Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 09 February 2016
Media interest seems to be focused on the trivial matter of "in-work benefits" to migrant workers from Europe.
Very little informed discussion of the benefits and consequences of us remaining part of Europe v the benefits and consequences of us leaving.
Or am I just not tuning into the appropriate TV channel or overlooking some "White Paper" that is on sale in WH Smith ?
naim_nymph posted:It has been a sad fact of UK political life for some time that neither main party [and others] are coherent or honest enough to be worth voting for, hypothetically speaking it would make more sense for us British peoples in Britain to directly vote for our regional MEPs at General Elections and have all legislation and laws conducted at Brussels. Think of the massive savings we would have by disbanding the shower of shit-useless MPs in the HoC, and another massive saving by carefully dissembling the decrepit Houses of Parliament for the reclamation business, make enough money to build something useful on the site instead; like affordable homes for the homeless.
Just imagine not having to put up with cringeworthy PMQ every Wednesday - it's like watching twiddle dum and twiddle dee, complete waste of time and woffle at the public tax payers expenses, no small wonder the UK Brexit new world order folly is the laughing stock of the Universe!
What makes you think that MEPs are any better than our MPs? The European Parliament has been a dumping ground for failed politicians of all nationalities and parties.
PeterJ posted:Innocent Bystander posted:I am not a betting man, but I would lay money on the outcome of a confirmation referendum - and indeed on the number of votes against leaving being considerably more than 17.7 million.
Really? On what evidence do you base that assertion?
Common. sense and the state of the union - European Union that is.
Huge posted:
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND VENTURE CAPITALISMYou have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
The audited accounts make no mention of the cows on the balance sheet
You keep paying for milk but never get any
E
Brilliant. The RBS entry made me laugh out loud.
naim_nymph posted:It isn't 'our' negotiation position, it's subject only to the Tory Brexit-fascist cabinet agenda to secretly power grab them into a position of UK dictatorship, and in the meanwhile prevent the people of the UK from exercising 'democracy' with a very sensible and appropriate confirmation vote on either way - Remain apart of the EU or continue over the cliff edge to the disaster of leaving.
Debs
Tony Robinson is a renowned 'Loony Leftie'. I'm sure "Tory Brexit-fascist cabinet agenda " and "UK dictatorship" are straight from his playbook.
If there was a vote to remain in the EU or leave then that is a sure invitation for the EU to offer us the worst possible deal.
Duncan Mann posted:PeterJ posted:naim_nymph posted:
"I have a cunning plan...."
Update:
Presently 171,084 (and rising) ...of a 200,000 signature goal [at this time of posting]
Are you not concerned that any such measure would really weaken our negotiating position or is that really the 'cunning plan'?
Two flaws with this proposition:
1. Our current incumbents in power can't even agree *any* negotiating position, thanks to TM's weak leadership.
2. It's about power, and who wields it. The EU holds a much stronger negotiating position, and there is no likelihood that they will substantively alter any of their red lines, though some face saving compromise may be offered. The UK simply doesn't have the clout to enforce any other outcome than the offers on the table - i.e. Norway or Canada style solutions or the fall out (hard Brexit). Yanis Varafoukis was making the point soon after the referendum that Norway is the only sensible (i.e. least bad) option for the UK, perhaps as a temporary solution, pending the investment of time and resources in finding a political consensus to establish the infrastructure and logistics for a longer-term solution. In reality, the last two years have been wasted in internal political turmoil (in both main political parties in the UK). Of course, the Norway model comes with the political cost of free movement of people, though there seems a new realism that the UK does actually need free movement to function as an economy...
I would agree with 1 but not 2 as we are a huge net payer into the EU and they need our money. We are also have a net trade deficit with the rest of the EU and the EU needs to keep selling stuff to us. Also, the EU really needs our military and security support. These are enough to give us a negotiating stand.
In any case, to say we are going to vote on the offered deal or stay really encourages the EU to offer us the worst possible deal in the hope that the voters might reject it and offer to stay. I am amazed that the remainers proposing this do not realise that; or maybe they do and are just being fundamentally dishonest.
PeterJ posted:Innocent Bystander posted:I am not a betting man, but I would lay money on the outcome of a confirmation referendum - and indeed on the number of votes against leaving being considerably more than 17.7 million.
Really? On what evidence do you base that assertion?
It wasn’t an assertion, but an expressed confident belief, so I do not neeed hard evidence. But it is a belief based on knowledge of the vastly different reality of Brexit as it now will be increasingly evident to most people is very different and much less advantageous than the inaccurate guesswork and false information peddled at the time of the refrendum two years ago.
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
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.
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?
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
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.