So you keep saying, Goldie. Democracy is a process, not an event. People should be entitled to change their minds. I find threats of far right activism somewhat pathetic. Bring it on.
stockpile the mars bars Here’s The Inside Story Of All The Brexit Chaos That Gripped Whitehall This Week You’ve heard about the resignations — but behind this week’s Brexit carnage lies an extraordinary tale of Mars bars, a secret “burger club” in the cabinet, and an ill-fated proposed flight across the Channel. please log in to view this image Environment secretary Michael Gove decided not to resign. The stark consequences of a no-deal Brexit were laid bare for Michael Gove at a roundtable meeting with representatives from the food industry last month. There was no sugarcoating it: Mars bars could run out within weeks if the UK left the EU without a deal. According to an industry insider present, the environment secretary was left reeling by a briefing from the Food and Drink Federation that of the 21 ingredients that make up a Mars bar manufactured at their factory in Slough, two imported products go off within a few days. Advertisement In the event of no deal, gridlock at the port of Dover would effectively shut down one of the country’s main routes for food imports. The ingredients couldn’t be stockpiled. The experts told Gove the UK’s entire supply of Mars bars would run out within two weeks. The striking case study helps explains the former Vote Leave campaigner’s decision to stay in the government on Friday. Allies of Gove told BuzzFeed News that, despite warmly backing the deal at cabinet on Wednesday, he privately loathes the agreement Theresa May has made with Brussels. But, they said, his experience running the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs had convinced him that the alternative of no deal was unconscionable. According to a person who has been briefed on DEFRA’s internal discussions on no deal, officials are forecasting that the disruption to food imports and exports could last for more than six months, leading to shortages on supermarket shelves and putting enormous financial pressure on businesses that depend on exports to the EU. Advertisement “The other Brexiteers in the cabinet and a lot of those on the backbenches would go for no deal,” said one friend of Gove. “But Michael would never, because he has seen what it means in DEFRA.” A second source familiar with his thinking said he did not want to be the person who brought down May and put the country on course for a no-deal Brexit that he would then be blamed for. Gove’s decision to remain in post sent shockwaves through the Brexiteer ranks and led many in Westminster to conclude he had saved the prime minister, for now. Dominic Raab, who quit as Brexit secretary on Wednesday. This was not how the week was supposed to go for those sceptical of May’s deal. BuzzFeed News can reveal how a small group of cabinet ministers calling itself the “burger club” (in contrast to Andrea Leadsom’s larger “pizza club”), consisting of Gove, Dominic Raab, Sajid Javid, Jeremy Hunt, and Geoffrey Cox, had been meeting for weeks to discuss their various gripes. In conversations ahead of the crunch cabinet meeting, several of the burger club ministers resolved to tell May that they each opposed different aspects of the deal and wanted her to go back to Brussels and try again. In further conversations, other colleagues agreed, and by the time cabinet sat down a total of 10 ministers had committed to raising opposition to the deal. Chris Grayling “spent several days complaining” to colleagues about what May had signed up to, said a source familiar with the conversations. But when it came to the showdown, only Raab and Esther McVey made good on their threats to quit when May rejected their demands. “They all spoke against it, then they all fell into line,” said a Whitehall official familiar with the cabinet discussion. Raab was given advance sight of the agreement, but despite being the Brexit secretary, he was not involved in its drafting. He was said to be shocked at new language in the text committing the UK to a future relationship that would “build on” a customs union with the EU. He decided immediately after reading the document that there was no way he could support it, and that he would have to go if changes were not made, an ally said. May’s aides were convinced Raab would back the PM, and spent Wednesday making farcical attempts to finalise travel arrangements for him to meet Michel Barnier to confirm the deal. Raab knew he was either resigning or forcing May back to the negotiating table — there was no way he was going to Brussels that night. Advertisement At Wednesday lunchtime, the DExEU team tried to politely inform those making the arrangements that their minister would likely not be travelling. Then a senior Downing Street official offered to let Raab out of cabinet early so he could fly via helicopter across the Channel, promising him a movie-style entrance to the Barnier photo opportunity. This was rebuffed. With time running out, an RAF aeroplane was readied. Instead of boarding it, Raab told the chief whip Julian Smith he was resigning. please log in to view this image Former work and pensions secretary Esther McVey. After cabinet, Leadsom told friends she did not support key aspects of the deal. An ally said that she felt she would be unable to introduce the meaningful vote to parliament in her role as Commons leader unless changes were made to the deal. They said she could resign ahead of the vote. She is convening a meeting with Gove, Fox, Mordaunt, and Grayling to “rewrite” the agreement. Other Brexiteers dismissed the meeting as an attempt to save face, noting that May has already ruled out any further changes. The failure of others to follow Raab and McVey out of the government left Brexiteers turning on each other this weekend. Supporters of Raab and McVey furiously accused the other members of the burger club of reneging on their agreement to oppose the deal at cabinet. As they failed to secure the 48 letters needed to trigger a vote of no confidence in May on Friday, members of the European Research Group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs blamed Gove for their situation. They said he was chiefly responsible for the Brexit debacle, first by paving the way for May to become PM, and then by saving her deal. Steve Baker warned darkly that the political careers of those Brexiteers who remained in the government were in peril. “You can’t be a plausible leadership candidate if you stay in cabinet,” he said.
1. Voting to come out of the EU has to happen if it isn't to leave half the population with a sense of grievance and deep injustice. 2. Look what is happening with the growing support for Le Pen in France. Look at the rise of nationalists in Italy and Eastern Europe. Look at the rise of the AfD in Germany. And you say, bring it on?
There is a rationale behind this, but in practice, unless you can guarantee a sizeable majority one way or the other, the prospect of another referendum is a complete nightmare to me. It won’t solve anything, it will just entrench the horrible divisions which I now expect to dominate the political landscape in this country for the rest of my life. I’d much rather go for the negotiated withdrawal agreement and whatever future agreement we can arrive at. But I hate referenda full stop, in the vast majority of circumstances. I’m afraid faith in democracy has already been irrevocably damaged Goldie. The far right are already active, but we will see them off, it’s a hollow threat unless you think the majority of British people are so morally corrupt they can’t see through this ****. I don’t think you should be quoting economists to support your point unless you are happy to accept the majority view amongst economists about Brexit (oh yeah, I can be snide can’t I....), but you are undoubtedly right Corbyn would be a complete disaster for this country. Hung parliaments forever please. He is so ideologically pure he will never be part of a coalition.
What, you want to take children into account? The Brexit vote turnout was one of the biggest ever. No, you say - find any way to deprive people of democratic success, if it doesn't suit my political views. If the vote had gone the other way, you would have been justifiably outraged if Leavers had succeeded in forcing another referendum two years later
Think about what you are implying about the British people Goldie. Frankly, if you are right, and some perceived injustice about a vote makes a significant number of people suddenly become racists, which is what the far right is all about, they deserve everything they get as a result.
Come on Goldie, 17.4m is not even close to half the voting population. Why bring children into it? 52-48 means unfinished business. Who said that? A democracy that is unable to change its mind ceases to be a democracy. Who said that? I'm not scared, why would you be?
There would be a general move towards nationalism imo, and headbangers would be pushed to the hard right.
Voting population is about 45m. So perhaps 10m didn't vote. You can't add them in because you don't know how they would vote. I don't mind Remainers calling 52-48 unfinished business AFTER we've left. As Stan has said, a second referendum would achieve nothing. An average of polls shows voters are entrenched in their respective positions. You will only get another close vote. Then, surely the best of three if Remain got a 52% win...
Hi Col. I'll say one thing that you probably [well, almost certainly] won't like, and then hopefully something more conciliatory. I stand by my comment that it is somewhat reprehensible for those (it wasn't just you) who have strong views on Brexit to be entirely unwilling to engage on the topic of the Irish border, and to simply sweep this issue aside by claiming its 'above your pay grade'. Not only is this at the very crux of the whole Brexit issue, it's an issue which until 2002 was directly responsible for the deaths of individuals in Ireland and the UK. We've seen from other posters (predominantly QPRNUTS) how alive this serious issue still is, and so to be unwilling to really engage on it - beyond a skin deep argument for 'technology' which doesn't exist - is, to me, was utterly frustrating. I don't expect you to design the solution yourself, but to at least be able to point towards other workable solutions - from any interested body, be it Vote.Leave, the ERG, any think tank - and if you can't source those solutions anywhere, to be able recognise the inherent challenge, and have sensible dialogue about why that might, and what sensible next steps are. From my perspective, it felt like you were perfectly happy to throw out questions about sovereignty etc, but were entirely unwilling to engage on this very important topic. I hope, however, that my very pointed (and possibly raving as you point out!) comments and questions on the topic played a small part in your reflections and entirely sensible new(?) point of view. [The ? in square brackets as I'm not sure if you were supportive of a soft Brexit before the weekend and don't want to assume]. Which brings me on to the point which is hopefully conciliatory. I entirely agree that a 'soft' Brexit is the most sensible way forwards for the country, although, of course, there is room to disagree about what a soft Brexit entails. Putting aside my personal view that Brexit is a significant mistake and the wrong solution to the real challenges which many people in the UK face, there are a few facts, as follows, which to my mind, can only be reconciled by a soft Brexit: 1. As leavers are happy and right to highlight, a democratic process took place and the vote was to leave. A second vote would solve nothing, almost certainly because leave would win again, and because I think that a population which already feels disengaged and disenfranchised would feel [potentially rightly] seriously angry, and look for solutions with the likes of UKIP 2. However, that vote was not for any specific 'type' of Brexit, and I don't buy the argument that leave = exiting the customs union etc. They are plenty of attributable quotes to leave leaders, arguing for a very close relationship, some even advocating for single market membership 3. Ireland border - as discussed ad nauseum. No need to say more! 4. Based on the available evidence, as others have posted, a hard Brexit would be economically disastrous, and damage the lives of a great many people, hurting the least well off the most As such, I agree a soft Brexit is the only possible way forward, and I suspect is what we will end up with. It's not what I would choose if I was dictator for the day, but that's democracy. My intense frustration on Thursday was with leavers who are knocking May's deal without recognising the multiple complex challenges which it tries to address [Ireland being high or top on that list]. I posted a long time ago on this thread about how Chequers may be looked back upon in the future as a very clever move - I still think that when analysing this from a 'realpolitik' perspective. I don't particular enjoy it when debate gets personal, even online, so hope that the clear rationale above helps to underline that my frustration was nothing personal towards you, but was in regard to the dismissal of an important argument by some posters. Now that we are scarily aligned on what the sensible path forward is, hope we can carry on talking and perhaps even agree further in future! PS - This is a long post and I've not proofed it as the little one needs a bath. Hope it all makes sense. PPS - I know the 'can you read' etc really was silly and crossed the line. Heat of the moment - sorry.
please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
