Activity


  • by Richard Dawkins

     

    . . .  it is a well established principle of democracy that, in the case of major constitutional changes that are hard to undo, the bar should be set higher than 50%.   […]

    • DEMOCRACY? This article utterly disgusts me!
      The leave vote exceeded the remain by 1,269,501 votes– 51.9% to 48.1%
      The bad losers of Remain and some media claimed it a ‘narrow margin’

      In 2002, the Swiss People’s Party launched a federal popular initiative “against asylum abuse” that was rejected by 50.1% of voters (with a difference of 4,208 votes).[10] In 2009, the referendum on biometric passports required by the Schengen Agreement was also accepted by 50.1% of voters (with a difference of 5,680 votes).[10]
      Here is the most recent ‘narrow margin’ in a UK election—
      “901 voters choosing to back Miliband rather than Cameron would have cut Tory support sufficiently to create a minority Conservative government.”
      Just over 900 people deciding a general election? This is just one of the weird things that happen in a first-past-the-post system.”

      Does the electoral system really work in multi-party Britain?
      These figures show how unrepresentative Parliament is when compared to the popular vote. Here’s just how different it would be:
      – no, the Tory government would NOT have got a majority under proportional representation
      – there would be 40 seats between Labour and the Tories, not 100
      – Ukip would have 82 MPs not one
      – the Greens would have 24 MPs, not one

      So, it is a bad idea to promote a “Second Referendum” when we know it was a CLEAR win for Brexit.
      The existing rigged FPTP system is bad enough without resort to any more fallacious argument. It was an independent referendum, NOT like the US Constitution regulations nor the ridiculous United Nations system of ‘Permanent Members of the Security Council’ and the 5[?] nation veto.

      “Even staunch EU loyalists would then swallow our misgivings and unite behind a Brexited Britain. We would become good losers, prepared to pull our weight, and loyally make the best of it.”
      OH, YEH! Of course you losers would- Or maybe “There’s still doubt, we must have a third referendum”

    • SOURCE http://WWW.NEWSTATESMAN.COM/POLITICS/STAGGERS/2016/07/WEEKS-MAGAZINE-BREXIT-PM
      404 error- Page does not exist

      “You cannot hold a second referendum simply in the hope of getting a different result. That’s no way to run a democracy, and it’s poignantly revealing that Nigel Farage, anticipating back in May that his side would narrowly lose, proposed that there should be a second referendum.
      No, he did NOT. That’s the BBC version. ‘Nuff said.
      He did voice his doubts- that’s all.
      “Mr Farage said he believed the Leave campaign were on course for victory.
      But he said there would be resentment, particularly in the Conservative Party, if not, with claims the referendum will not have been a fair contest.

      And Prime Minister David Cameron said it was a “once in a generation, once in a lifetime” decision, saying the UK had “referendums not Neverendums”.

    • Jim, you’re using the cheap trick of whatever number makes your case look better. Very cheap.
      The vote was 51.9% to 48.1% it was by no means a decisive victory. Why not just partition the country like India and Pakistan. London and the IN vote in the south can be its own country, no longer having to pay to support the north.

    • These arguments should have all been made and agreed before the referendum. It was made quite clear that this was a straight in/out vote and the simple majority would decide. It wasn’t only Cameron who assumed he’d win; nearly all Remain voters did. There were no desperate demands from anyone for a two thirds vote for change before the referendum. In fact, I would say that Cameron has been honourable rather than arrogant, by gracefully accepting defeat. And I don’t think he ever thought it was certain that he would win.

      A decision to move the goalposts at this time and hold a 2nd vote would cause absolute outrage among most Leavers. It would, quite rightly, be seen as a stitch up by the establishment.

    • JimJFox:

      You seem willing to put short term problems ahead of British sovereignty & forget Brussels has total control over UK law…

      Wrong. Simply wrong. Absolutely factually incorrect. Brussels does not have total control over UK law. EU law takes priority over UK law in those areas freely delegated to it by our elected parliament. Those areas are: trade policy, rules & standards for the EU single market, rules on competition and state aid, intra-EU migration and fisheries. Basically all the things that are required to make the Single Market work properly.

      There are other areas where responsibility is shared equally between the EU and the UK, and the EU does not have “total control”.

      But by far the largest number of policy areas are 100% the responsibility of the UK: health policy, education, fiscal policy and public expenditure, monetary policy, income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, non-EU migration, border control and security, pensions, welfare, foreign policy decisions, defence, intelligence, development cooperation and humanitarian aid, national policing, criminal justice and media regulation. Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

      And you are also overlooking the fact that even in the areas in which EU law takes priority, EU legislation has to be approved by at least a qualified majority of the member states and, for further-reaching legislation, by all of them. Member states, including the UK, obviously, are consulted about proposed legislation right from the very start and have the opportunity to help shape it before it ever reaches the point of being either passed or rejected. So the idea that it is something that is simply foisted upon us whether we like it or not is plain wrong. The UK has agreed with 97% of the EU legislation passed in the last 6 years.

      it took TEN YEARS to rid the country of the revolting terrorist thug Abu Hamsa because Brussels [or was it Strasburg?] said “NO! You are denying his human rights” Numerous examples exist of Brussels idiocy and supremacy. This is why knowledgable intelligent Brits voted OUT- we want no more of it.

      Neither knowledgeable nor intelligent, I’m afraid, since the Abu Hamza case was nothing to do with the EU. It is the European Court of Human Rights that is responsible for ruling on issues arising from the European Convention on Human Rights (which the UK was largely responsible for drafting, by the way), and that is not part of the EU. A quite separate institution. So those “knowledgeable and intelligent” Brits who voted out because of Abu Hamza are going to feel pretty silly (not to mention let down) when they discover that Brexit makes precisely zero difference.

      And so will several other EU members in the next few years, which will leave Germany alone carrying the financial can for Greece, Spain and other less productive nations.

      Actually, polls conducted across the EU show a very significant increase in support for the EU in the aftermath of the Brexit vote. https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/support-for-eu-membership-is-on-the-rise-in-several-countrie?utm_term=.lyXDR7pa4#.ldaLrxy3e

      You are frothing here and elsewhere about resistance to the referendum result being undemocratic, but your comments are actually an excellent illustration of why the result is dangerously flawed. When an electorate is as woefully uninformed about the EU as you appear to be; when it is lied to, as you have been, by the press and the official Leave campaign, and when it falls for those lies, as you have, then we cannot speak of democracy. Deceit, yes. Manipulation, yes. Fraud, yes. Democracy, no.

      Since the result was made known, leading Leave campaigners have been rapidly backtracking on the promises and impressions they gave during the campaign. Polls post-referendum show a significant number of Leave voters now bitterly regretting their vote. Cornwall and Wales, which both voted Leave having been blithely promised by the Leave campaign that they would have their EU funding replaced by Westminster, have both since been informed that that will not, in fact, be the case. Already those willing to see can see the businesses relocating, the investment dropping, the jobs disappearing, the opportunities for young people shrinking, and our Higher Education and scientific research sectors desperately worried about their futures.

      The situation has materially changed since 23 June. Voters who had previously been systematically and deliberately deceived about the pros and cons of the EU and the supposed straightforwardness of Brexit and the bright sunlit uplands that allegedly awaited them on the other side have since had chance to begin to see the scale of the upheaval that will be caused, and the very doubtful benefits of enduring it.

      In any case, the Leave campaign never specified what form Brexit should take. Some Leave voters will gladly forego full access to the Single Market in exchange for an end to freedom of movement. Others want to retain full access to the Single Market even if it means retaining freedom of movement (which it will). So some Leave voters will be dissatisfied whatever the deal that is finally struck.

      Given the scale of the tsunami that will hit Britain if we go through with Brexit; given the most dishonest campaign in our history; given the fact that the margin between Leave and Remain voters was divisively narrow and that there is evidence of substantial numbers of Leave voters since having thought better of it; and given that there is no way the final Brexit deal is going to fulfil the promises made to the British electorate by the Leave campaign, it would certainly be totally justifiable to put the final deal to the people, in order to be absolutely certain that this is still what a majority wants.

      But I do hope, Jim, that if it does come to a second referendum, you will take the trouble to inform yourself better next time around, and that you won’t continue to fall for (much less peddle) myths and lies and downright nonsense.

    • I agree with the common sentiment you cannot hold a second referendum to “make the unhappy stay vote accept the result” they need to be happy with the result as it is now. A trade union is not something that should be considered similar to a constitutional change. If truly this is what leaving the European Trade Union has become for your Nation than the people who voted skeptically of it’s strange influence that grabs further than it should, are absolutely right.

      You appear to be in the bargaining stage, you shouldn’t be this attached to a trade union. Your time for weeks of “sober reflection on the consequences” was….. WEEKS PRIOR TO THE VOTE. I cannot believe I’m hearing this nonsense from you of all people.

      The idea that the second vote would satiate the losers is silly, why not a third vote because come on third times the charm right. Surely SURELY if you voted twice it could go either way both times right if we vote seven times and the winner wins five times or more than we know for sure no one should be displeased with the results now right, especially because we knew the victory conditions were best of seven the whole time right?

    • Time ran out to edit my last comment and I apologize but one last thing.

      Your best hope to have a “2nd vote” after “reflection on the consequences” should be after the consequences are met shouldn’t it? So considering you haven’t begun to leave yet alone been outside of the EU for a significant amount of time surely is unfair isn’t it. Your asking for a second vote after the period of instability but before even allowing the possibility of getting to the “good” part of Brexit where Britain is out of the EU.

    • HalooINC #7
      Jul 16, 2016 at 2:15 pm

      I agree with the common sentiment you cannot hold a second referendum to “make the unhappy stay vote accept the result” they need to be happy with the result as it is now.

      The Remain vote was nothing to do with delusionally happy voters. It was about the practicalities of industry business, high-tech research and the international trade on which Britain relies for a living.

      If the public are happy with being sold a load of unworkable crap by a bunch of lying shysters, that makes not one iota of difference to the damaging mess they are making of UK industries and trade agreements!

      They have just voted to throw away the trade agreements we rely on, have NOTHING to replace them, and NO trained negotiators qualified to make new ones with other countries and trade blocks!

      They might just as well have voted to put a bunch of YECs in charge of university science and research grants!

      Suggesting Farage, Gove and Boris were competent advisors on international trade agreements, is a joke in bad taste!

    • Alan surely you knew literally all of this prior to the vote and now your complaining about it? Lies in politics, this must be the first time in history.

    • Simon Tuffen #4
      Jul 16, 2016 at 2:14 pm

      A decision to move the goalposts at this time and hold a 2nd vote would cause absolute outrage among most Leavers.

      I am more concerned about the future of the country than the feelings of the liars and the gullible, who swallow the lies!
      It is important that lazy thinkers learn from their mistakes rather than making lame excuses for them while aggravating the problems.

      It would, quite rightly, be seen as a stitch up by the establishment.

      Given that those involved had no perception of the realities in the first place, and blamed the EU for numerous problems caused by other organisations and other people, the anti-authority ignorance of that minority, is likely to remained unchanged, as they continue to soak up garbage from the trash media!

      The precedent for a second referendum is quite clear.
      It has been done previously by the Danes and the Irish.

    • Alan your arguing for oligarchy as you sit here and proclaim you know better than everyone else and you don’t care what they think or how they vote because you know so much better about all the world and it’s workings, and yet you live in a democracy which doesn’t care about you not caring about the people.

    • I’m for Britain remaining in the EU, which provides a counter balance to state and Parliament, the true natures of which social and political scientists poorly understand, because of their lack of a human-evolutionary perspective, a perspective which a previous generation of academics made a taboo of, in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism.

      In a nutshell, what such a perspective reveals is that the state conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it, with the modern “nation state” now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large. This would explain why all civilisations have followed a cycle of boom and bust, eventually disappearing, as all ancient civilisations did. I fear that our own civilisation is fast approaching its own terminal bust, which we can only hope to avoid by quickly recognising and developing an understanding of this cycle.

      Besides the taboo I refer to, there is another reason why the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the state have failed to do so. Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, they are privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our “nation”) and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

      [Link to user’s blog removed by moderator]

    • How dare you try to steal my vote. I spent 8 years in France in fundamental research (physics) under European funding programs and had to deal with Brussels directly for scientific funding. The tax payer is being ripped off by the Brussels elites. Millions are being spent of hot air that produces no return on investment, no jobs, no new industry which they are promised. This symptomatic of the EU as a whole. Failed economy, failed security, failed state. This rotten undemocratic organisation needs to be ended and that’s why I voted out. The arguments were made during long campaign and we voted out. In fact we voted against project fear and the massive media bias of the entire establishment against us. 2nd referendum my arse. You bloody well respect the democratic choice that was made.

    • Well then you should be angry that you aren’t a true monarchy, or an oligarchy, the aristocracy is gone and simply decrying those who disagree’d with you as “ignorant fools” is what every man who has taken a side has done since the beginning of history it doesn’t really convince me. It is the nature of those who think they know so much better than everyone else to take a complex change and say they simply “know” every faucet of how a change will affect everyone prior to that change happening.

    • HalooINC #12
      Jul 16, 2016 at 2:58 pm

      Alan your arguing for oligarchy

      No! I am arguing for a representational democracy, where elected representatives invite expert advisors to specialist parliamentary committees, so legislation is framed before being put to the houses of parliament for further critical examination and approval or rejection.

      as you sit here and proclaim you know better than everyone else

      Anyone with competent reasoning skills can know better than the trash media disinformed masses, IF they seek out and examine the expert reports and advice on the subjects. – Especially when reports from a whole range of sources come to the same conclusions and recommendations.

      and you don’t care what they think or how they vote because you know so much better about all the world and it’s workings,

      I care about the damage which is being done by the stupid asking the ignorant, to decide on technical questions they are not capable of evaluating or answering competently.

      and yet you live in a democracy which doesn’t care about you not caring about the people.

      You have it backwards! Referenda are the last resort of the clueless politician who does not care about the consequences, but only about seeking to evade responsibility!
      Replacing representational democracy with collective ignorance and disinformation, has nothing to do with the competent operation of democracy, which seeks to legislate for correct answers to meeting the needs of the people and the businesses which support them.

      All the brexiteers are offering, is empty rhetoric about their perverted view of “democracy”, incompetent dogmatic ideology, and fraudulent assurances of a glowing future, based only on unpreparedness and whimsical thinking, where their chosen road to disaster exists.

      There are articles on second referenda linked on three of my comments here:-

      by Richard Dawkins . . .  it is a well established principle of democracy that, in the case of major constitutional changes that are hard to undo, the bar should be set higher than 50%.   […] [Read more]– Stephanie (@stephrdf) Jul 16, 2016

    • HalooINC #8
      Jul 16, 2016 at 2:28 pm

      Your best hope to have a “2nd vote” after “reflection on the consequences” should be after the consequences are met shouldn’t it? So considering you haven’t begun to leave yet alone been outside of the EU for a significant amount of time surely is unfair isn’t it.

      Unfair to whom? You have just illustrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Once section 50 is triggered the process is irreversible, and the likelihood of ALL the other states agreeing to the UK being re-admitted after messing every one around, is approximately zero!

      Your asking for a second vote after the period of instability but before even allowing the possibility of getting to the “good” part of Brexit where Britain is out of the EU.

      Perhaps you could explain this mysterious “good part” of being out of the EU as as far as I can ascertain it is pure brexiteer whimsicality – perhaps apart from a bit of deregulation for the exclusive benefit of a few rich exploitative opportunists.

      I was talking to my son about the effect of the exclusion of the UK from EU -USA trade agreements at the end of the two year exit procedure. The trade agreements which cover data management and the tracking of international trade contracts according to the rules of these agreements.
      He tells me the industry has no idea what will happen when the UK is excluded from these agreements or what could replace them! – and he should know – being a specialist in the tracking of multi billion pound international deals which are conducted by multinational companies and governments!

    • @OP – Even staunch EU loyalists would then swallow our misgivings and unite behind a Brexited Britain. We would become good losers, prepared to pull our weight, and loyally make the best of it.

      Nope!
      Once businesses start going down the pan in numbers, and the number of jobless and bankruptcies rise as successful businesses leave the country, people will be looking for the stupid lying losers who “won” the opportunity to inflict this on them, and for the spineless politicians who sheepishly went along with the media hype!
      “Unity” in continued mutual self destruction, will be the last thing on their minds when they start seeking to hold the fraudsters to account!

    • @OP – A second referendum is the only way to unite Britain behind Brexit.

      Why should anyone “unite” to inflict the stupidity of brexit on Britain?

      Hopefully a properly constituted second referendum will produce a result based on the advice of the multitude of expert bodies which warned about the vacuous claims of the brexiteers, and the massive problems for British world trading, which brexit will cause.

      The indications are that if Little Englanders persist with brexit, the Scots and possibly others, will go for independence and staying with the EU.

      If that happens, my son may well move his international multi-million pound IT business to Scotland!

    • Unfair to those who VOTED for this result, which you would have been happy to accept had it gone the way you desired.

      I’m not interested in an appeal to authority when the authority is your own son whom I have to take on your word is an authority. Especially when the authorities advice is “I don’t know what’s going to happen” which doesn’t translate to a good or a bad.

      also you literally say article 50 is irreversible then outline how it could be reversed.

      You’re an admitted incorrigible elitist who embodies project fear perfectly, I’m not surprised Brexit got voted for.

    • (HalooInc Here) Welp, my last comment was blocked and now my account is banned because it’s labelled a spammer. Even though I only posted in response to other comments, not like I was responsible for post 17-20 alone or anything. I’m done here either way censoring me through claiming I’m a spammer is a cowardly thing to do have fun imposing your will.

    • Finally somebody who gets it. And yes, I know someone is going to dangle the 51% victory in my face and say something like “the people have spoken, it’s done and you can’t take it back!”

      But democracy is not supposed to be a trap that you lure people into and then cackle with glee as you tell them “Ha! It’s too late! We don’t need to listen to you now!”

      Democracy is precisely about listening to people. And there is sufficient reason to think the Brexiters would lose a second vote (which is why they don’t want one). The post referendum attitude of the remaining politicians is downright mindless, with their steadfast resolve to not listen and plow ahead.

    • Alan4discussion #21
      Jul 16, 2016 at 6:30 pm

      Just to expand and simplify these previous paragraphs:-

      What he said was that when the EU operating rules are thrown out of the window, the legal basis of trade will become impossible until new rules and agreements are written – and there are many problems, making as good a deal as the one we already have via the EU very unlikely, – while our competitors will continue to benefit from THEIR trading under EU rules.

      You have been told crap, by brexiteers who did not even know the UK currently has NO competent trade agreement negotiators, and who have no idea how to draw up an international trade agreement!

      What the brexiteers have promised, is that they will throw away their EU members discount cards to get rid of the terms and conditions (including terms and conditions which were never on the cards in the first place), and will them negotiate “superior tariff rates” for each individual trade contract, while standing in the non-members queue as the members transact their priority business.
      This assumes that any trade block or other country is interested in offering special treatment to those who have opted out of paying for EU membership, or using EU services arranged in package deals with those countries, and that the negotiations can be conducted by the UK which has no qualified international trade negotiators who understand the legal requirements!

      What the brexiteers have offered is to throw the present discount tariff rates out of the window, cancel UK eligibility, and have NOTHING to offer as an alternative, and no qualified people to negotiate or write any alternative agreements!

      As outsiders, the UK will be stuck with damaging WTO arrangements.

      Meanwhile the political clowns are discussing, “How can we unify everyone into accepting locking the country into this course of action,before most of the people work out what is happening!”

      The levels on the stupidometer go right off the scale!

    • Idiot, Brexit won end of, We also won by far more than 52% to 48%, more like 70% to 30%, the vote was rigged, but they did not expect so many to vote brexit so they still lost. There are already a few reports showing rigged counting of referendum results in favour of remain, Those who call for a second referendum are calling for a civil war.

    • Alan4Discussion, just to let you know the reason I am not posting anymore is because my comments were deleted and my account was banned for being a “spammer”. It’s clear I am not welcome here, but I figured I’d set up this account real quick in the hopes you’d see this, I enjoyed our discussion even though it was heated. Have a good one, bye.

    • Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher were two major political figures of the twentieth century, who occupied the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum, but who were in total accord in their opposition to the concept of the referendum.

      On May 21 1945 Attlee wrote:

      “I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism. Hitler’s practices in the field of referenda and plebiscites can hardly have endeared those expedients to the British heart.”.

      Many decades later Margaret Thatcher echoed Attlee by saying: “Referendums are the device of demagogues.”.

      We all feel emotions, hold opinions and harbour prejudices, but we must never allow them to be played on or appealed to.

      At the beginning of the run up to referendum I was ignorant of workings of the EU, but knowing that I was duty bound to vote, I made it my business to learn as much as I could about it.

      And even for a bear of little brain like me, it wasn’t too difficult, and eventually I became qualified to to vote.

      Nowadays it is inexusable not to have learnt about the workings of the EU before voting!

      And it strikes me as being beyond ironic that those who claim to hold in the highest esteem British sovereignty, should be the first to accept the abandonment of the Jewel in its crown, namely Parliament.

    • The UK has a very open economy. China, for example, does not. What do we propose to withhold when the majority of our material products are imported, with no immediate prospects of switching to UK alternatives?
      Thanks to the destruction of our manufacturing industries, we are very dependent upon service industries, which can be blocked by say the EU. We cannot reciprocate as we already dominate this market.
      Please, we have no negotiators and no bargaining chips, so what compared with what we have as part of the largest Trade Block in the world with access to EU negotiated FTAs, are we set to gain?

    • ‘Landslide’ – An overwhelming majority of votes for one party or candidate in an election. Oxford English Dictionary.
      This country has a population of 65 million (June 2015 ONS), a registered electorate of 46.5 million, a turnout of 33.5 million for this referendum.
      Only 17.4 million of 65 million actually voted LEAVE. 29 million of the registered electorate did not vote LEAVE (EU Referendum Results BBC 24th June 2016).
      This was a decision difference made by 635,000 voters. The numbers for 635,000 came both from my own calculations and from an article in the NewStatesman (Martin Fletcher – 1st July 2016). But you can work the numbers out by taking the vote difference and dividing by two. Why, because in a two choice referendum when you add a vote to one side you deprive a vote to the other side. Confused? Get two stacks of 5x£1 coins, remove one coin from one stack and add it to the other, a change of one coin results in 6 coins in one stack and 4 coins in the other.
      So that is 1% of the population or less than 2% of the electorate. Winning yes, but landslide or representative of the will of the people, certainly not.
      Staggering, no definition of what result was needed to be exceeded, to eliminate chance, was included. Let alone that it should constitute 50% of the electorate. I very much doubt that a medicine would be approved on that sort of result, but the future of our country for decades to come will be.

    • Robert Cheatle #28 Jul 17, 2016 at 11:02 am

      The margin is much less if adjusted in line with the Ipsos/Mori poll conducted for BBC Newsnight shortly after the vote. The poll found that 5% of Leave voters would now vote to remain and 2% of the Remain voters would now vote to leave. I think that works out at a nett margin of 0.37% of the electorate or, as you might put it, only 0.19% more of the electorate would have to change their vote from Leave to Remain for the result to be a draw.

      When Parliament debated whether the EU Referendum should be allowed it was stated that the referendum would be advisory. The Government have treated it as if it was binding. What margin and turnout would Parliament have required if the referendum had been intended to be binding? The one-way nature of the exit process alone would justify a much higher bar than 52%-of-those-voting, so why not apply that to the result of the first referendum?

    • Now at your local pub: The Brexit Pint: 52% Watneys Red Barrel, 48% Heineken. If you can get the bartender to be that precise. Not to be confused with a Bremain pint, same thing but proportions reversed. Oh, you probably couldn’t tell the difference anyway.

    • The error was having a vote with a 50% cut off point. You can’t very well change the rules after the vote. Cameron screwed Britain.

      It seems to me most people voted purely on emotion without any thought of the consequences either way.

      This is another case of getting the government you deserve.

    • The reason why direct democracy doesn’t work outside small communities is the same reason why westminster system prevailed. You cannot divest parliament from its right to legislate and you cannot deny it its sovereign right of being responsible for the future of the realm.
      As such a 2nd referendum in my opinion is not at all necessary.
      It is the sole responsibility of the Queen-in-Parliament to take the referendum’s outcome under advisement , and decide how to interpret it for the benefit and welfare of all Britons,-brexiteers and bremainers alike.
      The narrow result shows a need to have a brexit with a continuous access to EU single market, to cover all parties
      There is no specific mandate for limiting freedom of labor. There is however a mandate for a full repatriation of powers, including a very important one to sign and negotiate international treaties independently as a full sovereign state.
      What I see is a deal that will allow UK to have full access to internal market without challenging the four freedoms-even the most controversial one i.e. that of movement of labor.
      In return UK will be allowed a veto in order to have a peer participation with EU in shaping internal market’s rules.
      So I can see a Norway plus model only – full access to internal market with a veto as a trade off for all four freedoms implemented – instead of a Norway minus – full access to internal market with movement restrictions but with the obligation to abide to EU rules without any kind of veto rights whatsoever.

    • I can see a Norway plus model

      There’ll be vacancies for negotiators, you should apply.

    • JimJFox @ # 1.

      I too am disgusted Jim; but my disgust has been engendered by the fact that our Parliamentary democracy has been sidelined in favour of the cheap, tinpot, populst, manipulative device the plebiscite.

      We elect politicians to represent us at home and abroad, with the aid of teams of permanent staff who are specialists in their various fields of diplomacy, science, statistics, and many other disciplines, and I for one do not take kindly to our elected representatives asking us the electorate what they should do once in office!

      The whole idea is for them to familiarize themselves with their brief and get on with the job we pay them to do.

      But I do agree with you on one thing; there should, under no circumstances, be another referendum; when in a hole stop digging.

      There now needs to be a period of reflection and reassessment, before putting the question again to Parliament. Only Parliament is qualified to determine matters of such national importance.

      Already, twice this century, Parliament has been overriden: in 2003 with regards to the invasion of Iraq, and this year, over the UK leaving the EU.

      And the two instances have one glaring thing in common; the lack of any contingency planning.

    • Giannis Laderos #33
      Jul 18, 2016 at 12:25 am

      There is however a mandate for a full repatriation of powers, including a very important one to sign and negotiate international treaties independently as a full sovereign state.

      There is however no freedom as an EU member, to sign independent trade agreements, and Switzerland has been told that EU free movement of goods, is dependent on also accepting free movement of people.

      In return UK will be allowed a veto in order to have a peer participation with EU in shaping internal market’s rules.

      I don’t see the other EU members being very sympathetic to the UK being granted any special privileges from outside the EU.
      Britain needs the EU market a lot more than the EU needs Britain.

      The sheer volume of negotiations (and lack of any qualified staff), plus the time-scales involved is in itself, a problem from the UK.

    • Stafford Gordon #35
      Jul 18, 2016 at 3:14 am

      There now needs to be a period of reflection and reassessment, before putting the question again to Parliament. Only Parliament is qualified to determine matters of such national importance.

      I would agree with you IF I thought that parliament was likely to act competently in the best interests of the country.

      However, we have a Tory government hanging onto power, with a majority of 12, and a block of fanatical brexiteers larger than that number with the tail wagging the dog! They want to reclaim votes from brain-dead UKIP voters by pandering to them playing the immigrant card.
      They are also de-regulators who resent EU protections restricting the exploitative wealthy from abusing citizens and operating short-term rip-offs!

      We also have the Labour opposition led by Corby, who has no idea whatever about international trade, but whose top priority is to recruit UKIP voters in order to gain a parliamentary majority at the next election.
      Form many MPs the best interests of the country’s trading prospects, are not even on the agenda!

    • We should ignore the referendumb result and stay in.

      We should also introduce border controls and make tampons VAT free and ignore any other EU rules we don’t like.

      If the EU don’t like it let them chuck us out.

    • Pinball1970 #42 Jul 18, 2016 at 8:08 am ”They can make announcement,
      “We just wanted your input, thanks for that, we have decided to ignore
      that option.””

      Not ”ignore” it, but take it into account within the context of other considerations.

    • HellFireFuel, #39

      The UK already has border controls. If you don’t believe me, try getting on a ferry from Dover or a plane from Heathrow without your passport. Do let us know how it goes just as soon as you get out of custody.

      As for tampon tax, there has been some confusion, but the European Commission is still planning to introduce proposals later this year that would allow member states to reduce/abolish it. Leaders of all 28 member states have already declared their support for such a move. It is true that the elected European Parliament recently voted against it, but I suspect that was because of concerns about the specific wording. There are still definitely plans to introduce new proposals. In the meantime, sanitary protection is already on the EU’s Reduced VAT list, which is why in the UK the VAT rate for such products is currently 5% (compared with the 20% standard rate that applies to, for example, shaving equipment and supplies).

      By the way, EU rules are legal obligations that we have freely signed up to by entering into various legally binding Treaties. It might be considered unwise at best to merely ignore those legal obligations at the very moment when we are actively seeking to persuade other countries to enter into new legally binding treaties with us.

    • Marco #44
      Jul 18, 2016 at 8:18 am

      By the way, EU rules are legal obligations that we have freely signed up to by entering into various legally binding Treaties. It might be considered unwise at best to merely ignore those legal obligations at the very moment when we are actively seeking to persuade other countries to enter into new legally binding treaties with us.

      I don’t think this can be stressed too much!

      The notion that we can renege on existing legal agreements and just tear them up, and then expect foreign governments to believe we will act in good faith on any new ones , is just whimsicality!

    • The notion that a second referendum could be prearranged to allow for the consequences of the initial vote to sink in is faintly ridiculous. Whether it be a fortnight, a month, or a year later is irrelevant – who would bother voting in the first round? Why bother?

      Democracy in its one man one vote format trumps all other forms of government. The fact that half the population are below average intelligence (and always will be) makes it all the more indispensable. In this respect some earlier posts are patronising in the extreme. Yes, there was a lot of misinformation during the debate, but it came from both sides of the argument.

      To govern in a consensual manner it is imperative that you bring public opinion with you. On this point the government and the EU has failed absolutely. The European project needed a century at least to bed in, but has been rushed through in just over a generation by a political class that is well meaning, but ultimately completely out of touch. Therefore we have Brexit, and politicians would do well to learn from it. Rather than proclaiming it as the unleashing of the right wing it should be seen as a precursor to the rise of the right – one brought about by the governing classes themselves.

      For the record I voted out. The EU’s aims and intentions are laudable, but their methods are hasty and crass. The project is failing and will continue to do so, and I wanted my country to have a head start in forging a new future before the whole thing inevitably implodes. Political and economic union will only be achievable if it is instigated in an organic fashion, rather than an artificial construct. Rapid expansion and blatant power grabbing have brought us to this pretty pass, so let’s hope the requisite lessons are learned. Calls for a second referendum suggest this is not the case.

    • in spite of its dark political stupidity
      brexit has a silver lining
      de-globalizing the world’s economy
      smaller trading zones would mitigate climate change

    • BroughtyBoy #46
      Jul 18, 2016 at 11:31 am

      The notion that a second referendum could be prearranged to allow for the consequences of the initial vote to sink in is faintly ridiculous. Whether it be a fortnight, a month, or a year later is irrelevant – who would bother voting in the first round? Why bother?

      I don’t think anyone suggested that a second referendum should have been prearranged.
      What is being called for is the opportunity for those who voted flippantly or who now recognise that they were misled by lying brexiteers, to reconsider the situation with the benefit of hindsight, now that the warnings which were recklessly dismissed by fools as “the fear campaign”, are materialising in front of our eyes!

    • @alan4

      This was just a UK foot-shooting exercise, with the fanatical Little
      Englanders, the blind self-deluders, the liars, and the
      under-informed, overwhelming the expert advice by weight of numbers
      and collective ignorance.

      of course but that does not mean
      that it can’t have a single positive side effect

    • quarecuss #50
      Jul 18, 2016 at 12:17 pm
      .
      of course but that does not mean
      that it can’t have a single positive side effect

      It would indeed be remarkable if it had none, but the overwhelming weight of negative effects, has been spelled out by one industry and one sector after another!

      The present antics in parliament are about political power struggles, not anything to do with the good of the country, although dumping Corbyn, would be a step in the right direction.
      Boris being given the push in the not too distant future would also be helpful!
      Some of the others might also panic when they realise the mammoth task they have taken on! The deeply stupid will just blunder on, and try to blame other people for the coming failures.

    • Alan @ # 37.

      I think you’re splitting hairs; with all its faults, Parliament is far better equipped to decide the matter.

      The price I paid for researching the EU before voting was recognizing the lies; and watching them re-emerge time and again; going around, and coming round, like rides in a Fair Ground, or items in a Shooting Gallery being knocked down and then popping right back up again, as if nothing had happened, or they’d been missed by the pellets; anyone running a Fun Fair stall like that would deserve to have their neck wrung!

    • Stafford Gordon #52
      Jul 18, 2016 at 2:53 pm

      I think you’re splitting hairs; with all its faults, Parliament is far better equipped to decide the matter.

      I think it usually is, but there are enough buffoons in the present lot who are more interested in recruiting followers and saving face, than doing anything useful!

      The price I paid for researching the EU before voting was recognizing the lies; and watching them re-emerge time and again;

      Perhaps you were looking at the wrong sources.
      I rely on verbatim quotes from specialist bodies who know what they are talking about.

      I see today, that the crap-writers of sensational newspaper headlines, are busy telling the public that ministers are making foreign trade deals to facilitate a quick EU exit! – regardless of the timetable built into the legal procedures and the fact that pre- activation of article 50, EU members cannot legally make independent trade deals!

    • The problem with heroes is that they always let you down eventually. And it now appears that Prof Dawkins is no exception.

    • OHooligan #56
      Jul 18, 2016 at 5:06 pm

      Arm Holdings was originally a subsidiary of Acorn Computers – remember them – The RISC windows operating system which British governments ignored and failed to back, while Microsoft took over the world!

      Fortunately ARM was floated off and sold its superior chips, with hardware operating systems, to Japanese and other foreign companies to put in games machines, mobile phones etc.

      Brexiteers will probably be looking for lots of other British innovative enterprises to sell off in order to prop up their failed economic policies!
      Foreign currencies can now buy lots of those now cheap pounds, and assets valued in cheap pounds! !

    • This is the cherry plucked from a thriving fabless semiconductor business world in Cambridge within the last year or so. Cam Semi gone to Power Integrations. (Pissed me off because we had invested more than a little time getting them up to speed on a new application area and the work was trash-canned.) Cambridge Silicon Radio (Bluetooth chips for just about everything, gone to Qualcomm. Designed into our stuff…Fingers crossed.) Now ARM. something like 40% sales into Europe. Sitting pretty for the Internet of Things and big data to better manage eco efficiency. In February declared if Eu desicion went wrong they would consider shifting focus away from UK base. Selling to Japan would seem like the perfect solution for them redirecting efforts to IoT and the Pacific Rim. Expect more clever Chinese stuff.

      Herman Hauser (founder)rightly saw this as a bit of a UK catastrophe.

    • Yes, I’m well aware of ARM and long delighted by its well-deserved reach into the technology space of “its-not-a-computer” computers, now the “Internet of Things”. Another BRITISH invention, as the late great Spitfire pilot turned broadcaster Raymond Baxter would have said on Tomorrow’s World.

      I have fond memories of coding for the ARM RISC processor, such a joy compared to the tedium of working with Intel architectures. Well, the tech will live on and thrive, I suppose, just not with much input from those bright folks in the UK any more, so it will either stabilise/stagnate/find its niche, or be adapted/enhanced/extended to “fit better with international standards” (ie become more like Intel until it ceases to be any better than it), and then fade away.

      The slow-motion train-wreck that is UK governance continues to derail, one carriage at a time. Complacent folks in the rearmost First Class dining car smugly toast each other with (Imported! French! ) Champagne, and continue to make-believe Britain is going to be Great (“again”) , while the head waiter sells off the silverware at bargain prices, to Foreigners, of course.

    • Alan #49

      The second paragraph of Professor Dawkins article suggests exactly that.
      This argument would condemn my fellow Scots to an annual referendum until they voted to secede.

    • Ah, happy daze!

    • BroughtyBoy #60
      Jul 19, 2016 at 5:05 am

      Alan #49

      This argument would condemn my fellow Scots to an annual referendum until they voted to secede.

      If England goes for brexit without retaining most of the single market access and associated features, it will probably only take the one Scottish referendum, to assess the changed circumstances. (My family will probably go for Anglo-Scottish passports and dual nationality.)

      As has been pointed out earlier:-
      the brexiteers made all sorts of rash claims about what their “wonderful plan” would deliver, but the reality is, they never had a plan – not even an organised plan about negotiating new treaties.
      (Anyone putting together a plan would have noticed the conflicts within their claims, the legal restrictions, and the UK’s lack of ANY qualified negotiators.) The only “plan” was to con the voters into voting for brexit!

      Furthermore, each of the brexiteers or groups, had their own whimsical notions of this Utopia, which is going to be magically delivered by “leaving” the EU”, so they are now squabbling among themselves, about what brexit is supposed to be, and where to start.
      The triumphalist “Leave” voters will probably moan even more, when all the things they blamed on the EU which they voted AGAINST, (which have NOTHING to do with the EU), remain unchanged!

      If in power, balm pots like Corbyn and Farage, would have immediately jumped in and activated section 50, without even bothering to consult their Euro MPs, cabinet, or Westminster colleagues, and oblivious to the need for any plan or understanding of legal issues!

    • Alan

      balm pots like Corbyn and Farage

      Altogether too kind.

      Barmpots

      This might be too kind also.

    • (My family will probably go for Anglo-Scottish passports and dual
      nationality.)

      There’s no guarantee that dual nationality will be allowed. Many countries don’t allow it.

    • Alan @ # 64.

      I think we’re talking at cross purposes. I will recognize all or most of the chickens as they come home to roost, precisely because I was looking in the right places before the vote.

      I was hoping to discover that I was wrong about what I thought leaving the EU would mean, but became increasingly pissed off by the realisation of just how right I’d been.

      I hope that’s cleared that up Alan.

    • Stafford Gordon #69
      Jul 21, 2016 at 6:23 am

      Alan @ # 64.

      I think we’re talking at cross purposes. I will recognize all or most of the chickens as they come home to roost, precisely because I was looking in the right places before the vote.

      I was hoping to discover that I was wrong about what I thought leaving the EU would mean, but became increasingly pissed off by the realisation of just how right I’d been.

      Everyone has been struggling with the absence of hard information, and the actively promoted lies of the media and the brexiteers!

      I keep finding new problems coming to light, of which I was unaware prior to the vote.

      The appalling feature, is that the politicians appear to be locked into denial of the deceptions perpetrated on themselves and on the public, or are just too spineless or clueless, to challenge the inertial wave of media hype!

      The awful truth about the glib promises made about the brexiteers’ “wonderful plan for the future”, was that they had no plan, and had done no homework on the possibilities, methodology required, or the consequences!

    • Like it or not it would appear very unlikely we will have any further vote on brexit.
      Although it isn’t unknown for politicians to go back on what they say. However what is being said at the moment on all sides is, the decision is made and the UK will be leaving the EU.
      Exactly how this is acheived is not very clear and I am sure there is some room for pre negotiations to take place although this is being vehemently denied all round.
      This is really the combined fault of the EU being in denial of the way it is sometimes, maybe incorrectly, perceived by the majority of citizens of member states and the over confidence of David Cameron in his ability to sell a rushed compromise to the British people.
      I still think the leave vote was the only logical answer to this even though it may now have some very serious drawbacks.
      If the UK and the EU both face up to the real problems then it is quite possible to come to a situation where both sides can minimise the damage and possibly both gain in some way at the same time. Of course remaining would certainly have been the smoothest option in the short or even medium term. But there are issues with the EU, it isn’t perfect. The only real question is wether it can be fixed, the upcoming brexit negotiations may go a long way to answering and facilitating this ‘fixing’.
      So my answer is we should not dwell on what didn’t happen, but do our utmost to move forward in the most constructive way we can.
      I also note that both Germany and France seem to be leading the discussions with the UK and would by inference be having more influence and control than other member states. This really exemplifies the way the EU operates and if anything it seems to have two levels of membership both economically and politically. This really isn’t the way it should work and I can quite understand that many others will be watching to see if the UK is getting ‘more than it should’ from the negotiations.
      The biggest danger will be if it looks too good to leave others may try and follow and if it’s too bad then it will be equally bad for the whole of the EU as well as the UK.
      Just very glad I don’t have to sort it out, although we all have to live with the result so best to get on with working for our mutual benefit rather than our mutual loss.

    • Tim Smith #71
      Jul 21, 2016 at 5:29 pm

      Like it or not it would appear very unlikely we will have any further vote on brexit.
      Although it isn’t unknown for politicians to go back on what they say. However what is being said at the moment on all sides is, the decision is made and the UK will be leaving the EU.

      Legally, the decision is not made until article 50 has been approved by parliament and activated.

      Exactly how this is acheived is not very clear and I am sure there is some room for pre negotiations to take place although this is being vehemently denied all round.

      The rules of the treaty everyone is signed up to, says there isn’t! They can make a few enquiries, but that is all.

      This is really the combined fault of the EU being in denial of the way it is sometimes, maybe incorrectly, perceived by the majority of citizens of member states

      Or simply the perverse and deceptive claims made in the media to mislead the public.

      and the over confidence of David Cameron in his ability to sell a rushed compromise to the British people.

      That was the reckless gamble – made more reckless by the absence of a back-up plan by Cameron or anyone else!

      I still think the leave vote was the only logical answer to this even though it may now have some very serious drawbacks.

      I don’t think any sane person who looked at and understood the minimal benefits, the massive drawbacks and the potential difficulties of the negotiations with the EU and the 50 other countries with whom we trade via the EU agreements.

      If the UK and the EU both face up to the real problems then it is quite possible to come to a situation where both sides can minimise the damage and possibly both gain in some way at the same time.

      It is however unlikely that the UK will get back to as good a set of deals as it already has! It is also unlikely that those deals will be in place anytime in the next few years.

      Of course remaining would certainly have been the smoothest option in the short or even medium term.

      .. . . and of course it still could be if the politicians were up to the job of looking after the country’s best interests as they are being paid to do!

      But there are issues with the EU, it isn’t perfect. The only real question is wether it can be fixed,

      Which could have been started effectively, IF the UK had taken up its turn to be President of the Council of the EU, but apparently Mrs. May is too busy playing brexit, to bother with drawing up agendas for EU reforms from INSIDE the organisation.

      The UK had been scheduled to take up the presidency of the Council of the EU – which rotates on a six-monthly basis between the 28 EU countries, giving each the opportunity to shape the agenda – in the second half of 2017.

      the upcoming brexit negotiations may go a long way to answering and facilitating this ‘fixing’.

      This sounds like wish-thinking!
      Now let me see!
      Do EU members, and EU Council Presidents, have more influence than outsiders who are coming cap-in-hand to try to negotiate reacquiring some of the benefits they have just thrown away or not? ? –
      Given that all 27 other remaining member states have to approve new arrangements and the UK will have no say in the EU approving this once Article 50 is activated!

    • Thanks for those comments Alan.

      What you say makes me feel even more that most of the more prominent remain campaigners were either some of the most arrogant oeople who ever existed. Or were closet leavers deliberately sabotaging the remain argument.

      I was very surprised we had the referendum when we did as Cameron originally said 2017. Almost seems as if there was a deliberate plan to make sure we never got to the presidency.

      My one question, is it just me or do nearly all polititians right across the board seem to be absolutely hell bent on brexit, now it’s been voted for? As you say May is busy playing the brexit game but she is a remainer, in theory, at least.

    • Tim Smith #72
      Jul 22, 2016 at 4:12 pm

      My one question, is it just me or do nearly all polititians right across the board seem to be absolutely hell bent on brexit, now it’s been voted for? As you say May is busy playing the brexit game but she is a remainer, in theory, at least.

      The Corbyn and the Corbynites are just too ignorant to understand the implications and the legal complexities.
      I was talking to quite a few of them at a political meeting and they just don’t get it.
      They are babbling on about “the will of the people”, and “betrayal of their elected leader”, without any reference to, or understanding of, practical consequences or legal issues!
      Apparently Corbyn did not even consult his Labour Euro MPs or shadow cabinet, before proclaiming acceptance of brexit – immediately after the referendum result!
      For the 170+ MPs, this casual throwing away of hard-won employment rights, and potentially wrecking international trade without any consultation, was the last straw!

      May is trying to held on to a Tory parliamentary majority of twelve, with a large bunch of loony fringe right wing brexiteers among her MPs and cabinet.

      None of them seem to have the guts to stand up to the media hype, which from some newspapers continues to feed the public with lies and disinformation.

      All of them as a priority, are trying to woo votes from UKIP supporters.

    • So it’s the old story. Politician’s only real skill is to get elected. They aren’t trained to solve problems, this time they have created a huge one they don’t even understand, and by extension, even if there are positive advantages to brexit they may be unable to realise these, unless they stumble upon them by chance.

      On top of this they run scared of the tabloid press, who use every chance to control them.
      The problem there is, too many people seem to believe what is printed. Without checking the source. When I was at college we used to have a saying to admit something was probably made up, “must be true I read it in the Sun”.

      I think Pinball made an earlier comment about taking the referendum result into account and using it to formulate policy, rather than just immediately taking it as “we are now leaving”.

      However if the politicians are as spineless and ignorant as you say then there is just no chance.
      In fact the biggest problem is the implosion of the Labour party together with FPTP voting has given us a almost non existent opposition. Seems the Conservatives have only just managed to hold it together and who knows where it’s going from here?

    • Tim Smith #72
      Jul 22, 2016 at 4:12 pm

      What you say makes me feel even more that most of the more prominent Remain campaigners were either some of the most arrogant people who ever existed.

      I don’t see any basis for this claim.
      Those who had read and understood the treaties, looked at the prescribed time scales, or listened to the long string of expert scientific, financial, economic, legal, and industrial sector bodies, which were giving warnings about negative effects in their specialist areas, – had good grounds to be apprehensive about predicted consequences from those familiar with the specialist areas concerned.

      Or were closet leavers deliberately sabotaging the remain argument.

      There can now be little doubt, that Corbyn, either by ignorance and stupidity, or sabotage, was a closet “Leave” advocate who subjugated and suppressed, the expert warnings, to his priority of gaining votes from UKIP supporters.
      That’s what all the rubbish talk about “unifying the country behind brexit stupidity” is about – along with trying to placate the Scots!

      Of course the muppet media will make up or quote, any sensational story from any viewpoint, and present themselves as “knowing better” than any expert source.
      This volume of disinformation, tends to smother informed comments from the minorities who actually have expertise on specific subjects to properly inform the public!

      What you say makes me feel even more that most of the more prominent Remain campaigners were either some of the most arrogant people who ever existed.

      Surely the arrogant people were the “Leave” supporters who were posing as authorities, and giving bland assurances of the “benefits of leaving”, when they had no plan, no coherent evaluation of outcomes, no understanding of legally binding timescales, and were contradicting a long list of expert bodies whose opinions were based on a sound understanding of the evidence!

    • So while Corbyn is effectively disabling the UK opposition and “respecting the will of the (conned) people” who voted for the wondrous “Emperor’s New Clothes of brexit”, government has been handed over to the brexiteers to put their non-plan” into operation! !

      (The latest double talk, is about restricting free movement of people from the EU while keeping an “open border” (north/south division of Ireland) with the (EU member)The Irish Republic)

      Corbyn and the loony-left of the Unite Union are still shouting about defending “workers rights”, while supporting throwing away the employment standards and living conditions won by the Euro MPs. The “plan” (such as it is) is to sack the UK Euro MPs to ensure they don’t reacquire such employments standards or living conditions, while Tory brexiteer ministers trot off to arrange “free trade deals with China”, so UK workers can compete on a level playing-field with Chinese sweat-shops, as budget cuts bring health and pollution standards into line with those in Chinese cities!

      I am sure those who see opportunities for even larger executive bonuses, will appreciate the left wing support for Corbyn’s (aided and abetted by some trade unions) continued disabling of any organised parliamentary opposition to brexit!

    • Olgun #79
      May 3, 2017 at 2:16 pm

      Poor little Theresa who picked up the “better-deal Utopia fantasy trading (no) plan”, and the “super brexiteer negotiating skills package”, has just hit the brick wall of reality, so is now playing the whingeing victim of those nasty realist Europeans who expect people to follow agreed procedures, honour their commitments to pay their debts, and to actually have some understanding of contracts and to have some diplomatic negotiating skills in the real world!

      In a kind of echo of Trumpists chanting ” Drain the swamp”, I await the ‘Kippers chants praising the “no deal option” of “Refuse to pay and Walk away!”

      Of course brexiteers were TOLD last summer that only an expensive split, a worse trade deal, lost exports, companies relocating out of the UK, and damaged relationships with European partners, were the most likely outcomes but hey! – that brexiteer magic crystal ball and a few know-it all- muppets, told them this was just scaremongering!
      As Michael Gove pointed out, “people” are fed-up with “all these experts”!

      Gove is an obvious brexiteer “authority”! – After all, he has had even more votes of no confidence in him from informed people than Corbyn has!

    • Olgun #82
      May 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

      Can you see any way out Alan.

      Not at present, although some politicians are trying to get some “Remain” input.

      Not looking good.

      In the meantime, there are some council elections which may give some political indicators!

      It is ironically comical, that Theresa May – having made brexit a key election issue, is now whingeing that the Council of Europe practical responses calling out her fantasy notions of how her government was going to dictate to the other 27 member nations, have been well and truly sat on and squashed – along with fantasies about playing off members against each other!

      So far, those “brilliant” all-knowing brexiteer amateur trade negotiators, don’t even have a seat at the trade negotiating table, let alone a dominant position dictating terms of their own choosing!

    • Olgun #86
      Jun 5, 2017 at 4:47 pm

      For the same reason looks like I will be voting Lib Dem because Labour doesn’t stand a chance in my constituency. Do you think it’s a good call?

      If you are voting tactically, you need to identify a credible candidate who has a chance of winning and beating any candidates who look like disaster areas.

      I think the best chance for the country is a hung parliament with no overall majority for either of the major parties.

      That way they will have to listen to the Scots, the Greens and the Lib-Dems. The Irish and Welsh MPs will be a bit of a wild card!
      The Irish border will certainly be a brexit issue, but there could be underlying hidden agendas there.

    • This site shows which way to vote on 8th June to prevent the Tories from getting into power again:

      https://www.tactical2017.com/