"Any deal to leave the EU should respect the results of the referendum"

[Biscuit]

It wasn't just Brexiteers that voted Leave, knowing it meant leaving the single market. The Remain camp repeatedly used it as a threat, warning that leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and I have, among others, video clips of the PM and Chancellor, saying exactly that, right before the vote.

We also have the EU saying, quite rightly, tgat we cannot pick and choose, cherry-pick, and tgat staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms, the customs union and ECJ jurisdiction.

Where's the "Leave" in that?

I do wish Remainers would just accept, we had a campaign, we had a referendum and Renain lost.

Get over it. It's democracy, and you don't always get what you want.

Whilst I largely agree, I would argue that, we live in a democracy, therefore these people still have every right to speak their part and fight for what they think is best.... You don't always get what you want.

[jimborae]

It wasn't just Brexiteers that voted Leave, knowing it meant leaving the single market. The Remain camp repeatedly used it as a threat, warning that leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and I have, among others, video clips of the PM and Chancellor, saying exactly that, right before the vote.

We also have the EU saying, quite rightly, tgat we cannot pick and choose, cherry-pick, and tgat staying in the single market means accepting the four freedoms, the customs union and ECJ jurisdiction.

Where's the "Leave" in that?

I do wish Remainers would just accept, we had a campaign, we had a referendum and Renain lost.

Get over it. It's democracy, and you don't always get what you want.

But was it democratic vote/valid result though????

1. Nearly 13 million people eligible to vote did not vote.
2. The electorate were possibly influenced by foreign interference.
3. The electorate were lied to in the so called campaigns, certainly by one side, probably by both.
4. Personally I don't think the electorate understood the consequences of the outcome.

Therefore I think it's only fair that once we know what, if any, deal is on the table we get to vote again and this time the question is, "Do you want to the UK to leave the EU with this deal/no deal being offered by the EU to the UK?"

Also I think that it should be a legal requirement to vote, same as say Australia.

Then I think you can only say once & for all "The people have have spoken".

Furthermore nothing winds me up more than MP's trotting out the line the "The people have spoken, we must follow the will of the people". Fine say that, but remember MP's are supposed to represent their constituents, or at least that's how i understand it. Well in my constituency the will of the people was to Remain so therefore my MP should be representing that desire, not what the rest of the country wants. Still as my MP spends most of his time on his estate in Scotland rather than in his constituency listening to his vassals I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he's now switched sides and is brown nosing Theresa May and is supporting the Brexiteers.

[Saracen]

Whilst I largely agree, I would argue that, we live in a democracy, therefore these people still have every right to speak their part and fight for what they think is best.... You don't always get what you want.

The idea of a democracy is we all get a say. But once a vote has been taken, the decision is made.

Yet, some Remainers are very clearly trying everything they can to divert, subvert or overthrow the decision of the people, while others, including done in this thread, can't resist snide little digs wt Brexiteers when what they are really complaining about is lodjng a democratic vote, and how they want it their way. If they are free to "speak tgrir part" then I'm free to call the Remainer snivelling and whining for what it is, which is refusal to accept a democratic vote.

The classic example is to moan that we voted to leave, but nobody defined what "Leave" meant. The hell we didn't. Leave the EU means leaving the EU. Ask any EU official what the core features of the EU are, and unless they decide to explain sll the detailed chapters of acquis, they'll give the highlights which are the freedoms, the customs union, the common jurisdiction of the ECJ and either membership of or a commitment to join the Eutozone, all limited only where treaty-defined exemptions exist, and all ultimately working towards "ever greater union".

Leaving means leaving that. Not leaving it and immediately signing back up for much of it. It means becoming a completely separrate, sovereign nation once again, just as all those nations that never have been member states are.

Then, we relate to the EU as a hopefully friendly but separate country would, in the mutual benefit of both.

So yes, all the sniveling has about he same charm as an upset year old baby that's had it's favourite rattle taken away. And if remainers don't like it, well, us Brexiteers have put to put up with thdir whining, so now they can put up wuth how some of us Brexiteers feel abouf it.

Which is, as I said, Remain lost, now get over it.

[Saracen]

But was it democratic vote/valid result though????

1. Nearly 13 million people eligible to vote did not vote.
2. The electorate were possibly influenced by foreign interference.
3. The electorate were lied to in the so called campaigns, certainly by one side, probably by both.
4. Personally I don't think the electorate understood the consequences of the outcome.

Therefore I think it's only fair that once we know what, if any, deal is on the table we get to vote again and this time the question is, "Do you want to the UK to leave the EU with this deal/no deal being offered by the EU to the UK?"

Also I think that it should be a legal requirement to vote, same as say Australia.

Then I think you can only say once & for all "The people have have spoken".

Furthermore nothing winds me up more than MP's trotting out the line the "The people have spoken, we must follow the will of the people". Fine say that, but remember MP's are supposed to represent their constituents, or at least that's how i understand it. Well in my constituency the will of the people was to Remain so therefore my MP should be representing that desire, not what the rest of the country wants. Still as my MP spends most of his time on his estate in Scotland rather than in his constituency listening to his vassals I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he's now switched sides and is brown nosing Theresa May and is supporting the Brexiteers.

Oh, give me strength.

Yes, it was a democratic vote. If 13 million people chose to not vote, that's their right. We don't have the Australian system because, well, we aren't in Australia. We had an 18-month campaign with non-stop speeches, interviews, duscussions and debates with input from just about everybody barring the Downing Street cat. If anybody was stupid enough to be influenced by so-called foreign piwers, they ought to be permanently disqualified from ever voting on anything more serious than what colour shirt to wear.

Both sides lied? Or, at least, embellushed the truth. Have you ever heard a politician interviewed before? Ever taken part in a general election?

It's what politicians do.

Sure, it'd be nice if, just for the sake of change, once in a while, someone would given a simple, honest, direct answer to a straight question. But they don't. We do have laws on what can and can't be done in elections and referenda but if we invalidated a referendum on the basis of less that direct answers we'd also have to invalidate the results of every general election for at least the last four or five decades, and probably the next four or five decades or more, too.

[Corky34]

But was it democratic vote/valid result though????

1. Nearly 13 million people eligible to vote did not vote.
2. The electorate were possibly influenced by foreign interference.
3. The electorate were lied to in the so called campaigns, certainly by one side, probably by both.
4. Personally I don't think the electorate understood the consequences of the outcome.

You forgot no 5. One side overspent by 10% to gain an advantage of 2%.

The idea of a democracy is we all get a say. But once a vote has been taken, the decision is made.

Come on that's plainly false, we get to vote on the decisions and actions made every 5 years, if we don't think the government lived up to what it promised we can change our minds and vote for someone else. And besides from our conversation in the Panasonic thread it's clear that you believe if things change enough we should be allowed another vote, all be it 40 years later but another vote all the same, either that or because we were lied to when we were taken into the common market, how is this any different?



IIRC People said after what was consider a very divisive referendum that both leave and remain voters need to come together and do what's best for the country, unfortunately some two years later we're still not seeing any of that, instead of making compromises and coming to a consensus it seems people who supported leaving the EU are just telling people that they lost, now get over it, and expect everyone to swallow whatever comes their way despite, by your own admission, being lied too.

[spacein_vader]

The idea of a democracy is we all get a say. But once a vote has been taken, the decision is made.

Yet, some Remainers are very clearly trying everything they can to divert, subvert or overthrow the decision of the people, while others, including done in this thread, can't resist snide little digs wt Brexiteers when what they are really complaining about is lodjng a democratic vote, and how they want it their way. If they are free to "speak tgrir part" then I'm free to call the Remainer snivelling and whining for what it is, which is refusal to accept a democratic vote.

The classic example is to moan that we voted to leave, but nobody defined what "Leave" meant. The hell we didn't. Leave the EU means leaving the EU. Ask any EU official what the core features of the EU are, and unless they decide to explain sll the detailed chapters of acquis, they'll give the highlights which are the freedoms, the customs union, the common jurisdiction of the ECJ and either membership of or a commitment to join the Eutozone, all limited only where treaty-defined exemptions exist, and all ultimately working towards "ever greater union".

Leaving means leaving that. Not leaving it and immediately signing back up for much of it. It means becoming a completely separrate, sovereign nation once again, just as all those nations that never have been member states are.

Then, we relate to the EU as a hopefully friendly but separate country would, in the mutual benefit of both.

So yes, all the sniveling has about he same charm as an upset year old baby that's had it's favourite rattle taken away. And if remainers don't like it, well, us Brexiteers have put to put up with thdir whining, so now they can put up wuth how some of us Brexiteers feel abouf it.

Which is, as I said, Remain lost, now get over it.

Happy to get over it, just don't understand why were ruling out the common market which several leading Leave campaigners insisted WAS a viable option (and thus encouraging people who see that as the best option to vote Leave,) before the referendum.

Source: https://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

[Biscuit]

Both sides lied? Or, at least, embellushed the truth. Have you ever heard a politician interviewed before? Ever taken part in a general election?

It's what politicians do.

You seem willing to accept the word of politicians who stated leaving the EU would mean completely leaving the EU, but equally we should all just accept that "politicians lie", therefore the arguments of "the remainers" are moot.

Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me. They either lie, and therefore you cant accept anything they say, so a suggestion that leaving completely was never a given. OR they should be held accountable, in which case where is our NHS money coming from?

Frankly the whole thing is exhausting, so many people who seem to think its acceptable for "their side" to lie and cheat because "the ends justify the means". This was all personified on the day after the vote with Nigel Farage coming out and saying all the brexit bus promises were non-sense. Oh really Nigel? Nice of you to grow a conscious at that exact moment.
I'm sure we all have our own perspective on this matter, but I honestly feel that if the facts and stastics where all laid out in a neutral fashion, the vote would have looked incredibly different, and people like Nigel know this.

[Corky34]

In answer the original question: Any deal to leave the EU should respect the results of the referendum, the result of the referendum was to leave the EU in any way our prime minister, and ultimately parliament, see fit as there was no manifesto, no plan, no whitepaper, nothing written down about what leaving meant or how we'd go about leaving, so when you're told that we must respect the result of the advisory referendum what they really mean is that everyone should accept whatever the PM decides and get through parliament.

That's the joys of having what has always been a sovereign, by the governments own admission, representative parliamentary system, we can only ever advise them what we'd like them to do and they're free to represent us in any manner they choose.

[kalniel]

In answer the original question: Any deal to leave the EU should respect the results of the referendum, the result of the referendum was to leave the EU in any way our prime minister, and ultimately parliament, see fit as there was no manifesto, no plan, no whitepaper, nothing written down about what leaving meant or how we'd go about leaving, so when you're told that we must respect the result of the advisory referendum what they really mean is that everyone should accept whatever the PM decides and get through parliament.

That's the joys of having what has always been a sovereign, by the governments own admission, representative parliamentary system, we can only ever advise them what we'd like them to do and they're free to represent us in any manner they choose.

I think so as well, which is why I find it very frustrating when that same PM et al start using gobbledegook about certain options respecting or not respecting a simple in/out vote. Any and all options respect the referendum.

[neonplanet40]

Well, to be fair, TM wasn't PM for the vote. No-one voted for HER to do anything. That's why she doesn't have a majority.

[kalniel]

Well, to be fair, TM wasn't PM for the vote. No-one voted for HER to do anything. That's why she doesn't have a majority.

Yeah they did - her constituency voted for her to represent them. And our constituencies voted for our representatives who have, as a body, decided that she should be PM and lead the governments actions.

[neonplanet40]

Actually, she had to buy her majority from the DUP. Without them, she would have already lost a number of key votes. So I stand by the fact that she doesn't represent the majority of the country.

[Corky34]

I think so as well, which is why I find it very frustrating when that same PM et al start using gobbledegook about certain options respecting or not respecting a simple in/out vote. Any and all options respect the referendum.

Indeed they do but since she lost her majority she's been held hostage by the ideologue's from within her own party, if she had a nice big majority she could have forced through what some people consider a 'soft' Brexit AKA: a Brexit in name only, she's gone as 'soft' as she dares with her Chequers 'plan' but even that's faced considerable backlash and AFAIK some of the amendments that the government supported has painted her into a corner.

One made it unlawful for Northern Ireland to form a separate customs territory to the rest of the UK and when combined with it being unlawful to install border infrastructure, by way of the GFA, its made it all but impossible for her to achieve both aims without it ending up in the courts.

[Saracen]

You seem willing to accept the word of politicians who stated leaving the EU would mean completely leaving the EU, but equally we should all just accept that "politicians lie", therefore the arguments of "the remainers" are moot.

Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me. They either lie, and therefore you cant accept anything they say, so a suggestion that leaving completely was never a given. OR they should be held accountable, in which case where is our NHS money coming from?

.....

Not what I said.

Repeatedly, remainers have said, paraphrasing, we weren't told Brexit meant leaving the Single Market or Customs Union.

And that is that-out untrue.

What I said is we sere told that, explicitly and repeatedly, by both sides. Once side used it to explain how we could make trade deals with the rest of the planet. The other sude used it as a disaster scenario, to scare us.

Oh, and while we're at it, the EU stated, again repeatedly and explicitly, no cherry-picking. That the very core of the EU is the relationship between member states embedded in the Single Market, and the Customs Union, and that there is no having part of the single market without having all of it, and what goes with it, which includes accepting the foyr freedoms, the jurisfiction of the ECJ and "contributions".

I didn't say I believed either side. Both speak with forked tongue, and you have to filter all their claims.

What I said was that one of the favourire refrains of Remainers is "nobody said", usually with the inference that all those that voted Leave would have sern the light and voted differently if we had bern told.

We were told. Repeatedly. By the leaders of both sides. And the claim that we weren't is either out of ignorance, because it was repeated extensively, including in the week before the vote, or an outright lie.


Oh, and call me a hypocrit again and you get suspended. You know the rules and are on extremely thin ice.

[Biscuit]

I'm not actually sure I have seen ANYONE say "we were never told", but I have seen a lot of people say, "it was never guaranteed"... because it wasn't. Again, politicians lie, nothing was guaranteed.

As far as the results being different if the campaigns have been different... Certainly from my side I'm not referring to the single market, but to all the other blatant lies regarding immigration, NHS etc etc... If those elements wouldn't have changed the results, then why on earth did they use them? My point here is folks like Nigel knew they were lies, but deliberately waited until after it was too late to be honest about them as it was far more important to him to get his result, than the result that really reflected the state of the country.

There was an enormous amount of discussion that a "soft" brexit would be likely and it was pretty clear to me that a vote to "leave" contained the possibility for both outcomes within it. It doesn't really seem all that outrageous, and infact it seems pretty obvious, that those who preferred to remain would side with the "soft" path, and push to retain as many of the elements of the EU as possible going forward. I dont think it is fair to suggest that these people are "snivelling and whining", for having a different expectation for the outcome an outcome of Brexit that was never guaranteed one way or the other, or highlighting some of the egregious approaches taken in the path to get us here.

And there-in lies my conclusion of contradiction. We either accept that everything said pre-vote was completely fear mongering and we cant take it for granted, therefore every perspective on the path forward should be treated with equal respect. Or it was all true, in which case, boy oh boy do we have some politicians to (figuratively) string up.

Obviously the reality WRG to facts is somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't change the state of trust, so the situation we are in right now is that our, I'll say it again, democratically elected officials cannot make a decision on how to approach this topic, because whichever route they take is likely to result in angry constituents and political suicide, not to mention the likely repercussions for the economy, at least in the short term.
One way or another, democracy will decide what happens, for good or for worse, and it might not be what you wanted, but also does not necessarily go against the letter of the referendum.

Oh, and call me a hypicrit again and you get suspended. You know the rules and are on extremely thin ice.

Seems rather an extreme position to put me in, frankly. That to me appears to amount to a last warning disciplinary threat?
If you somehow felt the wording on my response was inappropriate, and took some kind of personal slight to it, I would have been more than happy to discuss privately, elaborate on my perspective, come to a common understanding and publically state an addendum.

[Saracen]

Seems rather an extreme position to put me in, frankly. That to me appears to amount to a last warning disciplinary threat?
If you somehow felt the wording on my response was inappropriate, and took some kind of personal slight to it, I would have been more than happy to discuss privately, elaborate on my perspective, come to a common understanding and publically state an addendum.

You called me hypocritical, in a public post, in direct contravention of our rules, and you want to "discuss" it in private?

Yes, it is a final warning, and there is nothing to discuss. If you don't know why, you need to read the rules again.

And to be clear, it's nothing to do with what you're arguing. It's about insults.

This subject is EXACTLY why we have a rule against it. It's a contentious subject. Frankly, it's hard to think of a more contentious, divisive subject, and if people sink to calling others names, any actual discussion will cease.

Following our rules is not hp for debate, not subject to some orivate understanding, and for that matter, doesn't even require a "final warning".

But seeing as you appear interested in clarifying perspectives, I'll clarify it. You can make whatever argument you like on Brexit, adopt whatever stance you like and that's not a problem.

Call other members names, directly or indirectly, and you break our rules. What happens then is at our discretion, and not up for negotiation or discussion. Do it again and a suspension will follow immediately.

Clear enough? That's a rhetorical question.