In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
I reckon you have, or are having, the brexit you voted for aren't you? I voted remain so none of the shenanigans so far is down to me.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
I reckon you have, or are having, the brexit you voted for aren't you? I voted remain so none of the shenanigans so far is down to me.
You voted for Blair, so were all the wars down to you then?
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
I reckon you have, or are having, the brexit you voted for aren't you? I voted remain so none of the shenanigans so far is down to me.
You voted for Blair, so were all the wars down to you then?
I reckon they were. Seth, you've got a lot to answer for.
They were. I have a part in that by voting Labour then. I demonstrated, protested against the War Porn all over our television screens, and went to my MP's surgery. However I have blood on my hands....as do the Tories who voted for their MP's that supported the Blair decision.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
Absolutely - EEA/EFTA membership satisfies in full the result of the referendum.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
The campaign slogan was 'take back control'. Explain to me in what way May is doing that? You do not have to of course, as a Remainer you can simply bask in your victory. But as they crudely say in the US 'Don't piss on me and tell me its raining'.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
If that is truly the case then hallelujah.
Whatever short term economic damage there may have been had we left the EU is nothing compared to the long term damage to the body politic this outcome will cause. Don't celebrate too soon.
This is the Conservatives Iraq war, a policy decision so shambolically handled, planned, and executed appallingly. The Chilcot type enquiry is going to be brutal
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
If that is truly the case then hallelujah.
Whatever short term economic damage there may have been had we left the EU is nothing compared to the long term damage to the body politic this outcome will cause. Don't celebrate too soon.
I really don't care if the active electorate becomes two men and a dog - Brexit was and is utter madness.
Fintan O'Toole is clearly scoring points over the Brexit architects. He does highlight that Johnson and Davis are doing a runner when it becomes clear that a hard Brexit doesn't fly.
But where I take issue is what's wrong with Norway and Switzerland? No problem with BINO and it will do the UK a world of good to reflect upon how and why we gave up the influence won back in 1973.
Incidentally that would be the same influence and participation which De Gaul refused to cede.
The irony is that Farage, Johnson and Rees Mogg bleat on about becoming a rule taker or vassel state. So whose fault is that?!
In short, this is going rather well but is still very turbulent.
At least two of those were advocating a Norwegian solution in the run up, but now they have carte blance on the horizon, they flip flop.
Fintan O'Toole is clearly scoring points over the Brexit architects. He does highlight that Johnson and Davis are doing a runner when it becomes clear that a hard Brexit doesn't fly.
But where I take issue is what's wrong with Norway and Switzerland? No problem with BINO and it will do the UK a world of good to reflect upon how and why we gave up the influence won back in 1973.
Incidentally that would be the same influence and participation which De Gaul refused to cede.
The irony is that Farage, Johnson and Rees Mogg bleat on about becoming a rule taker or vassel state. So whose fault is that?!
In short, this is going rather well but is still very turbulent.
At least two of those were advocating a Norwegian solution in the run up, but now they have carte blance on the horizon, they flip flop.
It has been good debating with you guys over the past two years. Now Brexit is over would be a good time to close the thread. I am out anyway. I have a job to do persuading my kids not to lose hope in democratic politics. See you on the other boards.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
But what I can’t understand is that if Brexit in its simplest form (ie we leave the EU, clean break) was such a good idea, then there would be no need for any deal. We all know that that is clearly now not the case, otherwise we wouldn’t have had the shower of shit we’ve all been privileged to witness over the last 2 years
The fact that we all thought we had to get a deal clearly shows there are substantial benefits of being in the EU. I think the key problem was the assumption or goal of a deal being struck, outside of a Canada type arrangement or Norway. I agree that business and those in bureaucratic positions will want to protect the status quo and the EU has many problems, but crashing out has become a must avoid and our attitude to a deal has been laughable. I don’t put much of this in the court of remoaners either. I simply believe that when it comes to it, we can’t get any sort of a deal other than the pre-existing arrangements like Norway etc, on the basis that anything else just won’t work. I think remainers have just been highlighting this is the case
If brexit was the land of milk and honey and Britain was so special to have its cake and eat it, then the remainers would’ve been blown out the water.
We’re not. The world is getting smaller and regardless of how many idiots I’ve heard on question time over the last few years say ‘I wish we’d all just get behind the government and let them do their job’, we’ve realised we’re so interwoven, we can’t just undo 40 years of Union.
Imagine if we had just got behind the government and let them get on with doing their job, as opposed to voicing our legitimate concerns. It would be even more of a car crash than it is now
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
Most people were pretty clueless what they were voting for in the referendum and the politicians had done next to no planning regarding the outcome. Even the most avid Brexiteers seem unable to agree on a coherent strategy.
The whole exercise seems completely pointless.
Remember 'take back control'? People voted for that, control over borders and laws. It was really not that complicated. It has become mystified as Remainers have channelled us away from that to what I agree is a pointless position. Remember, it is not the EU who have done this, we have not even started dealing with them. It is our own people who have done this. Not surpisingly an alliance of Remain politicians, big business and bureaucrats in love with bureacracy have sabotaged Brexit. Brexit is dead and our democracy has taken a massive blow.
I reckon you have, or are having, the brexit you voted for aren't you? I voted remain so none of the shenanigans so far is down to me.
You voted for Blair, so were all the wars down to you then?
Yes indeed and we want to know what HE is going to do about bringing peace into that region. And all its BORDERS. He obviously didn't know what he was voting for.
Fintan O'Toole is clearly scoring points over the Brexit architects. He does highlight that Johnson and Davis are doing a runner when it becomes clear that a hard Brexit doesn't fly.
But where I take issue is what's wrong with Norway and Switzerland? No problem with BINO and it will do the UK a world of good to reflect upon how and why we gave up the influence won back in 1973.
Incidentally that would be the same influence and participation which De Gaul refused to cede.
The irony is that Farage, Johnson and Rees Mogg bleat on about becoming a rule taker or vassel state. So whose fault is that?!
In short, this is going rather well but is still very turbulent.
At least two of those were advocating a Norwegian solution in the run up, but now they have carte blance on the horizon, they flip flop.
It has been good debating with you guys over the past two years. Now Brexit is over would be a good time to close the thread. I am out anyway. I have a job to do persuading my kids not to lose hope in democratic politics. See you on the other boards.
Well said and agreed... The dinosaurs have well and truly had their day.
Fintan O'Toole is clearly scoring points over the Brexit architects. He does highlight that Johnson and Davis are doing a runner when it becomes clear that a hard Brexit doesn't fly.
But where I take issue is what's wrong with Norway and Switzerland? No problem with BINO and it will do the UK a world of good to reflect upon how and why we gave up the influence won back in 1973.
Incidentally that would be the same influence and participation which De Gaul refused to cede.
The irony is that Farage, Johnson and Rees Mogg bleat on about becoming a rule taker or vassel state. So whose fault is that?!
In short, this is going rather well but is still very turbulent.
At least two of those were advocating a Norwegian solution in the run up, but now they have carte blance on the horizon, they flip flop.
It has been good debating with you guys over the past two years. Now Brexit is over would be a good time to close the thread. I am out anyway. I have a job to do persuading my kids not to lose hope in democratic politics. See you on the other boards.
And never once did you address the plain fact that key members of the leave campaign promoted soft Brexit.
Doesn't fit with your own project fear campaign on our democratic process.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
The campaign slogan was 'take back control'. Explain to me in what way May is doing that? You do not have to of course, as a Remainer you can simply bask in your victory. But as they crudely say in the US 'Don't piss on me and tell me its raining'.
But, I recognise that I lost.
If I had won, the UK would have voted to remain.
No Brexit, in the current or recent circumstances is a good result for me.
As for "taking back control", it's just a snappy slogan, designed to encourage the electorate to feel that those espousing it represent them (preferably without doing awkward things like read the full manifesto), just like any of those used by political parties in an election - look at those used in recent years, and ask yourself what do they actually say about the policies of the parties.
It's advertising, a hook, or a jingle writ large politically speaking, it means nothing in itself, no more than the ubiquitous Marlboro Country/Man image of my youth said anything about those wandering around Northern Ireland smoking that particular brand of "fegs".
In many ways, "taking back control" is the equivalent of the "tell Sid" British Gas privatisation share campaign of the 1980s, designed to encourage investment without bothering with reading the prospectus. If only those sold on the 2016 iteration could do as well...
If the Brexiters aren't happy and Remainers aren't happy - this has gone well hasn't it? As a remainer I would rather we stayed in the EU which must mean we are leaving the EU - which was what people voted for. What they didn't have the opportunity to do was vote for any detail and I find it arrogant when people say 17.4m people voted for my preference when that is clearly unprovable. In fact polls suggest they couldn't have!
If Brexiters want to throw a wobbly when we are leaving, maybe we should just stay in it.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
The campaign slogan was 'take back control'. Explain to me in what way May is doing that? You do not have to of course, as a Remainer you can simply bask in your victory. But as they crudely say in the US 'Don't piss on me and tell me its raining'.
There were many campaign slogans. But only one question on the ballot paper.
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
Absolutely - EEA/EFTA membership satisfies in full the result of the referendum.
And begs the question - why the fu*k are we leaving?
I remember @LenGlover drawing my attention on here before the referendum of the paper called Flexit. It was a well argued case for Brexit to be a process not an end in itself. It argued the safest way to exit was via EEA/EFTA. It certainly seemed to be then, and it still is in my view. My biggest problem with it is it does the opposite of what people wanted us to leave for.
In my view sovereignty was the main reason for leaving. Everything else can be hung from that pillar. I argued that we do not have a loss of sovereignty by being in the EU. Indeed the EU enhances our sovereignty as a nation because from it we gain huge amounts of influence both with 27 other countries but also our soft power around the world. We have a veto in many areas in the EU and power to influence and shape other issues. Once we are out and in the EFTA/EEA we will give up our veto and our ability to shape EU rules and become a rule taker. We lose our soft power. We would have to make a significant contribution to the EU budget with no influence over how the money is spent.
For me the EEA/EFTA option may be the least worst deal financially but it is the worst deal politically. Better to remain - surely?
In terms of the Labour position on Brexit, it isn't that hard to be confused by it unless you are trying to be. It is not too disimilar to Teresa May's agreed position after Chequers. Labour faces a similar problem in that it has its own splits but Corbyn has explained it and people seem to be playing dumb. They might not like it or agree but the position has been set out!
Yes,Labour's position is Brexit in name only like May's-but that was not in the manifesto last year.
Labour are not going to vote for the deal agreed at Chequers. The Govt will not be able to get this deal through the HoC because a chunk of Tory Brexiteers will vote against it . Its absolutely dead in the water.
The question is what next?
My feeling is that we are in a classic bind
1. There is no majority for the Chequers deal 2. The Chequers deal will be amended and softened towards a EEA/EFTA (Norway) position with to all intents and purposes a Customs Union agreement. There is no certainly that Labour will support that either and even more Tory Leaver rebels will oppose. 3. There is no majority for a Canada style FTA. 4. There is no majority for leaving with no deal 5. There is no majority for remaining with no deal.
Parliament is gridlocked and the clock is ticking.
I can see 3 possibilities
1. A general election - I can't see May calling one at the moment so it would have to be by via a Vote of Confidence. I can't see the Tories not rallying around so all depends on the DUP. 2. A request to the EU to extend A50 to give more time to try to reach an agreement in Parliament. I think this is a strong possibility now as May won't be able to get the deal through. 3. 2. opens up the possibility of a binding referendum on the final deal. My feeling has been for sometime that this is where we are heading.
I think no.2. I agree that no outcomes is possible as there is a not a majority for any of them.
Newsnight was good again last night.....Matthew Parris & Ian Dale especially.
I think there should now be a 2nd Referendum with the electorate voting for either a hard/no deal brexit or to remain. If we leave it has to be all or nothing. I expect the result to be nearer 60/40 to remain on that basis. I'd prob vote to remain on that basis.
There is no way on God's earth those in charge would allow us to vote for a clean Brexit. They already did that once and lost.Why would they risk it again? If there is another vote on this at some point it would be on something that is Remain under a different name and Remain. And they will call it democratic even tho 8 million less people will vote-or probably ever again. But Remainers will be happy with that because the lost voters will be those who in their eyes should not have had a vote anyway.
The referendum vote was simply to leave the EU.
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
Absolutely - EEA/EFTA membership satisfies in full the result of the referendum.
And begs the question - why the fu*k are we leaving?
I remember @LenGlover drawing my attention on here before the referendum of the paper called Flexit. It was a well argued case for Brexit to be a process not an end in itself. It argued the safest way to exit was via EEA/EFTA. It certainly seemed to be then, and it still is in my view. My biggest problem with it is it does the opposite of what people wanted us to leave for.
In my view sovereignty was the main reason for leaving. Everything else can be hung from that pillar. I argued that we do not have a loss of sovereignty by being in the EU. Indeed the EU enhances our sovereignty as a nation because from it we gain huge amounts of influence both with 27 other countries but also our soft power around the world. We have a veto in many areas in the EU and power to influence and shape other issues. Once we are out and in the EFTA/EEA we will give up our veto and our ability to shape EU rules and become a rule taker. We lose our soft power. We would have to make a significant contribution to the EU budget with no influence over how the money is spent.
For me the EEA/EFTA option may be the least worst deal financially but it is the worst deal politically. Better to remain - surely?
I remember @LenGlover making the case, and my arguing against it - for the simple reason that (just like the attempt to pick cherries, for the famous bespoke cake recipe) it required all other parties (most notably the EU27, but also the EFTA states, who would have to be willing to be used as a flag of convenience for a number of years - I believe they view their organisation more seriously) to agree to allowing this path, and that there was no way that the EU would allow the UK use the emergency brake provision in FOM, unless the UK was at a similar level, pro rata, to that experienced by Liechtenstein.
I do still think it's bonkers, and never likely to secure the support of the other parties. Both EFTA and the EU27 would, I expect, require the UK commit to a permanent (inasmuch as anything is permanent) alignment within the EEA. Richard North's ideas have some merit, but do also seem to rest on notions of British exceptionalism.
But, at least it is a coherent plan, and made more effort to engage with with the difficulties of Brexit negotiations than HMG to date...
It was always better to remain though. But the decision has to be respected - which if we leave it will have been. There is a lot of talk of the 17.4m but what about the 16 plus m? You can say they (we) don't matter because we lost. But I accept that, we lost the vote on leave or remain, but not the terms. That was up to the government to try to achieve what they feel was the best deal for Britian. It was always so. Leavers told us it would be easy, and if it was, nobody would be having any arguments now.
If Norway are not in the EU, if Switzerland are not in the EU, then even with the Chequers deal, you absolutely can't say we will be remaining in the EU. As leaving or staying was all the vote was about, it is surely just as relevant to add the will of the 16 plus m remainers to the Brexiters. Now whilst I expect the majority of Brexiters voted for an extreme form of Brexit, a significant number didn't. I know this from the different reasons I have been given from people I know. There would have been a smaller but significant number who voted leave but didn't want the Brexit dishonest politicians like Rees-Mogg are attributing to them. And if you want an idea of the numbers - as the vote can never give you that, just look at the polls - that is what the people want.
I have to accept we voted to leave, Hard Brexiters have to accept that a majority of the British public don't want the Brexit they want!
NornIrishAddick, we have settled for BINO (Brexit in name only). For your benefit. What a joke after two years!
I think that the one thing that you can guarantee is that none of what is happening now was for my benefit, or that of others here (least of all that vision of loveliness that is Arlene Foster). Theresa May is making decisions for her own reasons.
But, if she did change her approach, in an effort to limit the possibility if return to violence, murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland, I would thank her for coming to her senses.
However, I have my doubts, because if you think Brexit is being badly handled, may I bring to your attention Northern Ireland, where, in the absence of Ministers, the Civil Service has been told by the Court of Appeal that it cannot make any significant decisions, or any decision that would have been submitted to the Minister - including very mundane decisions, like road closures for the North West 200.
On the form of Brexit to be negotiated, Theresa May is the one who set out completely incompatible red lines - which made any kind of agreement virtually impossible.
She appears to be moving her position now, and Thursday's White Paper will give an indication of how, but the EU27 potential offerings, that depend on the compromises that the UK is willing to make, have remained consistent and easily understandable throughout the process to date. It's only once we see the detail that we can guesstimate what may be on offer in return, and the nature of any likely reciprocal compromises (I would exclude changing the nature of the Single Market to suit the UK from these options).
Personally, I think it's evenly balanced between a completed Withdrawal Agreement, and political framework for the future relationship, and no deal whatsoever, with the UK crashing out next year.
Comments
I have a part in that by voting Labour then.
I demonstrated, protested against the War Porn all over our television screens, and went to my MP's surgery.
However I have blood on my hands....as do the Tories who voted for their MP's that supported the Blair decision.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/opinion/boris-johnson-resignation-brexit.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur
You may have voted for a particular vision of Brexit, and it may well be what you believe to be the best outcome, but...
It simply was not on the ballot paper, nor was any other flavour of Brexit.
It may well be that it was this vagueness about what type of Brexit a Leave vote would mean that enabled a Leave victory in the referendum.
None of us can be certain that any one type of Brexit would have achieved the 52% of the valid poll.
Anything that involves the UK no longer being a member of the EU, no matter how close the relationship between the EU27 and the UK, meets the only wish expressed by the majority of the voters who voted in the referendum.
You do not have to of course, as a Remainer you can simply bask in your victory. But as they crudely say in the US 'Don't piss on me and tell me its raining'.
I am out anyway. I have a job to do persuading my kids not to lose hope in democratic politics.
See you on the other boards.
The fact that we all thought we had to get a deal clearly shows there are substantial benefits of being in the EU. I think the key problem was the assumption or goal of a deal being struck, outside of a Canada type arrangement or Norway. I agree that business and those in bureaucratic positions will want to protect the status quo and the EU has many problems, but crashing out has become a must avoid and our attitude to a deal has been laughable. I don’t put much of this in the court of remoaners either. I simply believe that when it comes to it, we can’t get any sort of a deal other than the pre-existing arrangements like Norway etc, on the basis that anything else just won’t work. I think remainers have just been highlighting this is the case
If brexit was the land of milk and honey and Britain was so special to have its cake and eat it, then the remainers would’ve been blown out the water.
We’re not. The world is getting smaller and regardless of how many idiots I’ve heard on question time over the last few years say ‘I wish we’d all just get behind the government and let them do their job’, we’ve realised we’re so interwoven, we can’t just undo 40 years of Union.
Imagine if we had just got behind the government and let them get on with doing their job, as opposed to voicing our legitimate concerns. It would be even more of a car crash than it is now
Doesn't fit with your own project fear campaign on our democratic process.
If I had won, the UK would have voted to remain.
No Brexit, in the current or recent circumstances is a good result for me.
As for "taking back control", it's just a snappy slogan, designed to encourage the electorate to feel that those espousing it represent them (preferably without doing awkward things like read the full manifesto), just like any of those used by political parties in an election - look at those used in recent years, and ask yourself what do they actually say about the policies of the parties.
It's advertising, a hook, or a jingle writ large politically speaking, it means nothing in itself, no more than the ubiquitous Marlboro Country/Man image of my youth said anything about those wandering around Northern Ireland smoking that particular brand of "fegs".
In many ways, "taking back control" is the equivalent of the "tell Sid" British Gas privatisation share campaign of the 1980s, designed to encourage investment without bothering with reading the prospectus. If only those sold on the 2016 iteration could do as well...
If Brexiters want to throw a wobbly when we are leaving, maybe we should just stay in it.
For your benefit. What a joke after two years!
I remember @LenGlover drawing my attention on here before the referendum of the paper called Flexit. It was a well argued case for Brexit to be a process not an end in itself. It argued the safest way to exit was via EEA/EFTA. It certainly seemed to be then, and it still is in my view. My biggest problem with it is it does the opposite of what people wanted us to leave for.
In my view sovereignty was the main reason for leaving. Everything else can be hung from that pillar. I argued that we do not have a loss of sovereignty by being in the EU. Indeed the EU enhances our sovereignty as a nation because from it we gain huge amounts of influence both with 27 other countries but also our soft power around the world. We have a veto in many areas in the EU and power to influence and shape other issues. Once we are out and in the EFTA/EEA we will give up our veto and our ability to shape EU rules and become a rule taker. We lose our soft power. We would have to make a significant contribution to the EU budget with no influence over how the money is spent.
For me the EEA/EFTA option may be the least worst deal financially but it is the worst deal politically. Better to remain - surely?
I do still think it's bonkers, and never likely to secure the support of the other parties. Both EFTA and the EU27 would, I expect, require the UK commit to a permanent (inasmuch as anything is permanent) alignment within the EEA. Richard North's ideas have some merit, but do also seem to rest on notions of British exceptionalism.
But, at least it is a coherent plan, and made more effort to engage with with the difficulties of Brexit negotiations than HMG to date...
If Norway are not in the EU, if Switzerland are not in the EU, then even with the Chequers deal, you absolutely can't say we will be remaining in the EU. As leaving or staying was all the vote was about, it is surely just as relevant to add the will of the 16 plus m remainers to the Brexiters. Now whilst I expect the majority of Brexiters voted for an extreme form of Brexit, a significant number didn't. I know this from the different reasons I have been given from people I know. There would have been a smaller but significant number who voted leave but didn't want the Brexit dishonest politicians like Rees-Mogg are attributing to them. And if you want an idea of the numbers - as the vote can never give you that, just look at the polls - that is what the people want.
I have to accept we voted to leave, Hard Brexiters have to accept that a majority of the British public don't want the Brexit they want!
But, if she did change her approach, in an effort to limit the possibility if return to violence, murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland, I would thank her for coming to her senses.
However, I have my doubts, because if you think Brexit is being badly handled, may I bring to your attention Northern Ireland, where, in the absence of Ministers, the Civil Service has been told by the Court of Appeal that it cannot make any significant decisions, or any decision that would have been submitted to the Minister - including very mundane decisions, like road closures for the North West 200.
On the form of Brexit to be negotiated, Theresa May is the one who set out completely incompatible red lines - which made any kind of agreement virtually impossible.
She appears to be moving her position now, and Thursday's White Paper will give an indication of how, but the EU27 potential offerings, that depend on the compromises that the UK is willing to make, have remained consistent and easily understandable throughout the process to date. It's only once we see the detail that we can guesstimate what may be on offer in return, and the nature of any likely reciprocal compromises (I would exclude changing the nature of the Single Market to suit the UK from these options).
Personally, I think it's evenly balanced between a completed Withdrawal Agreement, and political framework for the future relationship, and no deal whatsoever, with the UK crashing out next year.