I'm concerned about the damage to our democratic system if a second vote was forced on the electorate. Agree 100% on the anti GOSH mob.
What is wrong with people in this country FFS......GOSH, and other NHS establishments work their nuts off trying to save people all the time, and some keyboard ****ers think it is their right to have a go over an issue which is **** all to do with them - you're right Stan, send them to a gulag somewhere and show them some hard justice.....
Two possibilities spring to mind. 1: He never really wanted the Norway model himself, but it was the lie he told to get votes from the people who did want to leave EU and follow the Norway example. Once the votes are in, you can attach whatever meaning to them that you like - no-one will ever be able to prove or disprove you. Farage, to his credit, never told the lie about the NHS £350m/week, BTW. 2: He does think the Norway model is a good idea, but he needs an alternative position these days to maintain his relevance and income as a far right pundit to the media.
Well I think the current government is too scared and stubborn to have a second referendum anyway, so let's not waste any more pixels on it.
Tories about to drop promise to allow Faith Schools to become 'single faith' schools i.e. to admit kids only from one faith, on the grounds that this will foster 'segregation'. No **** Sherlock. May just foster ignorance and prejudice as well. Just get it done with and close them down completely, pretty please. In another critical policy move, they are going to allow people to choose what sex they are, with no reference to the medical profession. Seriously.
Yes. 1 Cameron defers triggering Article 50 for 6 months leaving it to the next leader. 2 Six months later May defers it for a further 3 months 3 May then wastes public money and more time trying to argue the unarguable by saying she has the power to trigger it without a vote in Parliament - the litigation was a disastrous waste of time as everybody apart from the Conservatives and good old Nigel knew what the constitutional position 4 May then decides to cash in on her 24% lead in the poll and runs the most inept campaign of all time wiping out her working majority.- 7 weeks 5 May then prostitutes the country's finances over a protracted period to gain the support of the Monster Raving loony party, I mean the DUP. Still at least we know by now that "Brexit means Brexit'' TM's leadership is "strong but stable" and there is no "magic money tree" except for doomed litigation, general elections and a slush fund for political partners and of course, she won and remains on course.
I'm pretty confident it's the former. Just another lie to persuade waverers that Brexit needn't be the economic disaster that we are now actually heading towards.
Last week you claimed that Farage was a peripheral part of the leave campaign, and his comments on the eventual vote should be dismissed as not having any great effect - so why on earth do you give his views or his opinions any credence now?
As soon as Cameron announced the referendum, Farage's power was diminished. The referendum was what he had fought for. Now he had it. The Leave campaign effectively ignored him. Had the country voted Remain, Farage's arguments to leave the EU would have been a voice in the wilderness. The country voted Leave, and lots of celebration by Farage, but his and UKIP's job was done. Farage is now a radio presenter, and whistling winds blow tumbleweed through deserted UKIP offices across the country. However - if a second referendum was announced and the EU inevitably gave us a punitive deal on the back of it, "persuading" Brexit voters of a nervous disposition to return to the sect, then there would be outrage among all Brexit supporters. Nigel Farage would become the most popular politician in Britain and there would be massive surge of support for UKIP. Imho.
Because the referendum wase'll never know the true breakdown, but... Some of the 52% voted for £350M/week to the NHS Some of the 52% voted for control of our borders regarding EU citizens, making our own laws AND keeping access to the Single Market and Customs Union - and no-one who wanted their vote was telling them it couldn't be done - unlike now, as their votes are now in Some of the 52% voted for a complete break and didn't care about the economic carnage that will result in the short/medium term Some of the 52% voted to leave because they feared it would eventually result in the United States of Europe Some of the 52% voted to Leave just to give the powers-that-be a bloody nose for failing them in areas the government has always had complete control over Some of the 52% voted to Leave because they didn't want Turkey joining the EU (like the Daily Fail said it would) against the will of the UK, and didn't realise that any one country could veto it Some of the 52% (my very nice elderly neighbours) voted to Leave because they didn't want more Asian immigrants coming to the UK There are lots of reasons why the 52% voted leave. I've only suggested a few of them. Every vote was by an individual with their own specific reasons. They don't all match, and you cannot just add them all up and treat them all as the same when deciding the manner of our leaving. particularly as the government is now a minority government propped up by the DUP and riven by their own internal factions - something the referendum was actually intended to resolve (and Cameron got it wrong). Continuing the discussion further to explore just how we might leave and how we can work with the EU once we have left is the democratic thing to do.
I notice you don't mention a second referendum, which is what this string of posts is addressing. Are you in favour? If so, how do you get around the fact that the EU will use it as a reason to offer us a punitive deal?
I saw a poll recently which suggested that 24% of Leave voters want to stay in the Single Market, whilst 81% of Remain voters want this outcome. A pretty good indication that people didn't really know what they were voting for, I would say.
Do I understand correctly that you don't want a second referendum after the negotiations because the EU would then 'punish' us in the negotiated deal, and you don't want one now because it is in some way undemocratic? On the first point you could equally well argue that the EU will offer a generous deal to make sure it is accepted (though clearly you can't trust the British public to do the logical thing when they are in a polling station). On the second, come off it. I don't think you can put a logical binary choice (because that's all we can be trusted with, obviously) after the negotiation. The choices would have to be accept the deal, leave with no deal, or stay in, a guarantee of a chaotic outcome. If you had a referendum now it would be a simple leave with whatever deal is negotiated/no deal or stay in. I suspect we will de facto stay in under a Norway deal badged as transitional, because the economy requires this. Without this on 19 March 2019 we have precisely zero trade agreements in place, having walked out of the single market and the agreements with 60 other countries that the EU has in place (and perhaps by then a deal with the US and Japan too). The economy will also require a continued flow of labour and skills (and tax income) so immigration will need to continue unfettered as well. This is the cliff edge. Corbyn with his out of the single market line (not Labour Party policy as far as I am aware) displaying his true Brexit credentials once more.
