[Politics] Brexit

[Baldseagull]

Thanks. As someone who doesn't actually know me maybe you shouldn't judge me like that. Not to mention that it's not very nice, and I don't actually deserve it for holding a different opinion than yours.

This is so tired and it's showing so many , I'm sure otherwise decent, people up as being incredibly self deceiving and ideological.

Remove your ideological specs for a moment and just ask yourself, did everyone believe when voting in the ref that the result would be what we would do? It would repected? Of course they did, and that goes for everyone.

Shouldn't the result be respected? Whatever you feel about it?

This isn't hard, it's just basic standards of decency and honesty.

I'm not even going to respond to other post replies I have had accusing me of "bullsh*t" etc.

Don't you people realize, you are in the wrong. About staying/leaving europe? Who knows. But about whether it should be done, because we all took part and knew what the score was? Yes you are wrong. If nothing else, having taken part in the vote, it's the only decent thing to do and if you took a step back you would see that, it's obvious.

I'm kind of bored with being called names and absolutely ripped apart and mocked on here for believing in something as simple as respect a democratic vote, by people who seem so self rightous and morally superior, while arguing that we shouldn't.

I've said it before but Brexit has brought the absolute worst out in some people.

That is how I view many of the Leave supporters, especially those advocating leaving with no arrangements for future relations with the EU.

Regarding respecting the vote, it has been, Parliament sent A50 notice, now the battle is all about how, and whether or not people should have a chance to reject whatever version Parliament can agree on. I have heard some leavers say that remainers should not take any part in deciding how we leave, yet I am sure if we had voted to remain, leavers would still want their voices heard if there was a decision to be made about joining the Euro, or taking another step towards closer union.
This Parliament is paralysed, mostly because of leave MP's being unwilling to compromise, there has been more compromise from remain MP's. I also understand that for many leave MP's, any compromise involving a customs union defeats the objective of leaving, but is that a compromise most leave voters think is unreasonable?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well thats 1-1 then after 1975, which was the most corrupt manipulation in British political history. Three and a bit years compared to 44 years of lying is not very much in the scheme of things, is it?

I've quoted the High Court case from February 2019 and the words of the government's QC, James Eadie.

I look forward to seeing the relevant facts from 1975, from you to prove your assertions.

 

[ManOfSussex]

The question is have we reached peak populism? At some point it hits the bottom and all falls apart, just a question of how much we do to ourselves being the grown ups reenter room to clean up the mess....

I don't think we're even close to reaching it yet. This has got to happen or not first, then the howls of 'Betrayal!' and the blame game can begin.

 

[Baldseagull]

The press call trump out though.

Maybe as trump has actually been able to get elected and Farage hasn’t as an Mp?

Johnson, like Trump, just creates another outrage to hush the last one. He says something, and then denies that he said it, and says, "what people really want to hear is how fantastic our country is going to be" or some such, when questioned about it. He thereby ducks having to stand by, or apologise for what he has said, and is just called a bare faced liar, which is an already established fact, so does him no further harm.

Farage never has to deliver, he is a perpetual protester and when this disaster actually happens, you can bet that he will be blaming poor execution from the Government, not that the idea was majorly flawed from the start.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

I honestly think that most people who voted leave did so because of what was written on the bus.
I don't blame them either, the NHS is a very emotive subject.
It's just that they won't admit it now they know it was a lie (along with a few others)
Human nature to admit you were wrong and the longer it goes on the more tricky it gets.
It's like driving sensibly at 30mph and some nugget pulls right out in front of you causing you to break hard, you sound your horn or look at him/her.
Very rarely say sorry, in fact they usually give you the finger or call you a w@nker.

Saying that most people who voted Leave did so because of writing on the side of a bus, is no different, in inference, to saying that most people who voted Remain did so because they want the comfort blanket of globalism or have been brainwashed by the Establishment or are simply unpatriotic ( e.g I'm not British, I'm European etc ) Its generalism that is disrespectful to many millions, who felt strongly about one side of the argument or other. The NHS may be an emotive subject but no more emotive than immigration, diminished lifestyle, education and local services. The most emotive subject out there at the time of the referendum was the EU itself. By its nature, its aims and its practices, it is totally divisive. Its marmite. You love it or hate it. The turnout suggested that a lot more people were bothered about this issue than the political establishment bargained for. The assumption was that there was enough apathy out there to make the result a foregone conclusion. The political class didn't understand what had been festering and simmering in this country for a few years and were totally unprepared for a protest vote on this scale. They let things drift, the damage was done and the rift will never be repaired.

 

[nicko31]

I see the government are still pumping the get ready for Brexit ads about a Brexit deadline which they've all-but admitted they won't make.

Reckon about £2-3 per click, google will be lovin it

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Well thats 1-1 then after 1975, which was the most corrupt manipulation in British political history. Three and a bit years compared to 44 years of lying is not very much in the scheme of things, is it?

And on it keeps coming.

I am sorry that this is a long post, but I wonder what else will stop this constant reinvention of historical fact. One of the strongest press champions of Brexit has been, continues to be, the Daily Telegraph. The following is from its issue of 29 March 2016. The writer, Greg Rosen, is clearly not a Brexit supporter but the decision to publish, together with the headlines, are the Telegraph’s own. It is worth adding that the article is fact-, rather than opinion-, based. The quotes aren't invented. If you can't be troubled to read it all, just look at the comment of David Waddington, Thatcher's final home secretary.

No, Britain wasn’t lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into

For EU commentators to persist with the mythmaking demeans the very parliament whose sovereignty they purport to protect. Those who claim we were deceived when we entered Europe in 1975 are speaking in flagrant ignorance of the easily-accessible facts

If there’s one thing we know about referendums, it’s that they never really end.

More than a year after Scotland’s independence referendum, the atmosphere remains febrile. And a fully 40 years after Britain’s last referendum on Europe, in 1975, Eurosceptics are still angry. “Back in the Seventies, Edward Heath assiduously created the utterly misleading impression that belonging to the ‘Common Market’ would entail no loss of national sovereignty.” Melanie Philips

Nowhere has grievance festered more than over the contention from some Brexiteers that implications of EU membership for British sovereignty were deliberately concealed from voters by deceitful 1970s politicians. Columnist Melanie Philips has asserted that Edward Heath “knew full well that if the British public understood the implications for national self-government, they would never agree to membership of the European club.”

Echoing her, commentator William Cash, son of Conservative MP Sir William Cash, attacked “the treachery and political deceit of what really went on in the political backrooms on London and Brussels...it is clear that our senior politicians knew more than they were letting on about the sovereignty implications when they negotiated to join the EEC.”

But a cursory read of the actual parliamentary debates tells a different story


As Conservative MP Enoch Powell told parliament in his speech during October 1971’s marathon six-day parliamentary debate on Britain’s accession to the European Community: “I do not think the fact that this involves a cession — and a growing cession — of Parliament’s sovereignty can be disputed. Indeed, I notice that those who are the keenest proposers of British entry are the most ready to confess — not to confess, but to assert — that of course this involves by its very nature a reduction of the sovereignty of the House.”

SDP founder David Owen agreed from the Labour side: “Of course that means that one gives up sovereignty, and a lot of the debate in this House has been focused upon sovereignty, and rightly so, because this is a central matter to many of the people who fundamentally do not wish us to go into Europe. They do not wish to give up any measure of sovereignty..."

“It has now got through to a lot more MPs that sovereignty is a vital issue.” The Daily Telegraph, October 1971

“They do not wish to give up any power that we exercise as a nation and put ourselves into the decision structure of other nations because it involves compromise. It involves not always getting one’s own way. It is, however, foolish to try to sell the concept of the E.E.C., and not admit that this means giving up some sovereignty. Of course it does, and I believe it rightly does. I believe this is one of the central appeals of it.”

Indeed, the Daily Telegraph reported of the October 1971 debate: “Continuing a trend, MPs turned more and more to talking about the issue of sovereignty and tended to be rather brief on economic topics. It has now got through to a lot more MPs that sovereignty is a vital issue.”

Where there was disagreement was over what pooling sovereignty meant in practice. Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath argued that the “Brexiteer” conception of sovereignty was too narrow and legalistic: “It is right that there should have been so much discussion of sovereignty … If sovereignty exists to be used and to be of value, it must be effective. We have to make a judgment whether this is the most advantageous way of using our country’s sovereignty.”

MP David Waddingon, subsequently Margaret Thatcher’s last Home Secretary, spelled it out further: “[a] country may have complete legal sovereignty, complete power to pass whatever laws it wishes in an attempt to control every kind of activity of its citizens, and yet be so weak as to be incapable of protecting its people from military, economic, or other action taken by other countries. Conversely, another country may sacrifice quite a lot of its legal sovereignty and yet, by acting in partnership with others, be able to exercise very much more power and give greater protection to its citizens than it ever could and did before that sacrifice was made.”

Margaret Thatcher’s last Agriculture Minister John Gummer agreed: “if anyone believes that we have the same power to guide our destinies today as we had in 1945 or in 1900 he is taking a totally wrong attitude to life. Sovereignty is defined today as it was in 1900, but the power it gives us is totally different. Therefore, I am not interested in legalistic definitions of our sovereignty; I am interested in what we can do to create a new future for ourselves. How can we control our environment? How can we control our financial future?”

At the heart of this debate was not deception but genuine disagreement, over whether the economic benefits of EEC membership combined with the opportunity for greater collective power through pooled sovereignty outweighed the infringement upon narrow national sovereignty that EEC membership entailed.

Helpfully, the wonders of modern technology make the past ever more accessible: Hansard, for example, is now helpfully online, so every Parliamentary utterance of Britain’s politicians on what joining the Common Market actually entailed can be accessed with but a click of a mouse.

ENDS

I wonder, just wonder, if any Brexiteer on here will trouble to read this. Even if they do, I guess it won't be long before the old cry of "we were cheated" rings out again.

 

[Lever]

And on it keeps coming.

I am sorry that this is a long post, but I wonder what else will stop this constant reinvention of historical fact. One of the strongest press champions of Brexit has been, continues to be, the Daily Telegraph. The following is from its issue of 29 March 2016. The writer, Greg Rosen, is clearly not a Brexit supporter but the decision to publish, together with the headlines, are the Telegraph’s own. It is worth adding that the article is fact-, rather than opinion-, based.

No, Britain wasn’t lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into

For EU commentators to persist with the mythmaking demeans the very parliament whose sovereignty they purport to protect. Those who claim we were deceived when we entered Europe in 1975 are speaking in flagrant ignorance of the easily-accessible facts

If there’s one thing we know about referendums, it’s that they never really end.

More than a year after Scotland’s independence referendum, the atmosphere remains febrile. And a fully 40 years after Britain’s last referendum on Europe, in 1975, Eurosceptics are still angry. “Back in the Seventies, Edward Heath assiduously created the utterly misleading impression that belonging to the ‘Common Market’ would entail no loss of national sovereignty.” Melanie Philips

Nowhere has grievance festered more than over the contention from some Brexiteers that implications of EU membership for British sovereignty were deliberately concealed from voters by deceitful 1970s politicians. Columnist Melanie Philips has asserted that Edward Heath “knew full well that if the British public understood the implications for national self-government, they would never agree to membership of the European club.”

Echoing her, commentator William Cash, son of Conservative MP Sir William Cash, attacked “the treachery and political deceit of what really went on in the political backrooms on London and Brussels...it is clear that our senior politicians knew more than they were letting on about the sovereignty implications when they negotiated to join the EEC.”

But a cursory read of the actual parliamentary debates tells a different story


As Conservative MP Enoch Powell told parliament in his speech during October 1971’s marathon six-day parliamentary debate on Britain’s accession to the European Community: “I do not think the fact that this involves a cession — and a growing cession — of Parliament’s sovereignty can be disputed. Indeed, I notice that those who are the keenest proposers of British entry are the most ready to confess — not to confess, but to assert — that of course this involves by its very nature a reduction of the sovereignty of the House.”

SDP founder David Owen agreed from the Labour side: “Of course that means that one gives up sovereignty, and a lot of the debate in this House has been focused upon sovereignty, and rightly so, because this is a central matter to many of the people who fundamentally do not wish us to go into Europe. They do not wish to give up any measure of sovereignty..."

“It has now got through to a lot more MPs that sovereignty is a vital issue.” The Daily Telegraph, October 1971

“They do not wish to give up any power that we exercise as a nation and put ourselves into the decision structure of other nations because it involves compromise. It involves not always getting one’s own way. It is, however, foolish to try to sell the concept of the E.E.C., and not admit that this means giving up some sovereignty. Of course it does, and I believe it rightly does. I believe this is one of the central appeals of it.”

Indeed, the Daily Telegraph reported of the October 1971 debate: “Continuing a trend, MPs turned more and more to talking about the issue of sovereignty and tended to be rather brief on economic topics. It has now got through to a lot more MPs that sovereignty is a vital issue.”

Where there was disagreement was over what pooling sovereignty meant in practice. Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath argued that the “Brexiteer” conception of sovereignty was too narrow and legalistic: “It is right that there should have been so much discussion of sovereignty … If sovereignty exists to be used and to be of value, it must be effective. We have to make a judgment whether this is the most advantageous way of using our country’s sovereignty.”

MP David Waddingon, subsequently Margaret Thatcher’s last Home Secretary, spelled it out further: “[a] country may have complete legal sovereignty, complete power to pass whatever laws it wishes in an attempt to control every kind of activity of its citizens, and yet be so weak as to be incapable of protecting its people from military, economic, or other action taken by other countries. Conversely, another country may sacrifice quite a lot of its legal sovereignty and yet, by acting in partnership with others, be able to exercise very much more power and give greater protection to its citizens than it ever could and did before that sacrifice was made.”

Margaret Thatcher’s last Agriculture Minister John Gummer agreed: “if anyone believes that we have the same power to guide our destinies today as we had in 1945 or in 1900 he is taking a totally wrong attitude to life. Sovereignty is defined today as it was in 1900, but the power it gives us is totally different. Therefore, I am not interested in legalistic definitions of our sovereignty; I am interested in what we can do to create a new future for ourselves. How can we control our environment? How can we control our financial future?”

At the heart of this debate was not deception but genuine disagreement, over whether the economic benefits of EEC membership combined with the opportunity for greater collective power through pooled sovereignty outweighed the infringement upon narrow national sovereignty that EEC membership entailed.

Helpfully, the wonders of modern technology make the past ever more accessible: Hansard, for example, is now helpfully online, so every Parliamentary utterance of Britain’s politicians on what joining the Common Market actually entailed can be accessed with but a click of a mouse.

I wonder, just wonder, if any Brexiteer on here will trouble to read this. Even if they do, I guess it won't be long before the old cry of "we were cheated" rings out again.

Brilliant and not over long. The only thing I would take issue with you about is the term 'Brexiteer' which has glamorous connotations. A more neutral name would be 'Brexiter' I think.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Next Thursday night (17th October) The Bull in Ditchling is hosting an exciting 'Brighton and Hove Albion Legends Night'

The evening includes an exclusive question and answer session with Danny Cullip and Guy Butters.

Tickets are £5 and all proceeds go to Albion in The Community who do amazing work in the local community.

Tickets can be purchased via the pubs website on www.thebullditchling.com/event-tickets

Or give the pub a call on 01273 843147.

This will be a great evening for any seagulls fans out there, so make sure you get your hands on some tickets...

I've seen Danny and Guy do a double act before and it's well-worth seeing. Danny's comments on Neil Warnock are worth the £5 alone. And of course The Bull is one heck of a lovely pub.

 

[portslade seagull]

That is how I view many of the Leave supporters, especially those advocating leaving with no arrangements for future relations with the EU.

Regarding respecting the vote, it has been, Parliament sent A50 notice, now the battle is all about how, and whether or not people should have a chance to reject whatever version Parliament can agree on. I have heard some leavers say that remainers should not take any part in deciding how we leave, yet I am sure if we had voted to remain, leavers would still want their voices heard if there was a decision to be made about joining the Euro, or taking another step towards closer union.
This Parliament is paralysed, mostly because of leave MP's being unwilling to compromise, there has been more compromise from remain MP's. I also understand that for many leave MP's, any compromise involving a customs union defeats the objective of leaving, but is that a compromise most leave voters think is unreasonable?

Remain MPs I think you meant to say even though they triggered A50 cannot still accept the vote of the majority to leave like some on here who just put their fingers in there ears and go la la la and demand x amounts of revotes until they get the result they want. Do you accept leave won back in 2016 on the straight yes/no question asked

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Remain MPs I think you meant to say even though they triggered A50 cannot still accept the vote of the majority to leave like some on here who just put their fingers in there ears and go la la la and demand x amounts of revotes until they get the result they want. Do you accept leave won back in 2016 on the straight yes/no question asked

I understand what you are saying but the problem is that the have-our-cake-and-eat it form of Brexit that the voting public said Yes to has since been proven not to exist. It's like offering people a cheap electric car and then telling them they can only have a cheap Diesel one.

The choice is between insisting that they take the alternative ("You said you wanted a car and you can't back out now") or checking back with them to see if they still want to go ahead with the purchase.

And of course what we're talking about is a bit more important than a car.

 

[portslade seagull]

I understand what you are saying but the problem is that the have-our-cake-and-eat it form of Brexit that the voting public said Yes to has since been proven not to exist. It's like offering people a cheap electric car and then telling them they can only have a cheap Diesel one.

The choice is between insisting that they take the alternative ("You said you wanted a car and you can't back out now") or checking back with them to see if they still want to go ahead with the purchase.

And of course what we're talking about is a bit more important than a car.

I was only asking if the remainers on here accept what the result was in 2016 and not all the concocted spurious reasons why is wasn't a valid result to remainers.

 

[nicko31]

I understand what you are saying but the problem is that the have-our-cake-and-eat it form of Brexit that the voting public said Yes to has since been proven not to exist. It's like offering people a cheap electric car and then telling them they can only have a cheap Diesel one.

The choice is between insisting that they take the alternative ("You said you wanted a car and you can't back out now") or checking back with them to see if they still want to go ahead with the purchase.

And of course what we're talking about is a bit more important than a car.

We need a vote on what Brexit really is, not a pack of lies and fantasies pedaled by dodgy businessmen with questionable funds and motives.

Brexiters bought the snake oil but just can't face it they were conned and many continue to be groomed daily by the right wing press.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I was only asking if the remainers on here accept what the result was in 2016 and not all the concocted spurious reasons why is wasn't a valid result to remainers.

Speaking only for myself I certainly accept that more voters voted to leave than voted to remain. Even if there are serious doubts about the way the referendum was run and a great big question mark about the existence of what 51.9 per cent voted for I don't think anyone can deny that basic fact. I'm not sure that they have.

My understanding is that because the referendum was not binding then it is not legally possible for the outcome to be invalidated. So that is where we are. The 2016 referendum result seems to be legal. Whether it was moral, wise or in the wider public and national interest is another matter and surely you can agree that that alone is a legitimate basis for debate and campaigning.

 

[Lever]

I was only asking if the remainers on here accept what the result was in 2016 and not all the concocted spurious reasons why is wasn't a valid result to remainers.

I accept that the hidden agenda of the Referendum was to keep a fractious Conservative Party together
I accept that a vote of 52% Leave to 48% Remain on July 23rd 2016 was the result of the referendum.
I accept that lies, exaggerations and spurious information was generated by both sides of the argument.
I accept that Cameron made no preparations for a Leave majority vote.
I accept that Vote Leave broke electoral law.
I accept that several attempts to implement the three year old Referendum were thwarted by MPs on both sides of the argument.
I accept that no one voted for no deal even though a few have now adopted it as a good idea.

Do you accept that Brexit will be bad for a substantial number of your fellow British citizens and seriously risks breaking up the UK?

 

[dingodan]

Sorry but you continue to use standard Leave MP's rhetoric and sloganising.

Please explain what 'respecting the result' means in practice?

Surely 'respect' is an emotional/psychological response not a practical one. What exactly does 'respecting the result' mean in practice? To me it is a vague, lazy and emotive mantra put out by the Brexit Brigade in the same way these despicable sound boxes suggest that I am 'going against the will of the people' or am a 'remoaner' because 'I lost'.

I 'respect' the result. Now what? I will do what small things I can to limit the damage I believe leaving the EU will do in practice, not out of lack of respect, but because bad choices will hurt a lot of people.

I respectfully suggest you are unwise to link 'standards of decency and honesty' with this political matter - particularly in light of the reputation our PM and leading Brexiter has earned over the years.

Maybe they aren't slogans. I can think of a couple of "slogans". Leave means leave, no deal is better than a bad deal. But those things aren't slogans, you are just calling them that.

Respecting the vote is pretty simple. Do what people voted for. People voted to leave, which means what we have to do in order to honor and respect that decision is - leave. "Leave means leave" isn't a slogan, it just means don't try to turn leaving the EU into something other than that.

The argument about how it will do damage etc, that is all rehashing the debate we had. Some believe it will be bad, some believe it will be good, but the majority in a democratic vote decided they wanted to leave.

If you don't like the current PM, that's fine. But your dislike of him is not a legitimate proxy for dismissing the voting majority of people, whose only crime was to take part in a democratic vote. Trying to effect change through the ballot box. That's why it's so important that this vote is respected, because we want people to know and have faith in the fact that the way to effect change is through democracy. If we go against that idea, if we call into question the right of people to make decisions that way, then what are we left with?

I've never called you (or anyone ever) a remoaner, I believe that you are sincere in your views and your concerns. But you have to put democratic values and the rights of people at the ballot box ahead of your own personal views. I know it's not what you want to hear but your role now is to make sure that we have a good relationship with the EU (assuming that you believe that would be in our interest) and that we do our best at succeeding going forward - but having left the EU. So far the attitude has been to try to undo what has been done, and that isn't fair or right when it comes to all of the people who took part in the vote. Even people who voted remain I'm sure would like to believe that voting does actually matter.

We didn't vote for leaving as long as X, Y or Z is true. We didn't vote for leaving by an amount proportional to the vote share. We voted by a majority to leave and people who are unhappy about that have every right to feel that way. But they don't have the right to change the rules or make up new ones just because they are unhappy. Use your positivity towards remaining in the EU to argue for a good relationship going forward (which is as much in the hands of the EU as it is in ours). But accept the result, because it was the result, and that matters.

 

[nicko31]

Maybe they aren't slogans. I can think of a couple of "slogans". Leave means leave, no deal is better than a bad deal. But those things aren't slogans, you are just calling them that.

Respecting the vote is pretty simple. Do what people voted for. People voted to leave, which means what we have to do in order to honor and respect that decision is - leave. "Leave means leave" isn't a slogan, it just means don't try to turn leaving the EU into something other than that.

The argument about how it will do damage etc, that is all rehashing the debate we had. Some believe it will be bad, some believe it will be good, but the majority in a democratic vote decided they wanted to leave.

If you don't like the current PM, that's fine. But your dislike of him is not a legitimate proxy for dismissing the voting majority of people, whose only crime was to take part in a democratic vote. Trying to effect change through the ballot box. That's why it's so important that this vote is respected, because we want people to know and have faith in the fact that the way to effect change is through democracy. If we go against that idea, if we call into question the right of people to make decisions that way, then what are we left with?

I've never called you (or anyone ever) a remoaner, I believe that you are sincere in your views and your concerns. But you have to put democratic values and the rights of people at the ballot box ahead of your own personal views. I know it's not what you want to hear but your role now is to make sure that we have a good relationship with the EU (assuming that you believe that would be in our interest) and that we do our best at succeeding going forward - but having left the EU. So far the attitude has been to try to undo what has been done, and that isn't fair or right when it comes to all of the people who took part in the vote. Even people who voted remain I'm sure would like to believe that voting does actually matter.

We didn't vote for leaving as long as X, Y or Z is true. We didn't vote for leaving by an amount proportional to the vote share. We voted by a majority to leave and people who are unhappy about that have every right to feel that way. But they don't have the right to change the rules or make up new ones just because they are unhappy. Use your positivity towards remaining in the EU to argue for a good relationship going forward (which is as much in the hands of the EU as it is in ours). But accept the result, because it was the result, and that matters.

They told us in 2016 there was no bus service to the next town, so we decided to walk

Turns out there was an express train service all the way along for only a small fare

But, we said we'd walk and its now raining heavily

 

[Lever]

Maybe they aren't slogans. I can think of a couple of "slogans". Leave means leave, no deal is better than a bad deal. But those things aren't slogans, you are just calling them that.

Respecting the vote is pretty simple. Do what people voted for. People voted to leave, which means what we have to do in order to honor and respect that decision is - leave. "Leave means leave" isn't a slogan, it just means don't try to turn leaving the EU into something other than that.

The argument about how it will do damage etc, that is all rehashing the debate we had. Some believe it will be bad, some believe it will be good, but the majority in a democratic vote decided they wanted to leave.

If you don't like the current PM, that's fine. But your dislike of him is not a legitimate proxy for dismissing the voting majority of people, whose only crime was to take part in a democratic vote. Trying to effect change through the ballot box. That's why it's so important that this vote is respected, because we want people to know and have faith in the fact that the way to effect change is through democracy. If we go against that idea, if we call into question the right of people to make decisions that way, then what are we left with?

I've never called you (or anyone ever) a remoaner, I believe that you are sincere in your views and your concerns. But you have to put democratic values and the rights of people at the ballot box ahead of your own personal views. I know it's not what you want to hear but your role now is to make sure that we have a good relationship with the EU (assuming that you believe that would be in our interest) and that we do our best at succeeding going forward - but having left the EU. So far the attitude has been to try to undo what has been done, and that isn't fair or right when it comes to all of the people who took part in the vote. Even people who voted remain I'm sure would like to believe that voting does actually matter.

We didn't vote for leaving as long as X, Y or Z is true. We didn't vote for leaving by an amount proportional to the vote share. We voted by a majority to leave and people who are unhappy about that have every right to feel that way. But they don't have the right to change the rules or make up new ones just because they are unhappy. Use your positivity towards remaining in the EU to argue for a good relationship going forward (which is as much in the hands of the EU as it is in ours). But accept the result, because it was the result, and that matters.

Still missing the point.
What kind of Leave did Leave voters vote for? What represents a compromise that all Leave voters (including ERG and Brexit Party voters) and 48% who don't want it to happen at all can endorse. After all, 48% is lot of the population and their views cannot simply be binned. The rest of your comment becomes pointless if you don't address that fundamental matter.... and yes in light of the above, 'respect the referendum result' has become a tired, worn-out, fairly meaningless cliche and is unthinkingly used as a slogan.

 

[A1X]

Respecting the vote is pretty simple. Do what people voted for. People voted to leave, which means what we have to do in order to honor and respect that decision is - leave. "Leave means leave" isn't a slogan, it just means don't try to turn leaving the EU into something other than that.

If it's so simple why can peoiple who voted and campaigned for Leave not agree on what it was they were campaigning for? Was it Norway or was it No Deal? And if one leave supporter says one thing, why does their vote count more than another who says differently?

 

[highflyer]

I was only asking if the remainers on here accept what the result was in 2016 and not all the concocted spurious reasons why is wasn't a valid result to remainers.

I'm not a fanatic remainer, but I voted remain and yes I accept the result.

However, having accepted the vote, it should be obvious (given how our system of government works) that at that point it needed to go back to the government, to work out how to make it happen - which means (as any fule could see) getting agreement in parliament. Looking at the situation it was pretty obvious that a deal could be put together that would be acceptable to the EU and get a majority in parliament. The problem was that the whole point of the Brexit vote for the Tories was NOT to 'just get out', or to 'respect the will of the people'. It was to see off the electoral threat of UKIP and the internal f*ckwittery of the ERG loonies. So working cross part with Labour and agreeing a compromise 'soft' brexit plan that would have worked was not deemed an option because, while delivering what people voted for, it did not solve THEIR problems.

Thus the election - an attempt to get a sufficient majority May would be able to push through a hard enough Brexit to keep UKIP at bay

Once THAT had gone so completely tits up...a parliamentary deal was still possible, but now she REALLY needed to compromise (more) and work with Labour. But putting party before country she set off down the pointless path that led to inevitable failure, and Johnson, and more failure.

So yes - I accept the result, but still think that everything that has followed has been a pointless, avoidable sh*tshow that has played out purely because the Tory's are scared of UKIP (now re-branded as Brexit party) on one side and Corbyn on the other side and they would rather let the country disintegrate over what (in the bigger scheme of things) is a fairly minor issue, than risk losing power.

You want to blame someone when we don't leave on October 31st? Blame Cameron and May and Johnson.
It's been in their hands and they have fumbled it. For all the wrong reasons.


Very few people really cared about the EU before we were all told to.