Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Duncan Mann posted:

Resurrection posted:

naim_nymph posted:

Vote Leave broke electoral law - again [ different incident from the fraudulent NHS leaflet crime ]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

 

The referendum result on June 2016 is now null and void

n_n says it’s null and void so it must be. Are you listening you 17.4 million people it was a procedural fraud and you were all deceived into voting Brexit. Cameron’s £9 million piece of propaganda was perfectly legitimate as was the coopted interference by Obama and all the other cast of fear mongers arrayed against the Leave campaign. As John McEnroe might say, “You can’t be serious!”, but I suspect you are. 

naim_nymph is in my view quite right to say that Vote Leave broke electoral law - this is now incontrovertible. She has referenced a BBC article, which gives some of the background to the decision of the Electoral Commission, but this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/co...electoral-commission

deals more fully with the potential consequences of this (my bold where appropriate):

The immediate consequences of that finding are legal. There should be fines for Vote Leave, and there could well be criminal charges to follow.

But an even bigger question is what this means for the referendum result, and the future of our democracy. In 2015, parliament debated whether the EU referendum needed legal safeguards. It eventually went on to jettison a series of legal rules that normally apply to safeguard votes from cheating. The sad consequence is that – although a judge may yet join the Electoral Commission in deciding Vote Leave broke the law – there is unlikely to be any way in which a court might declare the outcome void.

Parliament instead left to MPs the job of choosing what to do with the referendum, which government ministers made clear was “advisory”. And in normal times, where they acted rationally and on the basis of evidence, this would be enough: it is beyond sensible doubt that there is no proper mandate to leave the EU. The notes to the Venice Commission on referendums, to which the UK is a signatory, says “if the cap on spending is exceeded by a significant margin, the vote must be annulled”. Our own courts have said: “In elections, as in sport, those who win by cheating have not properly won and are disqualified.” The rules that parliament decreed to ensure the referendum was not captured by oligarchs will have been breached.

The fact nobody can prove beyond doubt that Vote Leave’s cheating made the difference is beside the point. Did we say to Lance Armstrong’s seven runners-up, “Yes, we know he’s a drugs cheat but can you prove you would have won if he hadn’t taken drugs?” Of course not – how could they prove that?

Ultimately these are questions for MPs, as they should be in a functioning democracy. But if they once felt shackled by what they were told was the will of the people, those shackles should now be well and truly off.

You make the point RR that not all 17.4 million Brexit voters were hoodwinked by procedural fraud. Of course not - I'm very happy to agree with you there. There will be plenty like you who have cogent reasons for wanting Brexit - but plenty more who were for example convinced that by voting for Brexit that they were doing a Good Thing to support the NHS, reduced as it was by the time of the referendum by deliberate Tory underfunding to a shadow of the organisation it was in 2010, having been until that time the beneficiary of meaningful investment under Blair and Brown. We also know that that the attempt to spin the recently announced allocation of 3.4% funding increases for the next 5 year term as a"Brexit dividend" has badly rebounded on Theresa May who swiftly found that line untenable by Philip Hammond quite rightly insisting that there is no dividend from Brexit (profoundly the opposite) and that this would need to be funded by tax increases. Truly, the NHS logo on the Brexit battlebus is an iconic demonstration of the mendacity of the Brexiteers, especially given Farage's rapid retraction post referendum that the promise of additional NHS funding was "a mistake". No, it wasn't a mistake  - it was a lie. 

You make my point for me, RR - only a small percentage of those who voted for Brexit because of the NHS funding "promises" needed to vote Remain instead in the absence of those "promises" to swing the referendum result in that direction. The fact that the Leave campaign used electorally dubious means by means of massive and illegal funding, and equally illegal psych ops via social media/Cambridge Analytica does give every reason for MPs to reassess the situation now that all this has come to light beyond contradiction, and to act in the best interests of their constituents by refusing to deliver a stolen referendum result. If they don't, then we are no better than a banana republic. I shall be writing to my MP to this effect - even as an arch-Bexiter, I expect him to put democracy above all else - which is I believe the same argument you have been using ad nauseam since this thread started? 

 

 

Seriously, you don't think I am going to read that? It's too hot, and..... I can't be bothered!

Duncan, this thread is supposed to amuse and entertain as well as allowing me to educate and  enlighten the likes of yourself. Be entertaining to get me out of my soporific summer slumbers. 

Oh dear Resurrection, another implied ad hominem attack?  Can't you do any better than that?

Even by your own standards that reply was weak, it showed all the amassed fortitude of a limp lettuce!

Perhaps because in reality you recognise that it's true?

Huge posted:

Oh dear Resurrection, another implied ad hominem attack?  Can't you do any better than that?

Even by your own standards that reply was weak, it showed all the amassed fortitude of a limp lettuce!

Perhaps because in reality you recognise that it's true?

My Dearest Huge,

I always appreciate your stinging retorts as they resurrect me from my summer slumbers.... momentarily. What’s ad hominem about giving Duncan some good tips on how to pique the interest of non political anoraks like myself? 

Nothing like a good Daily Mail headline to get the blood pumping round the addled brains of you Guardianista types. After all, every little bit helps.

naim_nymph posted:

NHS leaflets or very dishonest [and illegal] Brexit canvassing?

Just to clarify, in 2016 fraudulent leaflets that were purposely designed to look like official NHS leaflets were placed in NHS hospitals to deliberately mislead the public, and frighten them into believing they should Vote Leave to 'save' their local hospital.

naim_nymph posted:

Vote Leave broke electoral law - again [ different incident from the fraudulent NHS leaflet crime ]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

 

The referendum result on June 2016 is now null and void

If you'd actually read the article you linked you would see that it has a headline 'Vote Leave broke electoral law, Electoral Commission expected to say' with the operative clause being 'expected to say'. You might also have read that the claim is strongly disputed by Vote Leave.

If you have done a little research you would see that the Remain campaign stands accused very significant collusion - https://order-order.com/2018/0...ote-leave-far-worse/. You may also not have realised that the remain campaign benefited from $9 Million of Government money spent on delivering remain supporting leaflets to every household.

PeterJ posted:

naim_nymph posted:

Vote Leave broke electoral law - again [ different incident from the fraudulent NHS leaflet crime ]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

 

The referendum result on June 2016 is now null and void

If you'd actually read the article you linked you would see that it has a headline 'Vote Leave broke electoral law, Electoral Commission expected to say' with the operative clause being 'expected to say'. You might also have read that the claim is strongly disputed by Vote Leave.

If you have done a little research you would see that the Remain campaign stands accused very significant collusion - https://order-order.com/2018/0...ote-leave-far-worse/. You may also not have realised that the remain campaign benefited from $9 Million of Government money spent on delivering remain supporting leaflets to every household.

Do try to keep it real, Peter

The link i posted was factual news from the BBC,

The link you've posted in opposing it is nothing more than propaganda rhetoric from a pro Brexit-fascist anti democratic web-site.

Debs

naim_nymph posted:

PeterJ posted:

naim_nymph posted:

Vote Leave broke electoral law - again [ different incident from the fraudulent NHS leaflet crime ]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44704561

 

The referendum result on June 2016 is now null and void

If you'd actually read the article you linked you would see that it has a headline 'Vote Leave broke electoral law, Electoral Commission expected to say' with the operative clause being 'expected to say'. You might also have read that the claim is strongly disputed by Vote Leave.

If you have done a little research you would see that the Remain campaign stands accused very significant collusion - https://order-order.com/2018/0...ote-leave-far-worse/. You may also not have realised that the remain campaign benefited from $9 Million of Government money spent on delivering remain supporting leaflets to every household.

Do try to keep it real, Peter

The link i posted was factual news from the BBC,

The link you've posted in opposing it is nothing more than propaganda rhetoric from a pro Brexit-fascist anti democratic web-site.

Debs

Cough! Splutter! Splutter! BBC factual? And Mr Moderator pullease, “Brexit-fascist anti democratic”!

All of this in one sentence from someone who refuses to accept a completely valid democratic Referendum no matter what nonsense she might cook up.

Tell you what though Debs, you didn’t half wake me up from lazing on this sunny afternoon, so good for you! ????

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Oh dear Resurrection, another implied ad hominem attack?  Can't you do any better than that?

Even by your own standards that reply was weak, it showed all the amassed fortitude of a limp lettuce!

Perhaps because in reality you recognise that it's true?

My Dearest Huge,

I always appreciate your stinging retorts as they resurrect me from my summer slumbers.... momentarily. What’s ad hominem about giving Duncan some good tips on how to pique the interest of non political anoraks like myself? 

Nothing like a good Daily Mail headline to get the blood pumping round the addled brains of you Guardianista types. After all, every little bit helps.

Hi Resurection,

I feel that the ad hominem attack was implied in the following two parts of your post, when they are both taken together.

"Seriously, you don't think I am going to read that?"  ...  "I can't be bothered!"    (Even allowing for the preamble about the weather.)

and  "...allowing me to educate and  enlighten the likes of yourself. Be entertaining to get me out of my soporific summer slumbers."

However I'm pleased you appreciate the care I put into the counter arguments I pose  ...  even if only momentarily, before you return to your somnolent state!   

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Oh dear Resurrection, another implied ad hominem attack?  Can't you do any better than that?

Even by your own standards that reply was weak, it showed all the amassed fortitude of a limp lettuce!

Perhaps because in reality you recognise that it's true?

My Dearest Huge,

I always appreciate your stinging retorts as they resurrect me from my summer slumbers.... momentarily. What’s ad hominem about giving Duncan some good tips on how to pique the interest of non political anoraks like myself? 

Nothing like a good Daily Mail headline to get the blood pumping round the addled brains of you Guardianista types. After all, every little bit helps.

Hi Resurection,

I feel that the ad hominem attack was implied in the following two parts of your post, when they are both taken together.

"Seriously, you don't think I am going to read that?"  ...  "I can't be bothered!"    (Even allowing for the preamble about the weather.)

and  "...allowing me to educate and  enlighten the likes of yourself. Be entertaining to get me out of my soporific summer slumbers."

 

However I'm pleased you appreciate the care I put into the counter arguments I pose  ...  even if only momentarily, before you return to your somnolent state!   

Yes, I knew you would like me appreciating your care and attention. It comes with my calm and pleasant demeanour as you well know, but remember, Resurrection is always circumspect in any criticism he may imply. ????

Resurrection posted:

Cough! Splutter! Splutter! BBC factual? And Mr Moderator pullease, “Brexit-fascist anti democratic”!

All of this in one sentence from someone who refuses to accept a completely valid democratic Referendum no matter what nonsense she might cook up.

Tell you what though Debs, you didn’t half wake me up from lazing on this sunny afternoon, so good for you! ????

Hang on one minute...

In the referendum, one side definitely cheated, the other side probably cheated, both sufficient to contravene the terms of the Venice Commission on referendums (to which the UK is a signatory and is thus incorporated into the UK's laws on democracy) and to the extent as to trigger the condition by which the commissions ruling is that the vote must be annulled.  Yet you claim that it is a "completely valid democratic Referendum", despite the process (probably on both sides) being carried out in a manner being contrary to UK law!  To not annul the result is counter democratic, setting precedent for campaigns to buy political influence through the democratic process!

You have a strange definition of democracy!  (But you have declared that you are quite well off and so in your apparently preferred 'democratic' state you would be in a position to buy both power and influence!)  Maybe you'd like to see a return of the rotten boroughs, perhaps overseen by wealthy oligarchs, or maybe you'd like to appoint the overseers yourself?

naim_nymph posted:

Do try to keep it real, Peter

The link i posted was factual news from the BBC,

The link you've posted in opposing it is nothing more than propaganda rhetoric from a pro Brexit-fascist anti democratic web-site.

Debs

Keep it real?

You have ignored my first comment entirely. You do not seem to have read the 'factual news from the BBC'.

You probably have not read the Guido Fawkes blog either otherwise there would be no way you would describe it as 'propaganda rhetoric from a pro Brexit-fascist anti democratic web-site'. Generally, the only people who would describe it as that are those whose relationships with democracy and honesty are somewhat tenuous; Blair, Campbell, Adonis and Clegg spring to mind and they are all, not surprisingly, anti Brexit. The hard left, including Tony Robinson, would generally be against it as well so maybe you do have a 'cunning plan'.

Resurrection posted:

Yes, I knew you would like me appreciating your care and attention. It comes with my calm and pleasant demeanour as you well know, but remember, Resurrection is always circumspect in any criticism he may imply. ????

And I also appreciate the logic that you apply (however so twisted it may appear in my eyes ) and remember that whilst Huge may at times answer controversy with controversy and fight fire with fire, at no time does she seek to escalate or inflame a contentious situation!

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Cough! Splutter! Splutter! BBC factual? And Mr Moderator pullease, “Brexit-fascist anti democratic”!

All of this in one sentence from someone who refuses to accept a completely valid democratic Referendum no matter what nonsense she might cook up.

Tell you what though Debs, you didn’t half wake me up from lazing on this sunny afternoon, so good for you! ????

Hang on one minute...

In the referendum, one side definitely cheated, the other side probably cheated, both sufficient to contravene the terms of the Venice Commission on referendums (to which the UK is a signatory and is thus incorporated into the UK's laws on democracy) and to the extent as to trigger the condition by which the commissions ruling is that the vote must be annulled.  Yet you claim that it is a "completely valid democratic Referendum", despite the process (probably on both sides) being carried out in a manner being contrary to UK law!  To not annul the result is counter democratic, setting precedent for campaigns to buy political influence through the democratic process!

You have a strange definition of democracy!  (But you have declared that you are quite well off and so in your apparently preferred 'democratic' state you would be in a position to buy both power and influence!)  Maybe you'd like to see a return of the rotten boroughs, perhaps overseen by wealthy oligarchs, or maybe you'd like to appoint the overseers yourself?

Huge, you imbue me with riches I will never have and influence I could never peddle. I have absolutely zero interest in the Venice Commission on Referendums, whatever that purports to represent. And another foreign quango annulling our Referendum is probably not a wise way forward. You are never going to change a single thing on obscure, almost Grievian points of law. This might be fun but it ain’t gonna change a single thing for you.

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Yes, I knew you would like me appreciating your care and attention. It comes with my calm and pleasant demeanour as you well know, but remember, Resurrection is always circumspect in any criticism he may imply. ????

And I also appreciate the logic that you apply (however so twisted it may appear in my eyes ) and remember that whilst Huge may at times answer controversy with controversy and fight fire with fire, at no time does she seek to escalate or inflame a contentious situation!

Touché chère Huge! ????

Before we get too excited about the Electoral Commission's findings about 'Vote Leave' and some commentators' extrapolation about what that might mean for Brexit, it's worth considering the legal position. As I understand it, while it is theoretically possible for a court to set aside a result of an election that is subsequently found to be flawed, since the EU referendum was advisory, there is no 'result' as such for a court to set aside. Indeed, a court would probably not even entertain an application to it in these circumstances.  So, nothing has materially changed - the government of the day (under Cameron) decided that the result of the advisory referendum meant it should take the UK out of the EU. The current government under May is still pursuing that policy and is under no obligation as a result of the Electoral Commission's findings to change its mind.  

As someone who believes the UK should not be leaving the EU I would be pleased if all this meant the government was compelled to reconsider but the reality is it isn't. 

All it means is that the government no longer has a direct mandate to take us out of the EU (other than a marginal electoral victory fought in circumstances that no longer apply).  No one can now truthfully claim that exiting the EU is the will of the British people, as, due to the electoral fraud, the true will of the British people is still unknown.

In effect the situation is as though the referendum had never occurred.

Parliament still has the right to take us out of the EU, no matter what the opinion of the British people may be.

All this changes is to greatly strengthen the case for a second referendum on whether to accept the terms of the EU negotiation, hard exit under WTO rules, or cancel the article 50 activation, since the first result is no longer morally or legally valid.

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Oh dear Resurrection, another implied ad hominem attack?  Can't you do any better than that?

Even by your own standards that reply was weak, it showed all the amassed fortitude of a limp lettuce!

Perhaps because in reality you recognise that it's true?

My Dearest Huge,

I always appreciate your stinging retorts as they resurrect me from my summer slumbers.... momentarily. What’s ad hominem about giving Duncan some good tips on how to pique the interest of non political anoraks like myself? 

 

No worries, Huge & RR - I love the smell of an ad-hominem attack in the mornings (or afternoons, come to that). It's invariably the sign that by playing the man, not the ball, the attacker has either i) run out of credible argument or reasoning, or ii) is too intellectually lazy...

It's going to be interesting the next few days - already the Daily Telegraph are describing Brexit as "Broken" and seeking scapegoats to blame. Worth seeing their 30 minute documentary at:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/po...britain-mess-should/

It will require registration with the DT to view, but it's not behind a paywall. You can form your own judgements, but for me the overriding message is that the Tory party and Civil Service were totally unprepared for a Brexit victory in the referendum, and thanks to the inability of the prime Brexiteers to stop fighting for themselves for the party leadership, they inadvertently elected a Remainer to guide the country through the Brexit process - a Remainer who has sabotaged the process. The powerful message is that Brexit was "holed below the waterline" at that point. Quite a statement from the DT.

Should make for an interesting backdrop to the meeting at Chequers tomorrow... oh, to be a fly on the wall!

Duncan Mann posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

 

 

 

It will require registration with the DT to view, but it's not behind a paywall. You can form your own judgements, but for me the overriding message is that the Tory party and Civil Service were totally unprepared for a Brexit victory in the referendum, and thanks to the inability of the prime Brexiteers to stop fighting for themselves for the party leadership, they inadvertently elected a Remainer to guide the country through the Brexit process - a Remainer who has sabotaged the process. The powerful message is that Brexit was "holed below the waterline" at that point. Quite a statement from the DT.

Should make for an interesting backdrop to the meeting at Chequers tomorrow... oh, to be a fly on the wall!

...and that was at least partly because Cameron's government instructed the Civil Service that it was not to prepare for a Brexit victory.  Cameron has a lot to answer for for the mess that the UK is in today in relation to Brexit.  That said, he cannot be blamed for the failure of TM's government to progress preparations and negotiations.  

Huge posted:

All it means is that the government no longer has a direct mandate to take us out of the EU (other than a marginal electoral victory fought in circumstances that no longer apply).  No one can now truthfully claim that exiting the EU is the will of the British people, as, due to the electoral fraud, the true will of the British people is still unknown.

In effect the situation is as though the referendum had never occurred.

Parliament still has the right to take us out of the EU, no matter what the opinion of the British people may be.

All this changes is to greatly strengthen the case for a second referendum on whether to accept the terms of the EU negotiation, hard exit under WTO rules, or cancel the article 50 activation, since the first result is no longer morally or legally valid.

Huge - it doesn't alter the number of people who voted leave and that they outnumbered those who voted remain. The mis-deeds of the Vote Leave campaign besmirches to some degree the conduct of those involved but I can't see how it amounts to a credible argument that enough Leave voters would have voted differently if the Vote Leave campaign has spent circa £800k less than it did.  I'm struggling to see how this Electoral Commission decision shifts decisively the justification to have a second or confirmatory referendum, which both main parties have rejected.  

As I said in my earlier post, I'd like it to different, but let's not delude ourselves or cling to false hopes.

MDS posted:

Huge - it doesn't alter the number of people who voted leave and that they outnumbered those who voted remain. The mis-deeds of the Vote Leave campaign besmirches to some degree the conduct of those involved but I can't see how it amounts to a credible argument that enough Leave voters would have voted differently if the Vote Leave campaign has spent circa £800k less than it did.  I'm struggling to see how this Electoral Commission decision shifts decisively the justification to have a second or confirmatory referendum, which both main parties have rejected.  

As I said in my earlier post, I'd like it to different, but let's not delude ourselves or cling to false hopes.

The simple truth is that no-one can state with any accuracy how the result might have been different if the Vote Leave campaign hadn't played dirty with Russian money - but the point I was trying to make earlier (somewhat laboriously, so you might have missed it) is that the result is so tainted that (irrespective of any legal proceedings and/or calls for a further Referendum) it unshackles MPs from an obligation to deliver a hard Brexit off the back of the "people's vote" much vaunted by the Brexiteers. Given that we know there is a preponderance of Remainer MPs in the HOC, the best we can hope for now is that they develop some cajones and vote for a damage limitation soft Brexit (aka Norway option); I don't think that there is any possible that Art 50 is going to be rescinded. This isn't the worst possible outcome, though tremendous damage has been done, and I believe we should focus in the next decades on getting our political house in order, by means of a proper constitution and democratic controls, before we even think about closer ties with the EU again...

I pretty much agree, Duncan. The best we can hope for in the current political climate is a soft Brexit. None of our political leaders have the balls to stand up and say 'Brexit is a bloody stupid idea which will damage the UK economy for decades and, while an advisory referendum showed that a smallish minority of people voted for it, what has become very clear since is that consequences of exit are even more dire and wide-ranging than was thought in June 2016 so they are not going to stand by and watch the UK go over the cliff'. Ex-Prime Ministers Blair and Major have pretty much said that. Cameron knew it and ran away. May nor Corbyn have the courage or leadership to do what they probably know is in the UK's best interests.       

Huge posted:

All it means is that the government no longer has a direct mandate to take us out of the EU (other than a marginal electoral victory fought in circumstances that no longer apply).  No one can now truthfully claim that exiting the EU is the will of the British people, as, due to the electoral fraud, the true will of the British people is still unknown.

In effect the situation is as though the referendum had never occurred.

Parliament still has the right to take us out of the EU, no matter what the opinion of the British people may be.

All this changes is to greatly strengthen the case for a second referendum on whether to accept the terms of the EU negotiation, hard exit under WTO rules, or cancel the article 50 activation, since the first result is no longer morally or legally valid.

Yes, I have to admit that in the weird Huge world the people of this country are not just an inconvenience but  are simply an irrelevance. Semantics from a liberal left point of view trumps any or all reality. At some point you will have to come out of your self selected sterile sanctuary and face the cold reality of human existence in his country. Populism is currently submerged beneath the false reality of Labour and Conservative controlled politics but that will not last for much longer as both parties will probably tear themselves apart and a new and not necessarily better reality will follow.  

Huge posted:

All it means is that the government no longer has a direct mandate to take us out of the EU (other than a marginal electoral victory fought in circumstances that no longer apply).  No one can now truthfully claim that exiting the EU is the will of the British people, as, due to the electoral fraud, the true will of the British people is still unknown.

In effect the situation is as though the referendum had never occurred.

Parliament still has the right to take us out of the EU, no matter what the opinion of the British people may be.

All this changes is to greatly strengthen the case for a second referendum on whether to accept the terms of the EU negotiation, hard exit under WTO rules, or cancel the article 50 activation, since the first result is no longer morally or legally valid.

But only from your own perspective, which is one that I will never subscribe to, as you well known, and inflicting such a choice on the British people would only result in your own utter humiliation. Your logic may be interesting but your conclusions are hopeless.

Duncan Mann posted:

MDS posted:

Huge - it doesn't alter the number of people who voted leave and that they outnumbered those who voted remain. The mis-deeds of the Vote Leave campaign besmirches to some degree the conduct of those involved but I can't see how it amounts to a credible argument that enough Leave voters would have voted differently if the Vote Leave campaign has spent circa £800k less than it did.  I'm struggling to see how this Electoral Commission decision shifts decisively the justification to have a second or confirmatory referendum, which both main parties have rejected.  

As I said in my earlier post, I'd like it to different, but let's not delude ourselves or cling to false hopes.

The simple truth is that no-one can state with any accuracy how the result might have been different if the Vote Leave campaign hadn't played dirty with Russian money - but the point I was trying to make earlier (somewhat laboriously, so you might have missed it) is that the result is so tainted that (irrespective of any legal proceedings and/or calls for a further Referendum) it unshackles MPs from an obligation to deliver a hard Brexit off the back of the "people's vote" much vaunted by the Brexiteers. Given that we know there is a preponderance of Remainer MPs in the HOC, the best we can hope for now is that they develop some cajones and vote for a damage limitation soft Brexit (aka Norway option); I don't think that there is any possible that Art 50 is going to be rescinded. This isn't the worst possible outcome, though tremendous damage has been done, and I believe we should focus in the next decades on getting our political house in order, by means of a proper constitution and democratic controls, before we even think about closer ties with the EU again...

 Very few people in this country voted on fine principles. They voted on gut feel, resentment and self interest and  that won't change with your extenuated argumentation. Your EU is a busted flush that needs to retreat very quickly to becoming an EEC.

Well news reports this evening are saying that the PM has succeeded in getting the Cabinet to agree on a desired EU deal.  Given the divisions, I'd say well done to her for achieving that. The description of what has been agreed is a bit high level but it looks like alignment with EU on goods but wriggle-room on services and movement of people. I couldn't see anything on capital.  I'll be interested to see the EU's reaction to what the Cabinet has agreed because the consistent and sustained position of the EU commission and EU political leaders has that the 'four freedoms' are indivisible and can't be cherry-picked.   Still a step forward seems to have been achieved, within the Cabinet at least.