Re: Brexit
 

No-deal Brexit plans put 3,500 troops on standby

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ns-for-no-deal

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Looks like a good film - thanks for the heads-up.

Re: Brexit
 

All for show and try and swing some votes for TM. They've absolutely no intention of letting no deal happen. Its the least likely of all possible outcomes. The Govt don't want it, the EU don't want it, the public (bar the bonkers ones) don't want it, and parliament won't allow it.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't think subtlety is in the Brexit lexicon :)

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Next to "sedition"? ;)

Re: Brexit
 

:D:D:D

Re: Brexit
 

I think it’s as much for the EU’s consumption as domestic MPs. The EU has made some pretty extravagant promises to Ireland that aren’t compatible with its ideological attachment to the purity of the single market, in the event there’s no deal with the U.K. Ireland may not want border checks, but the EU’s commitment to purity will make them inevitable sooner or later, even if they’re subtle and remotely located (some variation on “max fac” for example).

TM is clearly running the clock down, but she will be hoping to wring a few concessions out of the EU as much as she’s hoping to tame her own party (and the DUP, if possible).

On your final point, by the way - Parliament can’t stop a no deal Brexit without passing primary legislation. It is all but impossible for an opposition or an independent MP to get legislation passed without at least the passive cooperation of the executive. If your final hope is that “no deal” can’t happen because Parliament will prevent it ... well your final hope is doomed.

Re: Brexit
 

I think the last resort for Parliament would be to bring back May’s deals if they wanted to avoid a no deal Brexit. Assuming she is still PM at the time after it (probably) fails the first time.

May surviving the no confidence motion makes her deal more likely imo since I can’t see a way the ERG can now control the process.

Re: Brexit
 

Keeps them off the dole I suppose.

Re: Brexit
 

As Brexit will happen, given the choice between May’s deal and no deal.......I think you’ll be surprised.

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:30 ----------

If it is a conscious strategy, it’s the right one, see the white of their eyes..etc.

But ........it’s just that her deal is pretty crap. I would be amazed if her deal, unless transformed by EU Capitulation would get through.

Re: Brexit
 

I never wanted to live in interesting times. I still don't.

Re: Brexit
 

Suggestion here that if Theresa May gets the DUP back on board, she may then get sufficient votes from her party to get her deal through.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-senior-tories

Re: Brexit
 

She might do.

As I said earlier the fact she is immune for a year from a Conservative vote of no confidence means that the ERG and allies do not have an easy way of taking control and forcing no deal. For Brexiters the risk of a 'softer' Brexit or no Brexit is now higher should her deal fail than it was before the letters went in. For ages the ERG held that card over her head as leverage but now that leverage is gone and May herself knows that Brexit is probably the last, and only, thing she'll do as PM in the short time she has remaining.

Whose going to stop her if she choses anything but no deal?

Parliament? They want a softer Brexit than she does.
The Cabinet? See above, few no dealers in her cabinet.
ERG? Took their chance, missed.
Tory rebels brining down their own government? Maybe, but do they get a form a no deal Government with Parliament being so Remainy?

Re: Brexit
 

I assume this is to calm the crowds giddy with all the wonderful things that will happen to the UK as promised by Rees-Mogg et al

Re: Brexit
 

Ending freedom of movement, and ending aspirational net migration targets. What’s going on here then?

Re: Brexit
 

What's next building a wall?

Re: Brexit
 

Funded by the EU and built by Polish brickies. :D

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

em who voted for the mps and it was after the Referendum so how is that undemocratic

Re: Brexit
 

That's not how our Representative Democracy works - we elect an MP to represent the Constituency (not just those who voted for them), but we do not have the right to mandate how they should think or vote.

Members of the House of Commons have a triple mandate - they represent all the people of their constituency, their party and the interests of the country. It is a tenet of representative democracy that MPs are not delegates for their constituents.

This means that, while the views of constituents are frequently considered, the actions of MPs are governed by their determination of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole.

It was Edmund Burke who put it best, I think - the difference between a representative, who should take account of their constituents’ views but still use their own judgement in the legislature, and a delegate, who simple mirrors their constituents’ views. In his 1774 speech to the electors at Bristol at the conclusion of the poll that elected him he explained what would come to be known as Burkean representation:

If we are unhappy with our MP, we can de-select them.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

the people voted for these MP's after the Referendum result just stating a FACT

Re: Brexit
 

So you think the basic tenets of our Parliamentary Democracy are "all blather" - that says a lot more about you than the state of our Parliamentary Democracy.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

I see nothing decisive about any vote or referendum in decades. Unless 50.01% of the electorate vote for a particular something, there is no significant support. I do not mean 50.01% of those who voted.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

An abstention is an abstention - it is a decision not to voice an opinion, for whatever reason, for or against. It isn’t uncommon to hear those who are on the losing side in a vote try to co-opt the abstainers to their side of the argument, on the basis that those people didn’t support whatever was proposed, but that really won’t do. An abstention is an abstention and that’s it. You can’t use it to infer anything, with the single exception of votes where a quorum is required, in which case the rules do effectively make an abstention into a vote for the status quo.

We do not use quorums in British public voting, with one exception, that being the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, where one was set, and devolution did not happen, despite there being a yes vote, because the quorum was not met. The result was a running sore in Scottish politics that wasn’t truly healed until Labour re-ran the referendum at its first available opportunity, in 1998.

Re: Brexit
 

Correct but the issue here is that “Parliament” voted to give the public the referendum, they could have voted against it if they thought that the risk of vote Leave winning would not be in the “best interests of their constituency”

The referendum didn’t have to happen, but they voted for it.

The result was to leave. “Parliament” then voted to enact the result and trigger article 50.

They could have voted against Triggering article 50 if they thought then that leaving the EU was not in the “best interests of their constituency” but they didn’t.

So it doesn’t really make sense for Parliament to be so anti-Brexit now? They had two legitimate opportunities to stop it.

try that with an EU commissioner

Re: Brexit
 

so seem to forget there been a general election since the referendum and the people voted for mostly remain MP's as vast majority of MP's are remain

Re: Brexit
 

Indeed, and if remain happens as a result either directly or indirectly those MPs are willing to stake their position on it.

Re: Brexit
 

Hmmmm.......Yet both Labour and the Tory’s manifestos stated that if they won the election they would deliver on Brexit????

If the electorate truly wanted to remain a they could have voted for the LibDems or the Greens both parties stated that they would not recognise the result of the referendum.

Re: Brexit
 

yes as I said earlier in thread lots of manifesto commitments get ignored by all parties

Re: Brexit
 

And nobody said when! Or how.

Re: Brexit
 

bollocks

They’ve had several opportunities to stake their position, non have taken it.

Where were the remainers at the vote to pass the referendum? Where were the remainers when campaigning for the general election? Where were the remainers in the vote for Article 50?

Pathetic.

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

Oh, OK. That’s fine then................

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:39 ----------

An irrelevant statement after A50 invoked.


it was explained that we would leave the EU and all that it entails included the SM & CU. So I had a good understanding of how. A Hard Brexit is what was on offer.

Did you not understand that? On yes, I remember you didn’t understand what you voted for.

Re: Brexit
 

It’s not an unreasonable position to allow the choice and assume a reasonable outcome.

Similarly it’s not unreasonable to invoke A50 assuming a competent government would guide the situation.

However, it’s also not unreasonable for Parliamentarians to vote as they please. They stand on manifestos that aren’t binding. Their careers live or die based on judgement. Would the public support remain? A key question nobody seems too keen to ask ;)

When or how doesn’t become irrelevant once Article 50 is invoked. It’s within the control of Parliament to unbind itself, as I’ve always said.

Re: Brexit
 

No need to “assume” the publicised outcome was a Hard Brexit. Fair enough you can allow it once. But then when you realise the ways the vote has gone. Then what the outcome would be, why be passive on two further occasions? Sorry but that is not “reasonable”

[wuotez]Similarly it’s not unreasonable to invoke A50 assuming a competent government would guide the situation.[/Quote]

I think May has brought forward a very competent proposal. Her downfall however is that she has tried desperately to deliver something that pleases everyone, and that is not possible.

Nobody could have delivered anything any better, but that doesn’t matter because nobody could deliver a deal that would work, certainly not Corbyn.

There is much. Wrong with the May deal, but if she manages to resolve the backstop, it does has a realistic chance.

as long as they are willing to fall on their hypocritical sword


I am happy for that to be put to the electorate, because after the last two years and seeing the way the EU have pretty much just treated us with contempt. I wouldn’t be sure of the massive swing to remain people think is there. A second referendum is a massive risk. It a no win. If Remain lose it - that’s is, no coming back. RemIn win it ( it will only be by a Narrow margin) cue several more years demanding another referendum.

Re: Brexit
 

Nowhere were we promised Hard Brexit. Indeed the concept didn’t exist prior to the referendum. Instead we were promised the easiest trade deal ever.

You fail to understand our representative democracy. Manifestos are not legally binding. The idea may be that politicians are expected to stand by them, which is noble, however in practice they are held to account after five years (at most). I hope the leave voters can keep their anger going until 2022.

Re: Brexit
 

On that we can both agree. One of my main points through this discussion that my previous posts will back up.

You’re absolutely correct, we were promised “Brexit”. But that Brexit was leaving all the EU institutions, including the Single Market and Customs Union. That is what was sent to every home in the UK, and debated. Would you call that a “Hard Brexit”?

We were, we’ll know when we start negotiating it. We need to sort out the “withdrawal agreement” or not....first.

absolutely, the LibDems know all about that....................

However they are held to account after the fact.

Brexit hasn’t happened yet. We don’t know the effect of Brexit as it hasn’t happened. How can you hold anything to account that hasn’t Happened?

Let’s have Brexit, then after 5 years, if it’s a bit pony, we can elect to rejoin.

Re: Brexit
 

We will never get the rebate back, nor our exemption from the Euro.

I find it bizarre so many people are happy for a referendum after the fact as opposed to hold a preference that we get it right in the first place!

Re: Brexit
 

Indeed not. This is because the terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ Brexit were coined after the vote by the continuity remain campaign, which was trying to find ways to convince the public Brexit had happened while actually preventing it from happening.

‘Soft’ Brexit as defined by senior remain campaigners involved staying in the customs union and the single market. The EU helpfully clarified that the latter would also have required continuation of the right to free movement.

During the campaign, those same senior remain campaigners were very clear that they believed voting leave would mean fully leaving the EU, CU and SM and all. In fact senior leave campaigners likewise were very clear that voting leave would mean fully leaving the EU, CU and SM and all. It was one of the few things they all agreed about.

On voting day, everyone understood what Brexit meant, and despite calculated attempts at obfuscation since, I think the vast majority of people still do.

Re: Brexit
 

Hilarious that you complained many times of selective answering of posts, but now you’re a master of the art, I salute you.

I don’t have an issue with another referendum, but there are many risks as outlined in my previous post.

Re: Brexit
 

Please elaborate I’ll addressing specific point you raise.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------

I’d be happy to agree if your final point was out to a vote.

Re: Brexit
 

Ok.

Agree/disagree....why etc.

Agree/disagree etc...

Agree/ disagree etc

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

Won’t happen yet, as there is no guarantee Remain will win and for the other reasons I outlined.

Re: Brexit
 

I’m quite sure the search function would help you, and any new entrants to the thread, identify my stance. You raised no new meaningful points and I decided to save us from the circular arguments around Brexit as a whole.

If you must I’ll go disagree disagree disagree disagree.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Amber “newly promoted” Rudd has a lot of opinions. You’d think they’d have measured the chances of this happening before appointing her. Unless they did... ;)

Re: Brexit
 

You are truly pathetic.

3no. Simple questions.

1. Was the version of Brexit promoted before the referendum by all the pro-Remain players, including the Government, what we would call a hard Brexit? Yes/no?

2. You complain that brexiteers claim this would be the easiest trade deal ever and why haven’t they delivered it. Yet the trade deal isn’t up for discussion yet. It is the withdrawal deal we are currently negotiating and voting over. Yes/no?

3. You claim that that MPs are only held to account every 5 years, and pretty much they can say and do what they want inbetween, and deliver sod all, As if they fail we can get rid after that term.

But we can’t wait and see if brexit is delivered, live it for a few years and decide or not If we like it?

For you we have to determine this before the outcome has been realised or lived up through, which goes against all of that. Yes/no?

---------- Post added at 23:12 ---------- Previous post was at 23:11 ----------

Another “Stupid Women” is she?

Re: Brexit
 

You removed your own right to my reply at “truly pathetic”. You are not worthy of an educated and articulate reply.

I’ll address one single point, solely because of misogyny. I may not agree with Amber Rudd on many things, but she isn’t a stupid woman. I believe her actions are deliberate and a conscious collaboration with another woman who wants to remain. The conscious choice was made to elevate Ms Rudd from bitter backbench MP to prominent Secretary of State.

Re: Brexit
 

You choose to answer what is convenient to you because you can’t answer the other, very simply, put questions.

You are indeed pathetic.

I’m afraid your stock as someone who can properly debate these issues has seriously decreased.

You can’t answer simple straight questions posed in response to your own argument.

I’m going to retire now. If you can develop a spine for tomorrow, that would be great.

Re: Brexit
 

I’ll answer anyone worthy of reply. Once again you use the disrespectful term pathetic and genuinely believe I should reply to you. The mind truly boggles.

It’s good to know I have you on the ropes though, it’s truly a sign the dream is dying. :)

Of all people to challenge anyone on the basis of selective debating it’s truly laughable to be from you.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

The leave choice on the ballot paper, was not the leave sold to us by the leave campaign. - What we were sold, is a huge part of the problem May is trying to resolve, somewhat unsuccessfully.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

But it was the ballot paper that people voted on. They were also influenced by the Remain campaign and the 52% still voted Leave.

Actually, looking into what Leave said, is it the £350m/week you're concerned about? if so, nobody ended up believing it was £350m because that sum was well debunked during the campaign.

Is it the naivety of people like Fox and Davis who thought it would be the easiest negotiation ever? Do you seriously believe that Leavers needed to take that into account as a partial basis for their decision?

The problem that TM is trying to resolve is the rigidity of the EU and its unsurprising desire to see us well stiffed. We hurt them most, in retaliation, by leaving on No Deal.




---------- Post added at 09:43 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Can I say "....idiots like Fox and Davis"?

Re: Brexit
 

Voting remain = status quo. What is there to really be sold in such a situation?

The Ballot paper was a bald question. The leave campaign sold voters a more flexible leave option. Insisting that ALL voters chose the bald leave option based on the ballot paper alone has always been the problem.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

The EU may be forging closer links but we’ve continued to hold an opt out for our interests on almost all of it.

Turkey will not join the EU for the forseeable future, each member state is able to veto such a proposal including Greece. I’m not even sure Erdogan wants to join anyway.

Re: Brexit
 

I think Erdogan would struggle over the requirements on EU Human Rights for a start.

Re: Brexit
 

None of those selective comments matter. The Referendum result was LEAVE and those of you wishing to thwart that are anti-democratic, especially if you allow yourselves into being fooled by the “status quo” argument.

Re: Brexit
 

I was referring to personal abuse of other CF posters.

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Disagreeing with someone is not "anti-democratic".

It could be argued that trying to shut down others' differing views by calling them "anti-democratic" is, in itself, anti-democratic...

That's like saying anyone who protests or disagrees with whover is elected in a national election is "anti-democratic" - no, it is freedom of assembly and free speech.

Re: Brexit
 

The referendum result was leave based on half truths/lies. Wanting another referendum based on what we know now is not anti-democratic.

Re: Brexit
 

More cabinet divisions at the heart of government this morning.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ond-referendum

Re: Brexit
 

Ah, so according to you, you can selectively choose what remain meant to voters, but not what leave was sold as. :dozey:

Re: Brexit
 

Main prediction from the FT's Brexit Briefing column is that the government will ask the EU for an extension of the withdrawal process. This ups the chances of another referendum, a general election or a new attempt at pushing Mrs May’s deal/similar through Parliament.
It also predicts that Theresa May will not be prime minister by December 31 2019 and if there is an election, Jeremy Corbyn will not win it.
https://www.ft.com/content/125e4aea-...f-6183d3002ee1

Re: Brexit
 

If these “selective” comments don’t matter you are effectively saying facts and reality don’t matter. Which is an astonishing position to hold.

Re: Brexit
 

Your argument is based on the predicate that the referendum design itself was appropriate. I and many others disagree with this position. National structural changes should necessitate a supermajority (or quorum in your terminology above) to supply a mandate that can be viewed as authoritative and representative. What we had in 2016 was neither in my opinion.

You can and probably will say I am wrong and that is your right and I respect that. You cannot, however, say I do not have the right to say it. Posting replies with dunces hats, words like "pathetic, traitor, loser, anti-democratic," just reveals the anger felt at being presented with an opposing point of view. Anger not originating from some sense of democratic idealism, rather anger at the prospect of something so long waited for being taken away.

Engineering a referendum that was based on a pure arithmetic majority with no minimum turnout was always going to be divisive. The fact that 1 vote, or "Bob in Essex" if you will, would decide the future of a country for a generation is laughable. It shows why we do not do referenda often in the UK, we are rubbish at them. The irony here is Parliament demands a supermajority (66%) to hold a General Election and I think that the Tories imposed a similar requirement (50%?) for union strike action.

It is perverse that a supermajority is seen as appropriate for Parliament and for Unions but when the structural & macro-economic future of the country is at stake, no chance, let's just roll the dice.

What is depressing and even disturbing is the level of vitriol and anger against the people in this country who disagree with the result and how it was achieved. I mean "traitors, etc.", really?

Politicians make bad decisions and Parliament makes bad laws. The good news is that, living in a Democracy, we have the processes to undo bad decisions and repeal bad laws.

Re: Brexit
 

Sadly I think deep down the most committed leave voters know that another referendum would be lost. It took a huge effort just to scrape a majority, one that I doubt they would get again now we know what Brexit would look like and demographics shifting against them.

So we get the language of hate due to their anger. Their one chance is to cling on to the wafer thin majority of the 23rd June 2016 for dear life, with the UK leaving at any cost on 29th March 2019.

Re: Brexit
 

We have had one referendum and even though l voted remain we have to respect the result IMO as not respecting it would be unforgivable in the eyes of a considerable amount of the populace.

This though is deeply unacceptable as do we want another murder on our hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...porters-hitler

Re: Brexit
 

The EU did a U turn with regards to the rebate on the proviso that Brexit was cancelled. Doubt we'd get it back if we left and rejoined.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...al-vote-latest

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, I was responding to a post that suggested we could leave then have a referendum on rejoining after a number of years.

Re: Brexit
 

I think you're right. I think Remainers have acknowledged that there's a high chance we'll leave the EU and have had a long time to appreciate this. By contrast, I think Brexiters are now only coming to terms with the fact that there's a chance that we won't in their generation, hence the more emotional language used on occasions.

Re: Brexit
 

The sheer lack of a clear majority of the electorate positively voting leave based on a flawed referendum, seems a strange reason to respect the result.

I know the leave voters will respond with but 52% of those who voted chose leave. This is still less than 4% more than voted remain, far too tight to be a wholehearted endorsement of Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

But we all knew before we voted in the referendum that all that was needed was a straight democratic majority one way or other so to complain about it afterwards is basically tantamount to sour grapes.

Re: Brexit
 

If you don’t vote, you choose not to be heard. So please stop trying to ‘hear’ those who abstained from the vote.

The referendum was not flawed. Every eligible person had a vote and was able to do so without hindrance. There are a great many countries where they would laugh in your face for suggesting any vote held in the U.K. in the last century might be described as “flawed”.

I sincerely doubt you would be making this argument if the result had been the exact reverse.

Re: Brexit
 

So the choice made by a minority should be put up with for the long term, just because the referendum was poorly sorted in the first place.

If we were offered a second referendum on the deal, no deal or remain, at least then the result would be a positive choice for a known outcome.

It is one thing to put up with a government elected by a minority of the population, at least there is the chance of change only a few years later.

This is something we will be stuck with for decades. Left with either a deal with no control, or a leap into the abyss which could end up with cheap imports overwhelming what little we still produce ourselves and the balance of trade can go hang.

---------- Post added at 17:57 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Neither would Farage have shut up in that situation. It does work both ways.

For too long a minority has chosen who governs, with no consensus and no need to listen to the electorate.

Re: Brexit
 

But it was not a minority was it?

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

A second referendum is not needed and do you think the vast majority of voters want to go through that with duplicitousness and mendaciousness from politicians of both sides again?..

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------

Blame that on the complete omnishambles from HMG since the referendum result.

Re: Brexit
 

Those who do not vote have simply exercised the freedom not to vote. That’s really all there is to it. You really need to stop wailing as if it’s some sort of injustice. Your neighbour who sat on their hands at the last election received a poll card in the post just as you did. Respect their decision on how to use (or not use) it. It’s their vote, their business.

Re: Brexit
 

Ah I’ve missed the discussion over the definition of electorate and population, over and above those who actually voted.

Re: Brexit
 

Our electoral system is disengaged from the population. This is why we have had minority supported governments since the 1930s.

This has nothing to do with whether people choose not to vote, but that so many votes cast are actually worthless.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

There’s nothing convenient about it.

To go back to your original post you described the EU as follows ”morphing towards federalism; the Euro might collapse; Turkey might join the EU.” You continued to say we have “No chance of preserving Status Quo, which I concede never did us too much harm”.

You then concontradict yourself and say it doesn’t matter if any of the above is actually true in a referendum about EU membership, neither does it matter the extent we can exempt ourselves or hold veto over any of it. :confused:

Re: Brexit
 

I guess I must have missed the invitation sent to each voter to comment on how the referendum process should be structured.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ----------

Again, not addressing the legitimacy of changing the country's structural & economic future based on a simple arithmetic majority with no minimum turnout.

If asked before the vote, I would have requested a supermajority based referendum but, surprise, no one asked .. I wonder why?

Re: Brexit
 

Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas any more. :dozey:

The referendum was conducted according to the usual high standards of British elections and delivered a fair result. Furthermore the turnout was relatively high compared to recent General Elections and, due to the simple, binary question, it resulted in the highest number of British voters supporting any proposition in electoral history.

It was fair, it was reasonable, it was historic.

You know I think I preferred it when your delusion of choice was that there might be a re-run, because where we’re taking the discussion right now is just nuts.

While The UK has limited precedent for referendums, they have only ever been used for matters affecting the constitution and have never required a supermajority. It didn’t require one the last time we voted on the EU.

In any case, why should the deck be stacked so heavily in favour of one side?

Re: Brexit
 

So I guess you are the Wizard then? ;) Reach behind the curtain and discover it is all a sham, the Great and Powerful Oz .. all smoke and mirrors.

Re: Brexit
 

Nope ... but I do have a very fetching pair of ruby slippers. :D

Re: Brexit
 

A sham is when the incumbent government don't carry out the wishes of the electorate which in some countries is exactly what happens but we are a civilised democracy unlike a dictatorship which will ignore the wishes of its populace..

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

Agreed, most people I know will never vote again if Brexit is over turned, and some of these voted to remain.

Re: Brexit
 

the people voted for a vast majority remain parliament after the referendum though

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

And you can vote them out if you change your mind/they don’t live up to expectations.

I love the fact we continually have general elections than get stuck with a mistake based on one vote on one specific day.

Re: Brexit
 

I don't think the last election tells us anything to do with Brexit. Voters had moved on from the issue and most of the campaign was about domestic politics.

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

The problem with this is referendums are designed to settle longer-term issues that require fundamental changes. It's not so easy to keep flipping back and forth on if we're in the EU or if Scotland is independent.

I think there needs to be a real change in circumstances and real public support to hold another referendum. I don't really support one on the EU.

That said I think Brexit shows why the last one was a problem. The country is split, 52-48, on a huge change which ideally would require a lot of public support and tenacity to push though. The Government is struggling in part because of that spilt but also IMO because they know they'll be held responsible for any problems after the vote. The public is rarely willing to accept their responsibility problems that happen.

Re: Brexit
 

It really isn’t a subject designed to be decided by a wafer thin public vote.

It was foolish of Cameron to allow it on the basis he thought remain would win anyway. Certain issues should only be put to the public when there’s a clear and consistent public opinion than stands the test of time to some degree. The public opinion should be reflected in the Governments they elect on a number of occasions. Then having a referendum is seem as rubber stamping the general consensus. Obviously that’s an ideal world.

Re: Brexit
 

Cameron did it simply to obtain extra votes and never thought that leave would win. When they did, he ran away and left someone else to sort it all out.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

People on power can think what they like. As you say, it shows he was out of touch.

Once again the inability of certain other members to understand my posts does not invalidate my points. At the end of the day we are in this mess because of no coherent plan throughout, and it’s even debatable if the public would vote the same way given the choice.

Re: Brexit
 

I take it that this sudden, rather desperate attempt to call the legitimacy of the 2016 referendum into question is the first sign that some people are moving closer to accepting that Brexit is actually happening and nothing that occurs between now and next March will stop it.

Re: Brexit
 

Sudden? It’s legitimacy has been getting questioned by some since June 24, 2016.