliaments.
The UK has not been under the thrall of some alien EU authority bending to it's will, but it may be now following the cherry picking approach to leaving.
That is entirely down to the people who voted brexit.
What's missing?
Do I take it that you would agree with the main Leave campaigners that the EEA model would be acceptable?
If it is your contention that 17.4 million people uniformly voted for a type of Brexit that suits your interpretation, or that of David Davis, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg, feel free to provide (at the bare minimum) the polling evidence that supports your view...
All the evidence that I have seen has indicated that at least some Leave voters voted as they did for reasons that had nothing to do with the reasons you outline.
All I am pointing out is that none of the issues you listed above were on the ballot paper as the subject of the referendum vote.
A binary option was offered to the public - to remain in the EU, or to leave the EU.
It pains me to say it, because I think that it is a bad decision for the UK and for the EU, but the UK has demonstrated a consistent willingness to leave the EU next March. And leaving the EU is the only mandate that the referendum has provided UK politicians - any arguments that the referendum provides a clear public decision in favour of anything else are purely attempts to force the result to mean more than what people voted for.
There is no mandate in favour of your desired outcome as things stand right now; any departure from the EU meets the will expressed by the majority of those who voted in the referendum.
If you want the UK to be outside of the Single Market, Customs Union, the ECJ and the Four Freedoms, why not campaign for a referendum to that effect. If you are confident that that is what all Leave voters wanted in 2016, it should be a doddle to win such a vote.
We don't need to be in the customs union, a protection racket to raise tax on non EU imports with the UK acting as an EU tax collector. 99% of all businesses are small businesses and 90% of them don't export to the EU, they employ over half of UK employees and over 70% are in services industries which in turn generates over 70% of private sector turnover.
No Brexit is better than what we are sliding towards. The May proposal is a half baked cake and having a small bit of it to eat. The EU will regard it no different had it been the original aspiration of having a fully baked cake and eating as much as we could keep.
Brexit without the ability to move to greater free trade and elimination of third country import taxes is non-starter as far as I am concerned. We should be able to obtain access to the single market on free trade terms the EU would have no problem agreeing with any other State and can eliminate the Irish border issue at a stroke if it is more important than screwing consumers for taxes.
If we had provided clarity at the outset on what we wanted, as opposed to what we thought the EU might agree to, in the hope the sentiment would be reciprocated, we would not be in this situation and each side would be clear on what the outcome of no deal represented and what was worth sacrificing.
It's sheer utter incompetence of government and lack of confidence of Remainers in the nation's ability to forge a new 21st century relationship with a changing World outside of an EU trapped in the 20th century.
If by having confidence in the UK's ability to thrive outside the restrictions of an inward looking, ever less relevant EU, I am accused of "patriotism" then I am guilty.
Remainers exhibit the classic signs of negligent conservatism preferring to make no changes comfortable in the cosy idea that the past will be repeated and taking a new direction whose outcome can't be measured against the past cannot be contemplated.
Such people are typically the well educated career politicians, academics and bureaucrats, who do not welcome disruption of their comfortable lives through change or innovation. History shows us that nations decay and new nations prosper. Assuming the future will be an extension of the past, regardless of events outside your control, is the fast track to decay.
@seth plum will you ever be honest to yourself and admit that "democracy" is judged against a very simple barometer which is how close are the citizens to controlling the decision making process. You can't vote for a party in Poland or Germany or Latvia which will feed into the EU "democratic" process whose policies you prefer to any UK party, and presumably you don't care and don't think it relevant. Nor is there an EU Manifesto on which your MEP can state positions before you vote for him, because it will be the Heads of State who decide what can be voted on agreed behind closed doors. The Heads of State can't stand on a platform of EU policies as they don't know what policies each other will put forward let alone agree to. By contrast, in the UK you could vote for the SNP if they put a candidate up in your constituency.
I can accept that's how it must be, I don't see much alternatives, but please don't kid yourself the EU runs a sound "democratic" system.
The EU is as near to being a functioning democracy as Russia, but good luck with your continuing non-convincing arguments.
You heard everything the leave campaign said and then completely ignored and voted for the voices in your head, and now you're upset that we'll get the Brexit that was originally proposed and repeatedly touted as the only possible Brexit that could work, and you're upset because reality hasn't completely changed to match your desires.
If the Norway option pushed by prominent leavers wasn't what you wanted then you should have spoiled your ballot and started a petition for whatever you consider a proper Brexit. As a massive fan of democracy I'm sure you'd be more than happy relying on your fellow citizens to democratically back or reject your vision.
Gert your story straight, guys.
Brexiteers have a habit of reading all sorts of additional elements to the question "should the UK leave the European Union?" and then pretending that democratic will is somehow not being adhered to if the end deal for leaving the EU isn't exactly what they personally envisaged.
The referendum solely asked us to determine whether we stay in the EU or not, anything after that is up for grabs.