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

[kalniel]

So says our illustrious twinkle toes PM, along with several backbench members and newspapers. But can someone help me understand what it means?

The referendum was a simple in/out, or more literally, remain/leave vote. That's it. By leaving the EU surely you can't do anything but respect the results of the referendum? There wasn't any kind of nuance in the question about free movement or anything like that.

[neonplanet40]

I feel that trying to understand or make sense of anything this inept government says, would result in a serious headache.

They are clueless and driving everyone off a cliff. I just hope that the leave voters get everything they voted for and then some.

[Biscuit]

So says our illustrious twinkle toes PM, along with several backbench members and newspapers. But can someone help me understand what it means?

The referendum was a simple in/out, or more literally, remain/leave vote. That's it. By leaving the EU surely you can't do anything but respect the results of the referendum? There wasn't any kind of nuance in the question about free movement or anything like that.

Typical politics. Hours of speech preparation, organisation of personel, setting up security, millions of tax payers money and absolutely nothing is said.

I think all it means, reading through the lines, is the current government still doesn't have a bloody clue how to approach the issue of Brexit without upsetting vast voting demographics.
The approach of "leave or remain" did a great job of bringing varied groups of people and perspectives into two groups, but did nothing as far as point the country in a direction for once decision is made. Now the groups have started to separate out and become vocal/demanding about their specific issues. Suddenly those who were once on the same side are now, once again, at odds with each other and the whole situation is more divided than it ever was.

FUD as a controlling mechanism for the masses was the only real take away from this ridiculous escapade.

[Spud1]

was a simple in/out, or more literally, remain/leave vote. That's it. By leaving the EU surely you can't do anything but respect the results of the referendum? There wasn't any kind of nuance in the question about free movement or anything like that.

Indeed. You'll find Brexiteers themselves can't agree what this means either as everyone has a different reason/opinion. It's just more fluff and in the meantime Brexit continues to cause problems thorughout the UK.

I think we should respect common sense and abandon this suicide run but hey ho,

[peterb]

I just hope that the leave voters get everything they voted for and then some.

Which is total political freedom from the European Brussels based beaurocracy. There is nothing more than that. However we seem to be set on a course that delivers the worst of both worlds.

[spacein_vader]

So says our illustrious twinkle toes PM, along with several backbench members and newspapers. But can someone help me understand what it means?

The referendum was a simple in/out, or more literally, remain/leave vote. That's it. By leaving the EU surely you can't do anything but respect the results of the referendum? There wasn't any kind of nuance in the question about free movement or anything like that.

You're right, but since then the government has tried to conflate that a vote for brexit was also a vote for leaving the single market, despite that never forming part of the question asked.

The only thing that we voted on was to leave the European Union. A Norway style agreement keeping us in the single market would be perfectly legitimate under the referendum but the Leave side keep making the big assumption that people all voted out of the single market too and using phrases like "Brexit in name only."

[Biscuit]

Which is total political freedom from the European Brussels based beaurocracy. There is nothing more than that. However we seem to be set on a course that delivers the worst of both worlds.

Perhaps the referendum should have been more specific.

[peterb]

Perhaps the referendum should have been more specific.

Maybe - but then neither the remainers nor the leavers expected to vote to go the way it did.

[Biscuit]

Maybe - but then neither the remainers nor the leavers expected to vote to go the way it did.

Which is exactly why it should have been more specific. I guess less outright lies about the consequences/benefits of leaving/remaining would have been nice (and helpful) too.

[Corky34]

Isn't there a saying or something about knowing when a politician is lying: their lips are moving.

[Saracen]

So says our illustrious twinkle toes PM, along with several backbench members and newspapers. But can someone help me understand what it means?

The referendum was a simple in/out, or more literally, remain/leave vote. That's it. By leaving the EU surely you can't do anything but respect the results of the referendum? There wasn't any kind of nuance in the question about free movement or anything like that.

Well, I would argue that there were indeed nuances, not least because both sides made a series of arguments for their stance, ranging from sovereignty to trade to control of borders to not paying billions in 'budget contributions', and so on.

Moreover, May has said, repeatedly and to some mockery, "Leave means Leave".

So for me, what it comes down to is either a country is a member, with all the benefits and obligations that brings, or you are a third-party country. Ironically perhaps, I rather agree with the EU's stance - either you're in or you're out, no cherry-picking.

So, "leave" means we deal with the EU, and they deal with us, as completely independent countries would. That said, we are an important trade partner for the EU, as they are for us, and any sensible, reasonable countries OUGHT to be able to treat ech other with respect, especially where so much with the EU and UK is similar, or in the case of much legislation and standards, not least because we're currently in.

Theresa May has spelt out, repeatedly, what "Leave" means in several areas, most notably, the Customs Union, the "Freedoms" and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

What "Leave" does not mean is to leave by signing a deal that signs us right back up to the things that Leavers voted to leave becsuse of. That, in the forced terminology of Brexit amounts to BrexitINO, i.e. INO = "in name only".

For instance, any two countries signing a trade deal will need a mechanism for resolving disputes, but it is NOT acceptable for that to be z central organ of one side. Thus the ECJ is not acceptable as arbiter to the UK, any more than the final arbiter being the UK Supreme Court would be to the EU.

Would we sign a trade deal with the US where a US court resolved disputes? Hell, no. Would we sign a deal with Fiji where a Fijian court redolved disputes? Again, no.

So, do we do a trade deal? If and only if a deal can be found that fits the benefits of the UK and EU, and that doesn't amount to BrexitINO. A major aspect of the Brexit case (which won the referendum) was allowing us to fo our iwn trade deals with the rest of the planet. Any exit deal that doesn't allow that is not one that respects the vote to Leave.

A simplistic example is that while leaving a broadbsnd contract certainly implies meeting commitments of that contract but, having left, I'm not bound to continue paying charges and certainly not bound to not sign a contract eith someone else.


Fundamentally, a vote to Leave is a vote to be an independent, third-party country. Everybody (eith sny sense) had to evaluate teo options :-

a) Remain, with all that implies, OR
b) Leave, with all that implies.

Both sides argued that their view was "in the best interests of the UK" and, obviously, how to achieve that, and what it consists of. What remainers need to accept is, they lost, and leave really does mean flaming leave, not reinterpret leave to mean effectivrly stay in.

brings, or you are a third-party country. Ironically perhaps, I rather agree with the EU's stance - either you're in or you're out, no cherry-picking.

So, "leave" means we deal with the EU, and they deal with us, as completely independent countries would. That said, we are an important trade partner for the EU, as they are for us, and any sensible, reasonable countries OUGHT to be able to treat ech other with respect, especially where so much with the EU and UK is similar, or in the case of much legislation and standards, not least because we're currently in.

Theresa May has spelt out, repeatedly, what "Leave" means in several areas, most notably, the Customs Union, the "Freedoms" and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

What "Leave" does not mean is to leave by signing a deal that signs us right back up to the things that Leavers voted to leave becsuse of. That, in the forced terminology of Brexit amounts to BrexitINO, i.e. INO = "in name only".

For instance, any two countries signing a trade deal will need a mechanism for resolving disputes, but it is NOT acceptable for that to be z central organ of one side. Thus the ECJ is not acceptable as arbiter to the UK, any more than the final arbiter being the UK Supreme Court would be to the EU.

Would we sign a trade deal with the US where a US court resolved disputes? Hell, no. Would we sign a deal with Fiji where a Fijian court redolved disputes? Again, no.

So, do we do a trade deal? If and only if a deal can be found that fits the benefits of the UK and EU, and that doesn't amount to BrexitINO. A major aspect of the Brexit case (which won the referendum) was allowing us to fo our iwn trade deals with the rest of the planet. Any exit deal that doesn't allow that is not one that respects the vote to Leave.

A simplistic example is that while leaving a broadbsnd contract certainly implies meeting commitments of that contract but, having left, I'm not bound to continue paying charges and certainly not bound to not sign a contract eith someone else.



NOTE: Post needs editing to remove some unintentional touch-screen copy-paste, but I've given up trying on this tiny screen. Need to be at PC to sort it. Tablets. Grrr.

[peterb]

Isn't there a saying or something about knowing when a politician is lying: their lips are moving.

Well there is - but of course you could stand for election as an MP and prove the saying wrong...

[kalniel]

Fundamentally, a vote to Leave is a vote to be an independent, third-party country. Everybody (eith sny sense) had to evaluate teo options :-

a) Remain, with all that implies, OR
b) Leave, with all that implies.

Surely if that was the case, there wouldn't be any need for this protracted and embarrassing 'negotiation' that's going on? It should be clear to both us and the EU what each choice meant and therefore the route forward should have been plain enough to agree for either option even before the referendum, and the questions of 'what does this mean for x?' could have been answered plainly instead of dubious statements on buses or whatever.

[Corky34]

Well there is - but of course you could stand for election as an MP and prove the saying wrong...

The phrase p'ing into the wind springs to mind, besides i know I'd end up lamping someone.

[spacein_vader]

Well, I would argue that there were indeed nuances, not least because both sides made a series of arguments for their stance, ranging from sovereignty to trade to control of borders to not paying billions in 'budget contributions', and so on.

Moreover, May has said, repeatedly and to some mockery, "Leave means Leave".

So for me, what it comes down to is either a country is a member, with all the benefits and obligations that brings, or you are a third-party country. Ironically perhaps, I rather agree with the EU's stance - either you're in or you're out, no cherry-picking.

So, "leave" means we deal with the EU, and they deal with us, as completely independent countries would. That said, we are an important trade partner for the EU, as they are for us, and any sensible, reasonable countries OUGHT to be able to treat ech other with respect, especially where so much with the EU and UK is similar, or in the case of much legislation and standards, not least because we're currently in.

Theresa May has spelt out, repeatedly, what "Leave" means in several areas, most notably, the Customs Union, the "Freedoms" and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

What "Leave" does not mean is to leave by signing a deal that signs us right back up to the things that Leavers voted to leave becsuse of. That, in the forced terminology of Brexit amounts to BrexitINO, i.e. INO = "in name only".

For instance, any two countries signing a trade deal will need a mechanism for resolving disputes, but it is NOT acceptable for that to be z central organ of one side. Thus the ECJ is not acceptable as arbiter to the UK, any more than the final arbiter being the UK Supreme Court would be to the EU.

Would we sign a trade deal with the US where a US court resolved disputes? Hell, no. Would we sign a deal with Fiji where a Fijian court redolved disputes? Again, no.

So, do we do a trade deal? If and only if a deal can be found that fits the benefits of the UK and EU, and that doesn't amount to BrexitINO. A major aspect of the Brexit case (which won the referendum) was allowing us to fo our iwn trade deals with the rest of the planet. Any exit deal that doesn't allow that is not one that respects the vote to Leave.

A simplistic example is that while leaving a broadbsnd contract certainly implies meeting commitments of that contract but, having left, I'm not bound to continue paying charges and certainly not bound to not sign a contract eith someone else. ffectivrly stay in.

brings, or you are a third-party country. Ironically perhaps, I rather agree with the EU's stance - either you're in or you're out, no cherry-picking.

So, "leave" means we deal with the EU, and they deal with us, as completely independent countries would. That said, we are an important trade partner for the EU, as they are for us, and any sensible, reasonable countries OUGHT to be able to treat ech other with respect, especially where so much with the EU and UK is similar, or in the case of much legislation and standards, not least because we're currently in.

Theresa May has spelt out, repeatedly, what "Leave" means in several areas, most notably, the Customs Union, the "Freedoms" and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

What "Leave" does not mean is to leave by signing a deal that signs us right back up to the things that Leavers voted to leave becsuse of. That, in the forced terminology of Brexit amounts to BrexitINO, i.e. INO = "in name only".

For instance, any two countries signing a trade deal will need a mechanism for resolving disputes, but it is NOT acceptable for that to be z central organ of one side. Thus the ECJ is not acceptable as arbiter to the UK, any more than the final arbiter being the UK Supreme Court would be to the EU.

Would we sign a trade deal with the US where a US court resolved disputes? Hell, no. Would we sign a deal with Fiji where a Fijian court redolved disputes? Again, no.

So, do we do a trade deal? If and only if a deal can be found that fits the benefits of the UK and EU, and that doesn't amount to BrexitINO. A major aspect of the Brexit case (which won the referendum) was allowing us to fo our iwn trade deals with the rest of the planet. Any exit deal that doesn't allow that is not one that respects the vote to Leave.

A simplistic example is that while leaving a broadbsnd contract certainly implies meeting commitments of that contract but, having left, I'm not bound to continue paying charges and certainly not bound to not sign a contract eith someone else.


Fundamentally, a vote to Leave is a vote to be an independent, third-party country. Everybody (eith sny sense) had to evaluate teo options :-

a) Remain, with all that implies, OR
b) Leave, with all that implies.

Both sides argued that their view was "in the best interests of the UK" and, obviously, how to achieve that, and what it consists of. What remainers need to accept is, they lost, and leave really does mean flaming leave, not reinterpret leave to mean effectively stay in, or at most, BrexitINO.



NOTE: Post needs editing to remove some unintentional touch-screen copy-paste, but I've given up trying on this tiny screen. Need to be at PC to sort it. Tablets. Grrr.

This is exactly what I mean. There was no option on the ballot for leaving or staying in the single market so according to the letter of the referendum a Norway style arrangement is perfectly fine.

The result is repeated attempts similar to the one quoted to imply that

A. We all knew that leave the EU also meant leave the single market.

B. That all of those who voted leave (or at least the nearly all that would be required for it to still have a majority,) definitely wanted to leave the single market too.

A. Is provably false. B has a very small margin for error.

[Saracen]

....

The only thing that we voted on was to leave the European Union. A Norway style agreement keeping us in the single market would be perfectly legitimate under the referendum but the Leave side keep making the big assumption that people all voted out of the single market too and using phrases like "Brexit in name only."

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.