RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest leave were perfectly clear we would be leaving the customs union and single market

The problem comes as you could also perfectly reasonably say they were clear we'd stay in the customs union and single market given how clear they were we'd get a good trade deal

As WT noted leave hit many notes to secure as many votes as possible, now they're significantly more limited about what's on offer, which is one reason there's increased pressure for a 2nd referendum

It’s also fair to suggest that with the vote actually pretty close, taking the extreme example of leave as the option isn’t representative of th wishes of the electorate. As a percentage, those who wished to walk away with no deal at all were not in the majority. Leave won due to a coalition that wanted an array of outcomes, extremist holding th rest of us hostage based on such a close vote isn’t good for any of us.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest leave were perfectly clear we would be leaving the customs union and single market

The problem comes as you could also perfectly reasonably say they were clear we'd stay in the customs union and single market given how clear they were we'd get a good trade deal

As WT noted leave hit many notes to secure as many votes as possible, now they're significantly more limited about what's on offer, which is one reason there's increased pressure for a 2nd referendum

It’s also fair to suggest that with the vote actually pretty close, taking the extreme example of leave as the option isn’t representative of th wishes of the electorate. As a percentage, those who wished to walk away with no deal at all were not in the majority. Leave won due to a coalition that wanted an array of outcomes, extremist holding th rest of us hostage based on such a close vote isn’t good for any of us.

Being out of the customs union and single market isn’t no deal.
It was a binary vote. Leave or Remain. Leave clearly campaigned on an end to freedom of movement - no single market - and an ability to strike trade deals - no customs union. The Conservatives won the 2015 GE with a very slim majority, should they have watered down their policies to be closer to Labour’s manifesto?
I voted Remain and was no fan of Leave’s campaign, or Remains for that matter, but this ‘it was close we need a compromise’ argument is deeply flawed.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest leave were perfectly clear we would be leaving the customs union and single market

The problem comes as you could also perfectly reasonably say they were clear we'd stay in the customs union and single market given how clear they were we'd get a good trade deal

As WT noted leave hit many notes to secure as many votes as possible, now they're significantly more limited about what's on offer, which is one reason there's increased pressure for a 2nd referendum

It’s also fair to suggest that with the vote actually pretty close, taking the extreme example of leave as the option isn’t representative of th wishes of the electorate. As a percentage, those who wished to walk away with no deal at all were not in the majority. Leave won due to a coalition that wanted an array of outcomes, extremist holding th rest of us hostage based on such a close vote isn’t good for any of us.

Being out of the customs union and single market isn’t no deal.
It was a binary vote. Leave or Remain. Leave clearly campaigned on an end to freedom of movement - no single market - and an ability to strike trade deals - no customs union. The Conservatives won the 2015 GE with a very slim majority, should they have watered down their policies to be closer to Labour’s manifesto?
I voted Remain and was no fan of Leave’s campaign, or Remains for that matter, but this ‘it was close we need a compromise’ argument is deeply flawed.

Without wishing to engage with the main argument, the bolded bit is a poor example because the answer is that yes, that's how Parliament is supposed to work. If there's a slim majority, then you're unlikely to get your extreme ideas through and more likely to get your moderate ones, and the opposition is more likely to be able to get some of their moderate ideas in by getting some of your MPs to vote for them.

Of course that's not how Parliament currently *does* work, given that each side sees the other as The Enemy, Destroyer of Nations, and thus working with them and voting with them is tantamount to treason, but it's how it's supposed to work.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest leave were perfectly clear we would be leaving the customs union and single market

The problem comes as you could also perfectly reasonably say they were clear we'd stay in the customs union and single market given how clear they were we'd get a good trade deal

As WT noted leave hit many notes to secure as many votes as possible, now they're significantly more limited about what's on offer, which is one reason there's increased pressure for a 2nd referendum

It’s also fair to suggest that with the vote actually pretty close, taking the extreme example of leave as the option isn’t representative of th wishes of the electorate. As a percentage, those who wished to walk away with no deal at all were not in the majority. Leave won due to a coalition that wanted an array of outcomes, extremist holding th rest of us hostage based on such a close vote isn’t good for any of us.

Being out of the customs union and single market isn’t no deal.
It was a binary vote. Leave or Remain. Leave clearly campaigned on an end to freedom of movement - no single market - and an ability to strike trade deals - no customs union. The Conservatives won the 2015 GE with a very slim majority, should they have watered down their policies to be closer to Labour’s manifesto?
I voted Remain and was no fan of Leave’s campaign, or Remains for that matter, but this ‘it was close we need a compromise’ argument is deeply flawed.

All politics is compromise and where a political party doesn’t have the numbers in the hous to get a more contentious policy through, then yes it would be watered down or dropped.

Maybe for referendums like this there should be a higher percentage requirement for a motion to be passed, then there is no argument. Putting to one side the utter nonsense about £350m per week and fear mongering about Turkish immigrants, there were 2 leave campaigns and both provided different messages. I disagree therefore that it was absolutely clear what the leave the EU vote meant, which is why I feel there should be a detailed proposal to vote for or against.

If the proposal had been to leave the EU without a deal then there would be no argument, although I’m still not convinced that such a major constitutional chance should be 50% plus 1. But if the question and consequence had been absolutely clear then I think the arguments would have ben far less and May’s premiership would have been a lot easier.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: It’s also fair to suggest that with the vote actually pretty close, taking the extreme example of leave as the option isn’t representative of th wishes of the electorate. As a percentage, those who wished to walk away with no deal at all were not in the majority. Leave won due to a coalition that wanted an array of outcomes, extremist holding th rest of us hostage based on such a close vote isn’t good for any of us.

Being out of the customs union and single market isn’t no deal.
It was a binary vote. Leave or Remain. Leave clearly campaigned on an end to freedom of movement - no single market - and an ability to strike trade deals - no customs union. The Conservatives won the 2015 GE with a very slim majority, should they have watered down their policies to be closer to Labour’s manifesto?
I voted Remain and was no fan of Leave’s campaign, or Remains for that matter, but this ‘it was close we need a compromise’ argument is deeply flawed.

Without wishing to engage with the main argument, the bolded bit is a poor example because the answer is that yes, that's how Parliament is supposed to work. If there's a slim majority, then you're unlikely to get your extreme ideas through and more likely to get your moderate ones, and the opposition is more likely to be able to get some of their moderate ideas in by getting some of your MPs to vote for them.

Of course that's not how Parliament currently *does* work, given that each side sees the other as The Enemy, Destroyer of Nations, and thus working with them and voting with them is tantamount to treason, but it's how it's supposed to work.

Puja

The Conservative govt of 2015 didn’t have to compromise with the other side, they had a majority. They had to compromise between themselves. Though, as they’d been voted in on a manifesto, which would’ve been on what the campaign was based on, then anything in there wouldn’t really be a compromise as it’s in the manifesto. It would be ike having the Brexiteers in govt, the extreme position would be WTO - Redwood & Brigden - the moderate position is Chequers until we leave the customs union and the single market - Gove.
Again, leaving both the customs union and the single market isn’t an exteme idea. It’s what the Leave side actually campaigned for.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: It’s also fair to suggest that with the vote actually pretty close, taking the extreme example of leave as the option isn’t representative of th wishes of the electorate. As a percentage, those who wished to walk away with no deal at all were not in the majority. Leave won due to a coalition that wanted an array of outcomes, extremist holding th rest of us hostage based on such a close vote isn’t good for any of us.

Being out of the customs union and single market isn’t no deal.
It was a binary vote. Leave or Remain. Leave clearly campaigned on an end to freedom of movement - no single market - and an ability to strike trade deals - no customs union. The Conservatives won the 2015 GE with a very slim majority, should they have watered down their policies to be closer to Labour’s manifesto?
I voted Remain and was no fan of Leave’s campaign, or Remains for that matter, but this ‘it was close we need a compromise’ argument is deeply flawed.

All politics is compromise and where a political party doesn’t have the numbers in the hous to get a more contentious policy through, then yes it would be watered down or dropped.

Maybe for referendums like this there should be a higher percentage requirement for a motion to be passed, then there is no argument. Putting to one side the utter nonsense about £350m per week and fear mongering about Turkish immigrants, there were 2 leave campaigns and both provided different messages. I disagree therefore that it was absolutely clear what the leave the EU vote meant, which is why I feel there should be a detailed proposal to vote for or against.

If the proposal had been to leave the EU without a deal then there would be no argument, although I’m still not convinced that such a major constitutional chance should be 50% plus 1. But if the question and consequence had been absolutely clear then I think the arguments would have ben far less and May’s premiership would have been a lot easier.

As per my reply to Puja, the compromise would be between WTO and Chequers until the Irish border could be solved.
Just as £350mil is a lie, as was instant recession and massive falls in house prices. It was all bull. The entire campaign was scrapping the underside of the barrel.
As for what Leave meant, no freedom of movement - no single market - loads of shiny trade deals - no customs union - it was front and centre of what Leave campaigned for.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Being out of the customs union and single market isn’t no deal.
It was a binary vote. Leave or Remain. Leave clearly campaigned on an end to freedom of movement - no single market - and an ability to strike trade deals - no customs union. The Conservatives won the 2015 GE with a very slim majority, should they have watered down their policies to be closer to Labour’s manifesto?
I voted Remain and was no fan of Leave’s campaign, or Remains for that matter, but this ‘it was close we need a compromise’ argument is deeply flawed.

Without wishing to engage with the main argument, the bolded bit is a poor example because the answer is that yes, that's how Parliament is supposed to work. If there's a slim majority, then you're unlikely to get your extreme ideas through and more likely to get your moderate ones, and the opposition is more likely to be able to get some of their moderate ideas in by getting some of your MPs to vote for them.

Of course that's not how Parliament currently *does* work, given that each side sees the other as The Enemy, Destroyer of Nations, and thus working with them and voting with them is tantamount to treason, but it's how it's supposed to work.

Puja

The Conservative govt of 2015 didn’t have to compromise with the other side, they had a majority. They had to compromise between themselves. Though, as they’d been voted in on a manifesto, which would’ve been on what the campaign was based on, then anything in there wouldn’t really be a compromise as it’s in the manifesto. It would be ike having the Brexiteers in govt, the extreme position would be WTO - Redwood & Brigden - the moderate position is Chequers until we leave the customs union and the single market - Gove.
Again, leaving both the customs union and the single market isn’t an exteme idea. It’s what the Leave side actually campaigned for.

Even with a majority, any party is a broad church. MPs aren't supposed to vote slavishly with the party, but with the best interests of their constituents and their opinion about what's right for the country. So extreme policies would have to be watered down until enough of your MPs agreed or enough of the opposition went with you. Again, emphasis on *supposed* to work - it doesn't if anyone dissenting is deemed a rebel and an enemy of the people.

I agree that leaving the customs union and the single market isn't necessarily an extreme idea. I think doing so without any kind of trade agreement in place to take over or any kind of transition period is. I will note that "WTO rules" doesn't actually mean much - those are the same rules that Donald Trump has been noisily telling to fuck off with his China tariffs, without any kind of a consequence.


Dammit, I said I wasn't going to engage with the main argument.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Without wishing to engage with the main argument, the bolded bit is a poor example because the answer is that yes, that's how Parliament is supposed to work. If there's a slim majority, then you're unlikely to get your extreme ideas through and more likely to get your moderate ones, and the opposition is more likely to be able to get some of their moderate ideas in by getting some of your MPs to vote for them.

Of course that's not how Parliament currently *does* work, given that each side sees the other as The Enemy, Destroyer of Nations, and thus working with them and voting with them is tantamount to treason, but it's how it's supposed to work.

Puja

The Conservative govt of 2015 didn’t have to compromise with the other side, they had a majority. They had to compromise between themselves. Though, as they’d been voted in on a manifesto, which would’ve been on what the campaign was based on, then anything in there wouldn’t really be a compromise as it’s in the manifesto. It would be ike having the Brexiteers in govt, the extreme position would be WTO - Redwood & Brigden - the moderate position is Chequers until we leave the customs union and the single market - Gove.
Again, leaving both the customs union and the single market isn’t an exteme idea. It’s what the Leave side actually campaigned for.

Even with a majority, any party is a broad church. MPs aren't supposed to vote slavishly with the party, but with the best interests of their constituents and their opinion about what's right for the country. So extreme policies would have to be watered down until enough of your MPs agreed or enough of the opposition went with you. Again, emphasis on *supposed* to work - it doesn't if anyone dissenting is deemed a rebel and an enemy of the people.

I agree that leaving the customs union and the single market isn't necessarily an extreme idea. I think doing so without any kind of trade agreement in place to take over or any kind of transition period is. I will note that "WTO rules" doesn't actually mean much - those are the same rules that Donald Trump has been noisily telling to fuck off with his China tariffs, without any kind of a consequence.


Dammit, I said I wasn't going to engage with the main argument.

Puja

I think we’re basically in agreement, I’d just argue that any compromises come from within the winning side not with those who narrowly came second. I’d contend that leaving the single market and customs union are akin to manifesto policy, ie it will happen and it’s just a matter of how. I agree that WTO is extreme but leaving the CU & SM doesn’t have to be/isn’t the same as WTO.

Again, for context, I voted Remain. I think the ERG are swivel headed loons but then I think Soubry, Lammy, Adonis, Campbell etc swivel headed loons on the other side of the argument. Leave won and that means out of the EU on the terms of the Leave campaign. But it also means leaving sensibly and that will/should take time.

Sod getting involved in the main argument, I keep promising myself I won’t get involved in any Brexit arguments but here I am. Wibble.

Leaving the customs union and single market is an extreme economic policy, but it's not extreme compared to Hitler's final solution

Agreed, but it’s not extreme in the context of the referendum campaign. A lot of Labour’s manifesto was financially extreme but if they were voted in with a majority then you’d expect them to implement it without having to find a consensus with the Conservatives.

Mellsblue wrote:Agreed, but it’s not extreme in the context of the referendum campaign. A lot of Labour’s manifesto was financially extreme but if they were voted in with a majority then you’d expect them to implement it without having to find a consensus with the Conservatives.

Would that be the party many of whom voted for the referendum, to leave and represent leave constituencies who have remaining in the customs union as their official policy no matter what some claim leave means and with a pro leave leadership?

Had the leadership not blocked what they themselves claim is the democracy of the party then the official opposition might even have remaining in the single market as official policy, again suggesting leave means many things

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Agreed, but it’s not extreme in the context of the referendum campaign. A lot of Labour’s manifesto was financially extreme but if they were voted in with a majority then you’d expect them to implement it without having to find a consensus with the Conservatives.

Would that be the party many of whom voted for the referendum, to leave and represent leave constituencies who have remaining in the customs union as their official policy no matter what some claim leave means and with a pro leave leadership?

Had the leadership not blocked what they themselves claim is the democracy of the party then the official opposition might even have remaining in the single market as official policy, again suggesting leave means many things

Where did I mention Brexit in relation to Labour’s policies? You’ve been sucked into the Brexit vortex again. It’s a continuation of the example that, in the event of a GE win with a majority, the winning side doesn’t have to reach consensus with the losing side......eg the UK has left the EU and Labour win a majority at the next GE. They won’t be watering down their economic policies because the Cons and Lib Dems want them to, even though Cons and Lib Dems will find those financial policies extreme.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Agreed, but it’s not extreme in the context of the referendum campaign. A lot of Labour’s manifesto was financially extreme but if they were voted in with a majority then you’d expect them to implement it without having to find a consensus with the Conservatives.

Would that be the party many of whom voted for the referendum, to leave and represent leave constituencies who have remaining in the customs union as their official policy no matter what some claim leave means and with a pro leave leadership?

Had the leadership not blocked what they themselves claim is the democracy of the party then the official opposition might even have remaining in the single market as official policy, again suggesting leave means many things

Where did I mention Brexit in relation to Labour’s policies? You’ve been sucked into the Brexit vortex again. It’s a continuation of the example that, in the event of a GE win with a majority, the winning side doesn’t have to reach consensus with the losing side......eg the UK has left the EU and Labour win a majority at the next GE. They won’t be watering down their economic policies because the Cons and Lib Dems want them to, even though Cons and Lib Dems will find those financial policies extreme.

Hardly unusual to develop a thought, in this instance I developed with a view to brexit, that the brexit thread is a brexit vortex might be a worry were it not the case that brexit means brexit

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Would that be the party many of whom voted for the referendum, to leave and represent leave constituencies who have remaining in the customs union as their official policy no matter what some claim leave means and with a pro leave leadership?

Had the leadership not blocked what they themselves claim is the democracy of the party then the official opposition might even have remaining in the single market as official policy, again suggesting leave means many things

Where did I mention Brexit in relation to Labour’s policies? You’ve been sucked into the Brexit vortex again. It’s a continuation of the example that, in the event of a GE win with a majority, the winning side doesn’t have to reach consensus with the losing side......eg the UK has left the EU and Labour win a majority at the next GE. They won’t be watering down their economic policies because the Cons and Lib Dems want them to, even though Cons and Lib Dems will find those financial policies extreme.

Hardly unusual to develop a thought, in this instance I developed with a view to brexit, that the brexit thread is a brexit vortex might be a worry were it not the case that brexit means brexit

It wasn’t developing so much as just completely missing/changing the point. Yes Brexit means Brexit, and a red, white and blue one at that. You look back at May on that ship, uttering those words and you do wonder if that was the high point.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Where did I mention Brexit in relation to Labour’s policies? You’ve been sucked into the Brexit vortex again. It’s a continuation of the example that, in the event of a GE win with a majority, the winning side doesn’t have to reach consensus with the losing side......eg the UK has left the EU and Labour win a majority at the next GE. They won’t be watering down their economic policies because the Cons and Lib Dems want them to, even though Cons and Lib Dems will find those financial policies extreme.

Hardly unusual to develop a thought, in this instance I developed with a view to brexit, that the brexit thread is a brexit vortex might be a worry were it not the case that brexit means brexit

It wasn’t developing so much as just completely missing/changing the point. Yes Brexit means Brexit, and a red, white and blue one at that. You look back at May on that ship, uttering those words and you do wonder if that was the high point.

Far be it from me to bang on ad nauseum but it was your post which went beyond the discussion on brexit and whether leaving also meant leaving the CU and single market introducing the idea that Labour's manifesto entailed a number of extreme financial positions. So in some senses with typical brevity, and brevity of course meaning brevity, I merely returned to the theme being discussed

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Hardly unusual to develop a thought, in this instance I developed with a view to brexit, that the brexit thread is a brexit vortex might be a worry were it not the case that brexit means brexit

It wasn’t developing so much as just completely missing/changing the point. Yes Brexit means Brexit, and a red, white and blue one at that. You look back at May on that ship, uttering those words and you do wonder if that was the high point.

Far be it from me to bang on ad nauseum but it was your post which went beyond the discussion on brexit and whether leaving also meant leaving the CU and single market introducing the idea that Labour's manifesto entailed a number of extreme financial positions. So in some senses with typical brevity, and brevity of course meaning brevity, I merely returned to the theme being discussed

No. I was just illustrating my point that the referendum was a binary choice and that consensus should found amongst the winning side, not between both sides. The winning side made leaving the SM and CU central planks of their campaign, as you’ve agreed. I illustrated this by using the example that a party that wins a GE majority doesn’t need to gain consensus with the side that lost, just within its own side. Puja disagreed and I elaborated. It’s wholly within the scope of this discussion, you’ve just taken the example and either misunderstood that it’s only an illustration or wilfully ignored what the example shows because you disagree with it. Either way, I’m done.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Agreed, but it’s not extreme in the context of the referendum campaign. A lot of Labour’s manifesto was financially extreme but if they were voted in with a majority then you’d expect them to implement it without having to find a consensus with the Conservatives.

Would that be the party many of whom voted for the referendum, to leave and represent leave constituencies who have remaining in the customs union as their official policy no matter what some claim leave means and with a pro leave leadership?

Had the leadership not blocked what they themselves claim is the democracy of the party then the official opposition might even have remaining in the single market as official policy, again suggesting leave means many things

I thought staying in the single market *was* official Labour policy? Gods knows they've got little enough that they stand for on Brexit, let's not denude them of one of their few firm statements.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Agreed, but it’s not extreme in the context of the referendum campaign. A lot of Labour’s manifesto was financially extreme but if they were voted in with a majority then you’d expect them to implement it without having to find a consensus with the Conservatives.

Would that be the party many of whom voted for the referendum, to leave and represent leave constituencies who have remaining in the customs union as their official policy no matter what some claim leave means and with a pro leave leadership?

Had the leadership not blocked what they themselves claim is the democracy of the party then the official opposition might even have remaining in the single market as official policy, again suggesting leave means many things

I thought staying in the single market *was* official Labour policy? Gods knows they've got little enough that they stand for on Brexit, let's not denude them of one of their few firm statements.

Puja

No, as that gets them into difficulty around the issue of state subsidies, so whilst Keir has shifted the Glorious Leader to accept remaining in the CU there's nothing doing as yet on the single market, it almost certainly would be official policy if Corbyn hadn't stopped discussion and voting on the matter at multiple conferences, but Corbyn does love a socialist dictatorship so...

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: It wasn’t developing so much as just completely missing/changing the point. Yes Brexit means Brexit, and a red, white and blue one at that. You look back at May on that ship, uttering those words and you do wonder if that was the high point.

Far be it from me to bang on ad nauseum but it was your post which went beyond the discussion on brexit and whether leaving also meant leaving the CU and single market introducing the idea that Labour's manifesto entailed a number of extreme financial positions. So in some senses with typical brevity, and brevity of course meaning brevity, I merely returned to the theme being discussed

No. I was just illustrating my point that the referendum was a binary choice and that consensus should found amongst the winning side, not between both sides. The winning side made leaving the SM and CU central planks of their campaign, as you’ve agreed. I illustrated this by using the example that a party that wins a GE majority doesn’t need to gain consensus with the side that lost, just within its own side. Puja disagreed and I elaborated. It’s wholly within the scope of this discussion, you’ve just taken the example and either misunderstood that it’s only an illustration or wilfully ignored what the example shows because you disagree with it. Either way, I’m done.

I've never thought the losing side of an election should be ignored, so had the vote gone 52/48 the other way for me we'd have had to set about lobbying for some changes which would curb leave concerns. Mind I suppose as a Lib Dem voter there's something of an ulterior motive in wanting a government to look beyond the partisan more often

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Far be it from me to bang on ad nauseum but it was your post which went beyond the discussion on brexit and whether leaving also meant leaving the CU and single market introducing the idea that Labour's manifesto entailed a number of extreme financial positions. So in some senses with typical brevity, and brevity of course meaning brevity, I merely returned to the theme being discussed

No. I was just illustrating my point that the referendum was a binary choice and that consensus should found amongst the winning side, not between both sides. The winning side made leaving the SM and CU central planks of their campaign, as you’ve agreed. I illustrated this by using the example that a party that wins a GE majority doesn’t need to gain consensus with the side that lost, just within its own side. Puja disagreed and I elaborated. It’s wholly within the scope of this discussion, you’ve just taken the example and either misunderstood that it’s only an illustration or wilfully ignored what the example shows because you disagree with it. Either way, I’m done.

I've never thought the losing side of an election should be ignored, so had the vote gone 52/48 the other way for me we'd have had to set about lobbying for some changes which would curb leave concerns. Mind I suppose as a Lib Dem voter there's something of an ulterior motive in wanting a government to look beyond the partisan more often

I look forward to seeing the day the winning side says “you guys were close, which manifesto policies would you like us to water down?”
I do agree with you - lobbying for changes based on leave concerns - but it wouldn’t have happened. UKIP won a EU election and got up to 14% in the polls with nothing more than a drunk chancer as infrastructure but we still didn’t try and lobby for less EU. Instead we just went for the nuclear option, in the belief it would put it to bed, and are now dealing with the fallout. Let’s be honest, even if the UK did lobby for less EU it wouldn’t have placated those it would need to.
I’m definitely now done!

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: No. I was just illustrating my point that the referendum was a binary choice and that consensus should found amongst the winning side, not between both sides. The winning side made leaving the SM and CU central planks of their campaign, as you’ve agreed. I illustrated this by using the example that a party that wins a GE majority doesn’t need to gain consensus with the side that lost, just within its own side. Puja disagreed and I elaborated. It’s wholly within the scope of this discussion, you’ve just taken the example and either misunderstood that it’s only an illustration or wilfully ignored what the example shows because you disagree with it. Either way, I’m done.

I've never thought the losing side of an election should be ignored, so had the vote gone 52/48 the other way for me we'd have had to set about lobbying for some changes which would curb leave concerns. Mind I suppose as a Lib Dem voter there's something of an ulterior motive in wanting a government to look beyond the partisan more often

I look forward to seeing the day the winning side says “you guys were close, which manifesto policies would you like us to water down?”
I do agree with you - lobbying for changes based on leave concerns - but it wouldn’t have happened. UKIP won a EU election and got up to 14% in the polls with nothing more than a drunk chancer as infrastructure but we still didn’t try and lobby for less EU. Instead we just went for the nuclear option, in the belief it would put it to bed, and are now dealing with the fallout. Let’s be honest, even if the UK did lobby for less EU it wouldn’t have placated those it would need to.
I’m definitely now done!

I think there was the chance for progress, we're hardly the only EU member with concerns on immigration, the EU budget, EU salaries pensions and expenses, fisheries and agriculture, global FTA agreements

But rather than seek change in small increments in perhaps excruciating increments we have as you note gone with a nuclear option

If you look closely you can see the remnants of UK politics in the bottom left hand corner. It’s pretty banged up, but there’s definitely a bit of rose garden and Cool Britannia in there.

If one were to imagine that the UK had never joined the EEC but we had all been able to observe its methods, behaviour , transformation and attitude over the last 45 years, what would now be the chances of getting the electorate to vote to join?

More to the point, even, would many MPs campaign for it?

Oakboy wrote:If one were to imagine that the UK had never joined the EEC but we had all been able to observe its methods, behaviour , transformation and attitude over the last 45 years, what would now be the chances of getting the electorate to vote to join?

More to the point, even, would many MPs campaign for it?

If we'd never joined and someone were to point out doing so would increase our trade by some vast margin I think you'd find some people being happy at the idea of getting richer

And if you want a recent example then Turkey isn't a full member, it's not even exactly a member of the customs union but let's simplify this and say it's in the CU, and then look at their trading volumes before and after joining. And it really should be blindingly obvious in many respects the EU works blindingly well

Mellsblue wrote:If you look closely you can see the remnants of UK politics in the bottom left hand corner. It’s pretty banged up, but there’s definitely a bit of rose garden and Cool Britannia in there.

I beg your pardon