Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Don Atkinson posted:

...elsewhere the TOTAL additional funding (Tax increase + diverted EU contribution) is quoted as £394m per week...

I can’t post a link as it’d lead to a commercial site, but there’s a quite straight forward demolition of this by Sky News, using IFS figures.  You can find it by googling: sky news Do 'Brexit dividend' numbers add up?

Given that the IFS are hardly seen as the economics wing of Momentum, I see no real way for Brexiteers to refute this beyond the ‘experts know nothing’ strategy which surely convinces no one, and is self undermining to anyone who’s not already an at-any-cost Brexiteer.

I don’t mean that it’d be impossible to refute any part of it whatsoever, but overall it does demonstrate IMO that the idea of any spare money because of Brexit/Brexit dividend/bonus/bonanza is a busted flush.

Presumably JC will come clean and confirm that in the (increasingly possible) event of a Gov collapse, Labour will continue with the Leave negotiations and fully fund the NHS (ie more than the Con Party) from specific tax increases ?

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Don Atkinson posted:

Presumably JC will come clean and confirm that in the (increasingly possible) event of a Gov collapse, Labour will continue with the Leave negotiations and fully fund the NHS (ie more than the Con Party) from specific tax increases ?

IIRC and AFAIK, pretty much exactly that was in their manifesto for the GE, and remains party policy.

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Dearest Huge, I am currently constrained from fully expressing myself as the word ‘mud’ seems to be restricted for your personal use.

in order to regain real sovereignty we have to take it back from the EU. To do that, Parliament needs to ensure that the Referendum result is fully implemented, at which point the Monkeys of Parliament are free to take whatever decisions they want as long as they feel secure in their seats.

However, as the Monkeys of Parliament were pretty cavalier over the years in throwing sovereignty away without consulting the people, my faith in their decision making processes is limited. 

As  you well know, the terms of the Referendum were simple, specific and decisive. The fact that you personally disagree with that, or even MPs disagree , or especially the House of Lords is not an excuse to walk away from that popular decision. No matter what semantics  you may feel is fair to apply to dodge the Brexit bullet, your probable hope that populism could be suppressed if you succeeded is a very dangerous game.  

Are you prepared to revoke Article 50 and revert back to the status quo ante? If not, what is your solution that you feel can be imposed on Brexiteers by the minority, including yourself, that would be seen as anything other than a betrayal. If this is a scorched earth play then you must assume that both sides could employ the same tactics. 

Anyway, as I can never be sure of whether my words will be deemed acceptable, I will stop for the moment.

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Dearest Huge, I am currently constrained from fully expressing myself as the word ‘mud’ seems to be restricted for your personal use.

in order to regain real sovereignty we have to take it back from the EU. To do that, Parliament needs to ensure that the Referendum result is fully implemented, at which point the Monkeys of Parliament are free to take whatever decisions they want as long as they feel secure in their seats.

However, as the Monkeys of Parliament were pretty cavalier over the years in throwing sovereignty away without consulting the people, my faith in their decision making processes is limited. 

As  you well know, the terms of the Referendum were simple, specific and decisive. The fact that you personally disagree with that, or even MPs disagree , or especially the House of Lords is not an excuse to walk away from that popular decision. No matter what semantics  you may feel is fair to apply to dodge the Brexit bullet, your probable hope that populism could be suppressed if you succeeded is a very dangerous game.  

Are you prepared to revoke Article 50 and revert back to the status quo ante? If not, what is your solution that you feel can be imposed on Brexiteers by the minority, including yourself, that would be seen as anything other than a betrayal. If this is a scorched earth play then you must assume that both sides could employ the same tactics. 

Anyway, as I can never be sure of whether my words will be deemed acceptable, I will stop for the moment.

Ah! then I fully apologise for the mud comment (it was mostly in jest anyway).

However you seem to be labouring () under a misapprehension, either thinking we live in a democracy or perhaps thinking that MPs are delegates when they are, in fact, representatives.

Should a MP vote to support Brexit when they believe that it's not in the best interests of their constituents, then they are in dereliction if their parliamentary duty and they are betraying their constituents, even if their constituents voted for Brexit on the basis of the limited amount of truthful information available at the time of the referendum.

So you seem to be accepting that if a substantial proportion of Leave voters were hoodwinked by Aaron Banks' leave.eu organisation, which we pretty much know now was largely funded by Putin, you're entirely comfortable with that, and indeed MPs should ignore that? An interesting perspective, but good to hear you articulate it, as it confirms that you at least as a Brexiter have no scruples whatsoever about how the goal of getting out of the EU is achieved...  

Duncan Mann posted:

So you seem to be accepting that if a substantial proportion of Leave voters were hoodwinked by Aaron Banks' leave.eu organisation, which we pretty much know now was largely funded by Putin, you're entirely comfortable with that, and indeed MPs should ignore that? An interesting perspective, but good to hear you articulate it, as it confirms that you at least as a Brexiter have no scruples whatsoever about how the goal of getting out of the EU is achieved...  

Duncan, I am baffled. We were all supposed to swallow the publicly funded lies printed by Cameron and his cohorts which of course we, the majority, chose to ignore, but you continue to harp on about a number on a bus as if this was the one defining moment and cardinal sin of the Referendum.

The noises from the empty vessel that is the Remain propaganda machine are simply irritating the general public who just want Brexit implemented fully as soon as possible 

i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin.

As to my reference to scorched earth, the Remainers who are happily playing with fire seem to think that they would be immune to being burnt by their own activities, which is a little naive. 

Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour.  

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

So, to sum up: sovereignty for the British Parliament, but only when it agrees with you!

Then do the democratic deal, dear Huge, and stop remoaning about Brexit. Once that's done, you can get your playdough Parliament back until you make your next populist mistake. 

Sorry Resurrection, but

1  You were the one bleating on about the sovereignty for the British Parliament, and now you want to abandon it, just because it threatens your dogma.

2  You were the one taking the populist course

3  We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy: a MP's constituents elect MPs "to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons." (www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/), not to roll over and play puppy dogs to whatever government is in power.

If you want to fling mud at me, do at least try to aim in the right direction (most of your last batch landed squarely on your own shoes!).

Dearest Huge, I am currently constrained from fully expressing myself as the word ‘mud’ seems to be restricted for your personal use.

in order to regain real sovereignty we have to take it back from the EU. To do that, Parliament needs to ensure that the Referendum result is fully implemented, at which point the Monkeys of Parliament are free to take whatever decisions they want as long as they feel secure in their seats.

However, as the Monkeys of Parliament were pretty cavalier over the years in throwing sovereignty away without consulting the people, my faith in their decision making processes is limited. 

As  you well know, the terms of the Referendum were simple, specific and decisive. The fact that you personally disagree with that, or even MPs disagree , or especially the House of Lords is not an excuse to walk away from that popular decision. No matter what semantics  you may feel is fair to apply to dodge the Brexit bullet, your probable hope that populism could be suppressed if you succeeded is a very dangerous game.  

Are you prepared to revoke Article 50 and revert back to the status quo ante? If not, what is your solution that you feel can be imposed on Brexiteers by the minority, including yourself, that would be seen as anything other than a betrayal. If this is a scorched earth play then you must assume that both sides could employ the same tactics. 

Anyway, as I can never be sure of whether my words will be deemed acceptable, I will stop for the moment.

Ah! then I fully apologise for the mud comment (it was mostly in jest anyway).

However you seem to be labouring () under a misapprehension, either thinking we live in a democracy or perhaps thinking that MPs are delegates when they are, in fact, representatives.

Should a MP vote to support Brexit when they believe that it's not in the best interests of their constituents, then they are in dereliction if their parliamentary duty and they are betraying their constituents, even if their constituents voted for Brexit on the basis of the limited amount of truthful information available at the time of the referendum.

So, 17.4 million people can go whistle or more appropriately go eat cake? It didn’t end well for that lady and your presumption that the British public will simply doff their caps and accept your own assumptive statement is also potentially naive. 

I fear that 'the general public' you talk about want Brexit done and over because they are so fed up with the current Tory inability to do anything except faff around and the ineffectual opposition to make a coherent counter position. The difference between exit and remain was only a couple of percentage points and therefore both sides where passionate can claim their truth. Those 'general public' bods have now no understanding and more importantly any belief in what the truth might be. Both sides claim their truth as gospel. 

For most it just needs to be over.

The 'truth' that we will be worse/significantly worse off seems accepted by all. Evidently the fact that we can control our own decisions about our sovereignty means that this is a compromise that the leavers are prepared accept. The other 'truth' is that the demographic that predominantly voted for Brexit along with the apathy/alienation of the younger members of our society means that the people who will feel the effect for years to come didn't win. That doesn't seem very democratic to me!

Europe is clearly setting out that it doesn't need the UK for any of its functions. It would like our money and it would like the integrity that a full European membership brings to the idea of a Europe. We on the other hand continue to have a completely false and arrogant opinion of our worth in these negotiations. It would be better that we just accept the situation, and get on with it. In 20 years we may have settled into a more comfortable place in the world. 

lutyens posted:

I fear that 'the general public' you talk about want Brexit done and over because they are so fed up with the current Tory inability to do anything except faff around and the ineffectual opposition to make a coherent counter position. The difference between exit and remain was only a couple of percentage points and therefore both sides where passionate can claim their truth. Those 'general public' bods have now no understanding and more importantly any belief in what the truth might be. Both sides claim their truth as gospel. 

For most it just needs to be over.

The 'truth' that we will be worse/significantly worse off seems accepted by all. Evidently the fact that we can control our own decisions about our sovereignty means that this is a compromise that the leavers are prepared accept. The other 'truth' is that the demographic that predominantly voted for Brexit along with the apathy/alienation of the younger members of our society means that the people who will feel the effect for years to come didn't win. That doesn't seem very democratic to me!

Europe is clearly setting out that it doesn't need the UK for any of its functions. It would like our money and it would like the integrity that a full European membership brings to the idea of a Europe. We on the other hand continue to have a completely false and arrogant opinion of our worth in these negotiations. It would be better that we just accept the situation, and get on with it. In 20 years we may have settled into a more comfortable place in the world. 

Don't disagree with you lutyens. However, if the decision had gone the other way I assure you that we would not be having this discussion two years on. Leavers would have shrugged and moved on knowing that any sour grapes shown by them would be punished heavily by the Remain side. Somehow it doesn't work quite like that when the Establishment is dissed. 

Think I'll go and watch some paint dry, or as it is more commonly known, the World Cup. Nah, this is far worse than the World Cup.

The validity of a referendum taken against the backdrop of misinformation, lack of information, false information and media stirring (e.g latent racism)  is patently absurd. As I have said many times over in different words: as the reality of Brexit and its effects becomes clear - effects which different individuals may deem positive or negative - the ONLY sensible, wise, logical and democratic thing to do is to hold a confirmatory referendum before actually implementing the exit.

People who want the best for the country would welcome that, regardless which way they want it, while hoping that if anything more are now convinced that Brexit is a good idea. People who for whatever reason voted for what they now believe is the wrong way, whichever way that was, would welcome it (and I for one know people to whom this applies). People who believe in democracy would recognise the validity, Committed Brexiteers who genuinely believe the majority want what Brexit means in practice need have nothing to fear. The only people who have any reason to reject a  confirmatory referendum are Brexiteers who know or strongly suspect that the majority are likely not to confirm the wish to leave , being also people who have no qualms about suppressing the will of the majority for their own, I suggest probably selfish, ends - instead they bandy about the statistic of the long distant and indisputably ill-informed original referendum

Innocent Bystander posted:

The validity of a referendum taken against the backdrop of misinformation, lack of information, false information and media stirring (e.g latent racism)  is patently absurd. As I have said many times over in different words: as the reality of Brexit and its effects becomes clear - effects which different individuals may deem positive or negative - the ONLY sensible, wise, logical and democratic thing to do is to hold a confirmatory referendum before actually implementing the exit.

People who want the best for the country would welcome that, regardless which way they want it, while hoping that if anything more are now convinced that Brexit is a good idea. People who for whatever reason voted for what they now believe is the wrong way, whichever way that was, would welcome it (and I for one know people to whom this applies). People who believe in democracy would recognise the validity, Committed Brexiteers who genuinely believe the majority want what Brexit means in practice need have nothing to fear. The only people who have any reason to reject a  confirmatory referendum are Brexiteers who know or strongly suspect that the majority are likely not to confirm the wish to leave , being also people who have no qualms about suppressing the will of the majority for their own, I suggest probably selfish, ends - instead they bandy about the statistic of the long distant and indisputably ill-informed original referendum

I would not give you false hope etc, IB. However, looks like Dominic Grieve and Nicky Morgan have caved. Probably goes along the lines of self preservation, fear of deselection, maybe even a sudden epiphany, who knows?

You are getting no confirmatory Referendum now or ever. How many games of football did you play as a kid where it was best of three goals, then upped to best of five and so on? You might say it was child’s play as is the prevaricating of the Westminster bubble. 

Resurrection posted:

You are getting no confirmatory Referendum now or ever. How many games of football did you play as a kid where it was best of three goals, then upped to best of five and so on? You might say it was child’s play as is the prevaricating of the Westminster bubble. 

And of course no children ever need to be told off for lying!

Resurrection posted:

So, 17.4 million people can go whistle or more appropriately go eat cake? It didn’t end well for that lady and your presumption that the British public will simply doff their caps and accept your own assumptive statement is also potentially naive. 

And now that many of the distortions and falsehoods have been revealed, now that much more is known of the cost to the country; you, of course, know for an absolute fact that none of those 17.4M have changed their mind, as you speak for all 17.4M of them.

Resurrection posted:

"i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin".

Do you really think that Putin is 'left-wing' in any sensible definition of the term as it applies to British politics? Actually, he has a lot in common with that favourite of yours and self made multi-millionaire - Jacob Rees-Mogg. Putin is also pretty much a 'self made' man, and he certainly eclipses Rees-Mogg in terms of the wealth he has accumulated, being arguably the richest individual in the world. A certain President, whom I suspect most on this forum would view as being on the 'far-right' appears to have considerable admiration for Putin. Why wouldn't you, since the accumulation of wealth appears to be the attribute that most attracts your admiration?

So, Jeremy Corbyn is treasonous and a traitor (your words) for allegedly meeting with 'a Russian' very many years ago, but you have no qualms about Aaron Banks collaborating with (or being funded by) Putin in respect of the leave.eu organisation, as pointed out by Duncan Mann. Is this correct, or would you also view Aaron banks and the rest of the leave.eu organisation as being treasonous and traitors for their links to Putin and his money? 

"Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour".  

On the contrary, I know that you are deliberately mischief making at best, although some of the deliberately inflammatory words and comments that you have used in both this and your earlier alter-ego fall pretty much into the definition of 'Troll'.  

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin".

Do you really think that Putin is 'left-wing' in any sensible definition of the term as it applies to British politics? Actually, he has a lot in common with that favourite of yours and self made multi-millionaire - Jacob Rees-Mogg. Putin is also pretty much a 'self made' man, and he certainly eclipses Rees-Mogg in terms of the wealth he has accumulated, being arguably the richest individual in the world. A certain President, whom I suspect most on this forum would view as being on the 'far-right' appears to have considerable admiration for Putin. Why wouldn't you, since the accumulation of wealth appears to be the attribute that most attracts your admiration?

So, Jeremy Corbyn is treasonous and a traitor (your words) for allegedly meeting with 'a Russian' very many years ago, but you have no qualms about Aaron Banks collaborating with (or being funded by) Putin in respect of the leave.eu organisation, as pointed out by Duncan Mann. Is this correct, or would you also view Aaron banks and the rest of the leave.eu organisation as being treasonous and traitors for their links to Putin and his money? 

"Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour".  

On the contrary, I know that you are deliberately mischief making at best, although some of the deliberately inflammatory words and comments that you have used in both this and your earlier alter-ego fall pretty much into the definition of 'Troll'.  

Because Putin is a Socialist (but more actually only in the same sense as of the former German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei [National Socialist German Workers' Party]).

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin".

Do you really think that Putin is 'left-wing' in any sensible definition of the term as it applies to British politics? Actually, he has a lot in common with that favourite of yours and self made multi-millionaire - Jacob Rees-Mogg. Putin is also pretty much a 'self made' man, and he certainly eclipses Rees-Mogg in terms of the wealth he has accumulated, being arguably the richest individual in the world. A certain President, whom I suspect most on this forum would view as being on the 'far-right' appears to have considerable admiration for Putin. Why wouldn't you, since the accumulation of wealth appears to be the attribute that most attracts your admiration?

So, Jeremy Corbyn is treasonous and a traitor (your words) for allegedly meeting with 'a Russian' very many years ago, but you have no qualms about Aaron Banks collaborating with (or being funded by) Putin in respect of the leave.eu organisation, as pointed out by Duncan Mann. Is this correct, or would you also view Aaron banks and the rest of the leave.eu organisation as being treasonous and traitors for their links to Putin and his money? 

"Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour".  

On the contrary, I know that you are deliberately mischief making at best, although some of the deliberately inflammatory words and comments that you have used in both this and your earlier alter-ego fall pretty much into the definition of 'Troll'.  

Mr Moderator, he’s being nasty to me. He’s calling me a, a, a Troll. 

You are all over the place with your response.. I don't like in no particular order Jeremy Corbyn, Aaron Banks or Putin and JRM has nothing in common with Putin, despite your protestations.

You are also getting very presumptuous  and personal about who or what I like or dislike. I am arguing sbout Brexit you appear to be arguing about me. Back to the football analogy, you appear to be playing the man and not the ball.

Dissect that Hmack!

Huge posted:

Hmack posted:

Resurrection posted:

"i also am bemused that you seem to believe that someone as right wing as myself would be susceptible to anything said or paid for by Putin".

Do you really think that Putin is 'left-wing' in any sensible definition of the term as it applies to British politics? Actually, he has a lot in common with that favourite of yours and self made multi-millionaire - Jacob Rees-Mogg. Putin is also pretty much a 'self made' man, and he certainly eclipses Rees-Mogg in terms of the wealth he has accumulated, being arguably the richest individual in the world. A certain President, whom I suspect most on this forum would view as being on the 'far-right' appears to have considerable admiration for Putin. Why wouldn't you, since the accumulation of wealth appears to be the attribute that most attracts your admiration?

So, Jeremy Corbyn is treasonous and a traitor (your words) for allegedly meeting with 'a Russian' very many years ago, but you have no qualms about Aaron Banks collaborating with (or being funded by) Putin in respect of the leave.eu organisation, as pointed out by Duncan Mann. Is this correct, or would you also view Aaron banks and the rest of the leave.eu organisation as being treasonous and traitors for their links to Putin and his money? 

"Still, I know that you are simply mischief making, Duncan, and are just playing devil’s advocate for the very tenuous reasoning and justifications put forward by Remainers in general for their anti-democratic as well as anti-populist behaviour".  

On the contrary, I know that you are deliberately mischief making at best, although some of the deliberately inflammatory words and comments that you have used in both this and your earlier alter-ego fall pretty much into the definition of 'Troll'.  

Because Putin is a Socialist (but more actually only in the same sense as of the former German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei [National Socialist German Workers' Party]).

I am well aware of the derivation of the word Nazi and am also well aware that It includes the word 'Socialist", which has been a useful word to legitimise many of the world's horrors including Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Pol Pot. When all these people define themselves as Socialist, commonly understood as left wing,  I do believe you are playing linguistic gymnastics to distance your own predilections by denouncing all these self proclaimed Socialists as Right Wing.

Actually, it is even quite difficult to apply the right wing epithet to Trump who has changed his political allegiances more often than a Socialist would change its socks. You might call him a Populist Pragmatist on a polite day. 

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

The validity of a referendum taken against the backdrop of misinformation, lack of information, false information and media stirring (e.g latent racism)  is patently absurd. As I have said many times over in different words: as the reality of Brexit and its effects becomes clear - effects which different individuals may deem positive or negative - the ONLY sensible, wise, logical and democratic thing to do is to hold a confirmatory referendum before actually implementing the exit.

People who want the best for the country would welcome that, regardless which way they want it, while hoping that if anything more are now convinced that Brexit is a good idea. People who for whatever reason voted for what they now believe is the wrong way, whichever way that was, would welcome it (and I for one know people to whom this applies). People who believe in democracy would recognise the validity, Committed Brexiteers who genuinely believe the majority want what Brexit means in practice need have nothing to fear. The only people who have any reason to reject a  confirmatory referendum are Brexiteers who know or strongly suspect that the majority are likely not to confirm the wish to leave , being also people who have no qualms about suppressing the will of the majority for their own, I suggest probably selfish, ends - instead they bandy about the statistic of the long distant and indisputably ill-informed original referendum

I would not give you false hope etc, IB. However, looks like Dominic Grieve and Nicky Morgan have caved. Probably goes along the lines of self preservation, fear of deselection, maybe even a sudden epiphany, who knows?

You are getting no confirmatory Referendum now or ever. How many games of football did you play as a kid where it was best of three goals, then upped to best of five and so on? You might say it was child’s play as is the prevaricating of the Westminster bubble. 

You don’t appear to understand the meaning of “confirmation” - I have never suggested a re-run.

Or rather, I believe you do fully understand, but, as I have said before, you are terrified in case there actually is one, as you know, with as near absolute certainty as anything can be certain in life, that the result would not be what you want.

You are wasting your time with this Resurrection, its like arguing with Scientologists or other zealots. They will never accept what we did to them by voting to get out of the ghastly EU. Assuming we ever do of course. They haven't got past the anger stage of grief yet. It will be tears before they reach acceptance and by then the EU will have self destructed anyway.

ltaylor posted:

You are wasting your time with this Resurrection, its like arguing with Scientologists or other zealots. They will never accept what we did to them by voting to get out of the ghastly EU. Assuming we ever do of course. They haven't got past the anger stage of grief yet. It will be tears before they reach acceptance and by then the EU will have self destructed anyway.

Ha! Ha! I know lt. Was just commenting on The Spectator that this lot, not the forum, the monkeys in Parliament, will still be debating this when we fall out next year. 

ltaylor posted:

You are wasting your time with this Resurrection, its like arguing with Scientologists or other zealots. They will never accept what we did to them by voting to get out of the ghastly EU. Assuming we ever do of course. They haven't got past the anger stage of grief yet. It will be tears before they reach acceptance and by then the EU will have self destructed anyway.

Do you, also,  stick to the ludicrous dogma of “the people have spoken”, rejecting out of hand any notion of a confirmatory vote now the picture is so much clearer? 

ltaylor posted:

You are wasting your time with this Resurrection, its like arguing with Scientologists or other zealots. They will never accept what we did to them by voting to get out of the ghastly EU. Assuming we ever do of course. They haven't got past the anger stage of grief yet. It will be tears before they reach acceptance and by then the EU will have self destructed anyway.

Classy comment, ltaylor - comparing Remainers with "Scientologists or other zealots" Real classy. And of course, not even a tiny bit patronising. Yup, 48% of the population are seen by you as Scientologists... Says it all really.

Yes, I am angry ltaylor - angry that you and your fellow Brexiters have decided that I should become poorer in monetary terms, and will likely become considerably poorer again in future whatever form of Brexit ensues. Ever stop to consider how your decision impacts on others? 

I am angry that my children will have fewer opportunities in the future in the name of fantasy unicorn chasing. I'm guessing that wasn't a concern to you?

I'm angry that public services - already in a parlous state - will deteriorate still further as our worsening GDP buckles under the strain of an ageing population. Ever look at the state of the roads? Pick up a paper and read about the state of the state education sector? And don't get me started on the funding crisis in the NHS - though I suspect that like Resurrection, you have private medical insurance?

The reality is that Brexit will leave the UK diminished in so many areas of our national life. And for what? Even TM has admitted that there is NO scenario in which the UK will be anything other than considerably worse off in terms of GDP. We will become a rule-taker, whether you like it or not - whereas we have had considerable influence within the EU rule making sphere. We will end up with either interminable transition (so you'd better get used to the idea of posting comments on this thread in a few years time), or if we crash out, you'd better hold on to your hat as the real flak starts coming in your direction...

My sense of things at the moment is that the Brexiteers in the Tory party have something of a grip over TM's weak government and, as we have seen today, are holding the potential Tory rebels at bay. This is I think in part because those rebels are fearful of being accused of bringing down the government. They are also wary of being accused of trying to reverse the result of the referendum, accusations stoked by some of the Brexiteers. In relation to the so-called Grieve amendment I think that accusation is unfair as it is designed to give parliament more of a say in the increasingly unlikely scenario that the UK may crash out of the EU without an agreement. Anyway I think this uneasy position within the Tory party and parliament looks like it might continue to hold while negotiations with the EU grind on.  

However, once those negotiations near a conclusion I can see the balance shifting.  The negotiated deal looks more and more likely to contain lots of compromises and long transitional periods to the point where it will be hard to see any material difference post Jan 2019 from the UK having technically left the EU.  This prospect will I think infuriate the hard Brexiteer MPs.  But suddenly the burden of arguing for things to change will have shifted from the rebels to the Brexiteers.  They will have to make the case for the government to go back to Brussels to negotiate a 'better' deal or, even harder, to argue for the UK to crash out of the EU without a deal.  Labour and the other parties will likely accept a negotiated soft-Brexit and without opposition support the Brexiteers don't have anything like the numbers to defeat the government.   So while the likes of Rees-Mogg and other Brexieteers should enjoy their parliamentary 'victories' of last week and this, I think they are going have a very unhappy and frustrated end to the calendar year.