RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

I'd also argue what they wanted (as per May's 12 objectives) was both undoable and they were out-manoeuvred/out negotiated by a united team with a stronger hand- that's what caused the resignations of Davies (who realised he was out of his depth) and BoJo etc. Failure of expectation setting compounded by utter ineptitude multiplied by no such thing as cake and eat it.

If only there were some sort of way to find out what people think, or would be likely to vote for.
Maybe some kind of communication, involving... I dunno... words or something.
Tongue, voiceboxes, fingers, that sort of thing.

Ah well, I guess we'll never know what could have happened with the slightest degree of competence.

Which Tyler wrote:If only there were some sort of way to find out what people think, or would be likely to vote for.
Maybe some kind of communication, involving... I dunno... words or something.
Tongue, voiceboxes, fingers, that sort of thing.

Ah well, I guess we'll never know what could have happened with the slightest degree of competence.

Do you mean people or parliament?

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

I'd also argue what they wanted (as per May's 12 objectives) was both undoable and they were out-manoeuvred/out negotiated by a united team with a stronger hand- that's what caused the resignations of Davies (who realised he was out of his depth) and BoJo etc. Failure of expectation setting compounded by utter ineptitude multiplied by no such thing as cake and eat it.

Agreed. The negotiations were a shambles but what part of it hasn’t!! Davis’ resignation was because he realised May had undercut him and that DExEU was nothing more than an expensive letter head, not that he was out of his depth. He was, but he’d never allow himself to realise it.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

Christ alive, I've stupidly been onto Twitter, a beeb feed on the Farage interview with Marr....and the majority of the responses (2k ++) see Farage as the next messiah, and including phrases like 'so what if he doesn't have a manifesto' and 'he tells it like it is'. We are doomed.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

Banquo wrote:Christ alive, I've stupidly been onto Twitter, a beeb feed on the Farage interview with Marr....and the majority of the responses (2k ++) see Farage as the next messiah, and including phrases like 'so what if he doesn't have a manifesto' and 'he tells it like it is'. We are doomed.

So many people have moved into extreme positions.....Farage is the messiah.....WTO is the only true Brexit......all Leavers are thick racists.....Brexit will lead to economic Armageddon and a Nazi govt. The rhetoric is ridiculous. The biggest problem is previously sensible politicians have followed suit.

It’s pathetic.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

Good to see that this Conservative govt started adversarial politics. There are quite a few politics texts books that need rewriting. As for the govt’s deal, that is literally how our political system works - a govt is formed and they put their manifesto policies to parliament.
I’m really not sure that Labour would have moved away from their ‘f**k the Tories’ policy. Despite unbelievably terrible personal ratings, below both May and Don’t Know, Corbyn seems determined to stay on message.
There was of course a GE after the referendum that returned the Conservatives as the largest party and Labour as the second largest (both taking record shares of the vote and numbers of votes) both of which ran on pro-Brexit platforms and there is a cross party Brexit committee, chaired by Hillary Benn of the opposition, in place. I’m surprised you suggest citizens assemblies as you, amongst many others, have denounced the general public for not being intelligent enough to know what is best for them.
How you get to the idea that we have spunked away any good will by fighting tooth and nail with the EU, I don’t know. It’s seems to me that there have been robust negotiations leading to an agreement that led one EU official to declare they had their first colony. If anything ‘spunked away precious goodwill’ it is the embarrassment of a legislature unable to decide what it wants once a deal was agreed upon.
I say all this whilst thinking May et al have made a massive hollicks of it all and believing May is a terrible leader, but I believe that blaming them and them only for not seeking consensus is incredibly one eyed.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

Good to see that this Conservative govt started adversarial politics. There are quite a few politics texts books that need rewriting.

That wasn't exactly what I said, but I guess it is easier to attack, which nicely illustrates both of our points as well as what's wrong with politics in this country.

Mellsblue wrote:As for the govt’s deal, that is literally how our political system works - a govt is formed and they put their manifesto policies to parliament.

I'm familiar with that. But also literally how our political system works is that votes are put to parliament and, if a government is so weak as to not be able to get their manifesto policies through, then they either amend them to try and get enough MPs on side or they don't get them through.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m really not sure that Labour would have moved away from their ‘f**k the Tories’ policy. Despite unbelievably terrible personal ratings, below both May and Don’t Know, Corbyn seems determined to stay on message.

You're not wrong, but given a slightly less incompetent government, he would've had a lot more trouble keeping all his MPs onside.

Mellsblue wrote:There was of course a GE after the referendum that returned the Conservatives as the largest party and Labour as the second largest (both taking record shares of the vote and numbers of votes) both of which ran on pro-Brexit platforms and there is a cross party Brexit committee, chaired by Hillary Benn of the opposition, in place. I’m surprised you suggest citizens assemblies as you, amongst many others, have denounced the general public for not being intelligent enough to know what is best for them.

Okay, lots of sophistry there. Firstly, the GE was fought on anything but Brexit and a combination of the mess that is FPtP and Labour's tightrope of mendacity on Brexit means that a lot of Remain voters voted Labour as a "Not the Tories" vote or a "Fuck the Tories" vote or a "Corbyn will be gone and Labour will then oppose Brexit" vote. So parrotting May's line that 82.4% of people voted for pro-Brexit parties is specious and you're too intelligent not to know that.

Secondly, the select committee scrutinises the work of the Department of Exiting the EU. It has no powers to set policy or any input into the negotiations. They get to criticise (and they do), but there's no decision-making capacity there.

And yes, I am generally of the opinion that "The People" have the collective wisdom of an out-of-date tin of Aldi salmon and wouldn't ideally want them polled at any time, but my point is that there would be an option, there would be things that we could do, rather than just the unedifying choice of May's deal or No Deal with a ticking clock in the background. Since The Will of The People (TM) has become so sacrosanct since 2016, an assembly might've been an option to work out what that Will actually was.

Mellsblue wrote:How you get to the idea that we have spunked away any good will by fighting tooth and nail with the EU, I don’t know. It’s seems to me that there have been robust negotiations leading to an agreement that led one EU official to declare they had their first colony. If anything ‘spunked away precious goodwill’ it is the embarrassment of a legislature unable to decide what it wants once a deal was agreed upon.

Oh, the EU are a bag of dicks as well, no argument there. Doesn't change the fact that taking 2 years to negotiate a deal that we manifestly don't want is not a good way to build a future relationship.

Mellsblue wrote:I say all this whilst thinking May et al have made a massive hollicks of it all and believing May is a terrible leader, but I believe that blaming them and them only for not seeking consensus is incredibly one eyed.

And so we agree once again - everyone involved is a fucking idiot and we're all doomed. I believe we reached exactly the same point the last time we had this argument.

Puja

Banquo wrote:Christ alive, I've stupidly been onto Twitter, a beeb feed on the Farage interview with Marr....and the majority of the responses (2k ++) see Farage as the next messiah, and including phrases like 'so what if he doesn't have a manifesto' and 'he tells it like it is'. We are doomed.

Until some people realise that for there to be real political change they need a left leaning party made of non-political insiders...

There's a bit of a debate here atm, because Fidesz are so strong despite really starting to turn the screw on being bastards...

There is literally nowhere for anyone left of centre to go. They're all useless career politicians. Meanwhile, the far-right have their "we're not political insiders" speak, so pick up votes left right and centre.

It's the key reason why Change UK will fail: they've not realised that their bubble is...a bubble. The average person will never vote for them as they don't offer any real change, they just offer Tories light or Labour right, depending on your viewpoint.

And compared to over here, it would be piss easy to get a new party going in the UK...

Step one: Go to big local employers and ask them what is the biggest problem they face. Then ask them if they'd fund a party who took steps to overcome that.

Put together a bare-bones manifesto based upon those problems + democratic socialist concepts.

Collect a bunch of activists who feel very strongly about the plight of the country, see if they would be willing to subscribe to the manifesto you've put together, and then get them to be your candidates.

Run targeted ad campaigns promoting these individuals as voices of reason. OUTSIDE OF ELECTION TIME! Push them hard into local newspapers, plaster them all over FB, get them on the radio...

And hey presto, you've suddenly got a political entity people will vote for.


Politicians look at politics as insiders. Most "socialist" politicians are also political students and insiders. Only the "right-wing" have actually realised the power of the outsider, how everyone is pissed off at politics and wants nothing more than to not vote for Tories or Labour...

I just think it's insane.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

Good to see that this Conservative govt started adversarial politics. There are quite a few politics texts books that need rewriting.

That wasn't exactly what I said, but I guess it is easier to attack, which nicely illustrates both of our points as well as what's wrong with politics in this country.

Mellsblue wrote:As for the govt’s deal, that is literally how our political system works - a govt is formed and they put their manifesto policies to parliament.

I'm familiar with that. But also literally how our political system works is that votes are put to parliament and, if a government is so weak as to not be able to get their manifesto policies through, then they either amend them to try and get enough MPs on side or they don't get them through.

Mellsblue wrote:I’m really not sure that Labour would have moved away from their ‘f**k the Tories’ policy. Despite unbelievably terrible personal ratings, below both May and Don’t Know, Corbyn seems determined to stay on message.

You're not wrong, but given a slightly less incompetent government, he would've had a lot more trouble keeping all his MPs onside.

Mellsblue wrote:There was of course a GE after the referendum that returned the Conservatives as the largest party and Labour as the second largest (both taking record shares of the vote and numbers of votes) both of which ran on pro-Brexit platforms and there is a cross party Brexit committee, chaired by Hillary Benn of the opposition, in place. I’m surprised you suggest citizens assemblies as you, amongst many others, have denounced the general public for not being intelligent enough to know what is best for them.

Okay, lots of sophistry there. Firstly, the GE was fought on anything but Brexit and a combination of the mess that is FPtP and Labour's tightrope of mendacity on Brexit means that a lot of Remain voters voted Labour as a "Not the Tories" vote or a "Fuck the Tories" vote or a "Corbyn will be gone and Labour will then oppose Brexit" vote. So parrotting May's line that 82.4% of people voted for pro-Brexit parties is specious and you're too intelligent not to know that.

Secondly, the select committee scrutinises the work of the Department of Exiting the EU. It has no powers to set policy or any input into the negotiations. They get to criticise (and they do), but there's no decision-making capacity there.

And yes, I am generally of the opinion that "The People" have the collective wisdom of an out-of-date tin of Aldi salmon and wouldn't ideally want them polled at any time, but my point is that there would be an option, there would be things that we could do, rather than just the unedifying choice of May's deal or No Deal with a ticking clock in the background. Since The Will of The People (TM) has become so sacrosanct since 2016, an assembly might've been an option to work out what that Will actually was.

Mellsblue wrote:How you get to the idea that we have spunked away any good will by fighting tooth and nail with the EU, I don’t know. It’s seems to me that there have been robust negotiations leading to an agreement that led one EU official to declare they had their first colony. If anything ‘spunked away precious goodwill’ it is the embarrassment of a legislature unable to decide what it wants once a deal was agreed upon.

Oh, the EU are a bag of dicks as well, no argument there. Doesn't change the fact that taking 2 years to negotiate a deal that we manifestly don't want is not a good way to build a future relationship.

Mellsblue wrote:I say all this whilst thinking May et al have made a massive hollicks of it all and believing May is a terrible leader, but I believe that blaming them and them only for not seeking consensus is incredibly one eyed.

And so we agree once again - everyone involved is a fucking idiot and we're all doomed. I believe we reached exactly the same point the last time we had this argument.

Puja

Can’t be bothered to reply to all other than your options to find a solution to Brexit. As you say, we’re just going over old ground.
You ask for a GE but not a GE like the last GE and every other GE. The whole point of a GE is that it isn’t about a single issue. Why do you think the next one would be any different I don’t know.
You ask for a cross party committee, have it pointed out there is one and then say it’s not the correct sort of one and ask for the committee to have powers that are contrary to how our parliament functions. The committee has authored a few reports and most have been denounced and savaged by the members that don’t agree, ie a very large minority, because a committee is based on parliaments political makeup. Committee is just parliament in microcosm which will just lead to the same issues as parliament has, ie they don’t have an consensus answer to the problem either. If the committee were able to set policy (again, not how parliament functions) that policy would still need to go through parliament which, as above, doesn’t know what it wants. I suppose parliament could set up a committee to suggest possible Brexit paths to be put to parliament but we’ve pretty much had that and it didn’t work. You’ll also be glad to know that Hillary Benn, as chair of the committee, has met with Barnier to discuss negotiations, as have a Labour delegation and numerous other factions and parties, numerous times.
You also ask for a citizens assembly whilst admitting you think the public at large have the IQ of a dead fish, which, assuming you’re correct on the dead fish analogy, doesn’t seem a particularly sensible route to take. Even if we did have a citizens assembly, parliament would not vote for it recommendations if they thought the answer they were given to be wrong, as they did the result of the referendum.
The issue is that parliament can’t get over the fact that they don’t like or agree with what they have been told/advised to do by the referendum. Any amount of different avenues and packaging of deals doesn’t surmount that fact.

Fundamentally, there still ain’t a majority for anything in this parliament.

We can’t keep in wasting time like this. A second referendum is probably the beat solution, and this time make it clear what the vote means so there is no argument thereafter.

Yep. Second ref, god help us all for that month, with defined outcomes. Probably remain, WA and no deal as options. Even Cable is happy to vote for the WA subject to a ref on those options. Unfortunately, whilst it’ll end the debate politically, this s**t will rumble on for years regardless of the result.
Still annoys me that entrenched Remoaner MPs will get what they want by acting like petulant school children. I aim that mainly at Conservatives Remoaners who happily stood on manifestos against their beliefs, and took the support this brings with it, and then refused to stand by that manifesto.

It’s the least shit option. A general election wing really settle the issue as I don’t think any one party will get a majority. As painful as it would be, a second clear referendum with specific options would at least settle the debate.

Well unless remain win in which case it will get more embittered but unless we completely leave there will always be complaints of betrayal.

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. Second ref, god help us all for that month, with defined outcomes. Probably remain, WA and no deal as options. Even Cable is happy to vote for the WA subject to a ref on those options. Unfortunately, whilst it’ll end the debate politically, this s**t will rumble on for years regardless of the result.
Still annoys me that entrenched Remoaner MPs will get what they want by acting like petulant school children. I aim that mainly at Conservatives Remoaners who happily stood on manifestos against their beliefs, and took the support this brings with it, and then refused to stand by that manifesto.

I don't think any UK politician really comes out of this well...

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. Second ref, god help us all for that month, with defined outcomes. Probably remain, WA and no deal as options. Even Cable is happy to vote for the WA subject to a ref on those options. Unfortunately, whilst it’ll end the debate politically, this s**t will rumble on for years regardless of the result.
Still annoys me that entrenched Remoaner MPs will get what they want by acting like petulant school children. I aim that mainly at Conservatives Remoaners who happily stood on manifestos against their beliefs, and took the support this brings with it, and then refused to stand by that manifesto.

I don't think any UK politician really comes out of this well...

Agreed. It’s been an absolute s**t show. The repercussions will be ‘interesting’ to watch.

Mellsblue wrote: Unfortunately, whilst it’ll end the debate politically, this s**t will rumble on for years regardless of the result.
Still annoys me that entrenched Remoaner MPs will get what they want by acting like petulant school children. I aim that mainly at Conservatives Remoaners who happily stood on manifestos against their beliefs, and took the support this brings with it, and then refused to stand by that manifesto.

One, this will all rumble on for years whatever happens, there's not going to be closure beyond I suspect most people will eventually stop wanting to think about it.

Two, what was the practical alternative for Tory MPs who want to be in the EU, or certainly in the customs union and single market, had they all for instance stood down as Tory MPs at May's hastily announced GE would that have made you happy? What if they'd all stood as Independents split the Tory vote and the gibbering lunacy of Corbyn had entered Downing St, still happy?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Unfortunately, whilst it’ll end the debate politically, this s**t will rumble on for years regardless of the result.
Still annoys me that entrenched Remoaner MPs will get what they want by acting like petulant school children. I aim that mainly at Conservatives Remoaners who happily stood on manifestos against their beliefs, and took the support this brings with it, and then refused to stand by that manifesto.

One, this will all rumble on for years whatever happens, there's not going to be closure beyond I suspect most people will eventually stop wanting to think about it.

Two, what was the practical alternative for Tory MPs who want to be in the EU, or certainly in the customs union and single market, had they all for instance stood down as Tory MPs at May's hastily announced GE would that have made you happy? What if they'd all stood as Independents split the Tory vote and the gibbering lunacy of Corbyn had entered Downing St, still happy?

I wasn’t saying the second ref would cause this to rumble on for ever. Just that it would only solve one very immediate issue and not the many long term ones that have been sown.

If they felt that strongly about staying in the EU they’ve could’ve resigned from the party and stood for the Lib Dems or they could accept the result of a referendum they brought into law. It’s pretty simple. If you don’t agree with a major plank of your party's manifesto you either resign from the party or you accept that is the platform you stood on and seek to change party policy on future manifestos. You don’t seek to frustrate that manifesto.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Unfortunately, whilst it’ll end the debate politically, this s**t will rumble on for years regardless of the result.
Still annoys me that entrenched Remoaner MPs will get what they want by acting like petulant school children. I aim that mainly at Conservatives Remoaners who happily stood on manifestos against their beliefs, and took the support this brings with it, and then refused to stand by that manifesto.

One, this will all rumble on for years whatever happens, there's not going to be closure beyond I suspect most people will eventually stop wanting to think about it.

Two, what was the practical alternative for Tory MPs who want to be in the EU, or certainly in the customs union and single market, had they all for instance stood down as Tory MPs at May's hastily announced GE would that have made you happy? What if they'd all stood as Independents split the Tory vote and the gibbering lunacy of Corbyn had entered Downing St, still happy?

I wasn’t saying the second ref would cause this to rumble on for ever. Just that it would only solve one very immediate issue and not the many long term ones that have been sown.

If they felt that strongly about staying in the EU they’ve could’ve resigned from the party and stood for the Lib Dems or they could accept the result of a referendum they brought into law. It’s pretty simple. If you don’t agree with a major plank of your party's manifesto you either resign from the party or you accept that is the platform you stood on and seek to change party policy on future manifestos. You don’t seek to frustrate that manifesto.

Or you explicitly vote against manifesto after manifesto and end up party leader. Though I take your point you'd have preferred them not to stand as Tories or toe the line

(Though to show what a manifesto is worth the Tories also said they'd address fair corporate pay, and they also reaffirmed a commitment to the GFA, so...)

Where the pro single market and customs union MPs may have a point, beyond the party position on Europe had veered sharply in just two years (and clearly many pro Brexit weren't respectful of previous manifestos) is the manifesto did say they'd leave the single market and customs union, but also said they'd pursue free trade, and there's been precious little delivered on the free trade. I suspect for those who have concerns leaving would be assuaged in their concerns if they felt the negotiations beyond the WA weren't going to be so strongly informed by lunatic claims we'd be fine trading on WTO terms and/or by a mentality we can have our cake and eat it when it comes to leaving the EU and having EU market access. And thus they could say, and with some justification, that many Brexiters aren't adhering to the manifesto either when it comes to free trade, essentially they're all damned by the observation they don't hold to the manifesto they stood on, plus ca change

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
One, this will all rumble on for years whatever happens, there's not going to be closure beyond I suspect most people will eventually stop wanting to think about it.

Two, what was the practical alternative for Tory MPs who want to be in the EU, or certainly in the customs union and single market, had they all for instance stood down as Tory MPs at May's hastily announced GE would that have made you happy? What if they'd all stood as Independents split the Tory vote and the gibbering lunacy of Corbyn had entered Downing St, still happy?

I wasn’t saying the second ref would cause this to rumble on for ever. Just that it would only solve one very immediate issue and not the many long term ones that have been sown.

If they felt that strongly about staying in the EU they’ve could’ve resigned from the party and stood for the Lib Dems or they could accept the result of a referendum they brought into law. It’s pretty simple. If you don’t agree with a major plank of your party's manifesto you either resign from the party or you accept that is the platform you stood on and seek to change party policy on future manifestos. You don’t seek to frustrate that manifesto.

Or you explicitly vote against manifesto after manifesto and end up party leader. Though I take your point you'd have preferred them not to stand as Tories or toe the line

(Though to show what a manifesto is worth the Tories also said they'd address fair corporate pay, and they also reaffirmed a commitment to the GFA, so...)

Where the pro single market and customs union MPs may have a point, beyond the party position on Europe had veered sharply in just two years (and clearly many pro Brexit weren't respectful of previous manifestos) is the manifesto did say they'd leave the single market and customs union, but also said they'd pursue free trade, and there's been precious little delivered on the free trade. I suspect for those who have concerns leaving would be assuaged in their concerns if they felt the negotiations beyond the WA weren't going to be so strongly informed by lunatic claims we'd be fine trading on WTO terms and/or by a mentality we can have our cake and eat it when it comes to leaving the EU and having EU market access. And thus they could say, and with some justification, that many Brexiters aren't adhering to the manifesto either when it comes to free trade, essentially they're all damned by the observation they don't hold to the manifesto they stood on, plus ca change

Best not to cite Corbyn in defence of your argument! I know it was tongue in cheek.
I agree that WTO nutters are indeed nutters and not honouring their manifesto or indeed the platform/manifesto the Leave campaign stood on during the ref. As for movement in free trade, it’s difficult to do much on free trade when we are explicitly stopped from negotiating FTA’s whilst still in the EU. Numerous things have achieved, though. Even if that is just rolling over existing agreements or signing memorandums of understanding that FTA talks will start immediately once the UK leaves the EU.
Mention of cake and eating it apply to Boris and his ilk but also those Conservatives and Lab MPs who stood on pro-Brexit manifestos, and took all the advantages standing for one of the big (quantity not quality) two, but refused to then respect that manifesto.
As Stom said, very few politicians come out of this well. By arguing the Remoaners are hypocrites I’m not seeking to absolve those at the other end of the spectrum.

I agree with an awful lot of this:

PHILIP COLLINS

Better to leave the EU than make a hero of Farage

philip collins

Remainers should see that letting Brexit happen may be smarter in the long run than allowing a grievance to fester


Nigel Farage was always destined to be the winner in the great Brexit fiasco. Either Britain leaves the European Union, in which case his political mission is fulfilled, or we do not, in which case his political career is revived. His best and most dangerous days might now be ahead of him. Mr Farage can and should be stopped but, alas, all the people who most want him arrested are ushering him into the spotlight. The choice is a stark one: leave the EU and cut off Farage’s supply of oxygen or carry on the campaign to remain.

If Britain does not leave the EU then Nigel Farage will be a fixture in British politics. The thwarting of the 2016 referendum will be the incarnate grievance on which his politics thrives. He has nothing else but it is all he needs. At his rally in Huddersfield this week, Mr Farage tried out a line that we are going to hear a lot. This is not even about Europe, he said. This is about democracy.

Mr Farage is pulling the populist trick at its most magical. The people have been cheated of their inheritance, he says, and I, the popular tribune, am here to confront truths that the elite can only avoid.

There is a real problem here, which is deeper than the oleaginous hail-fellow-well-met, phoney pub-soaked xenophobia of the man. The real problem is that he has hold of a nasty little germ of truth.

Of all the historic nationalisms, and all their current manifestations, English nationalism frightens me least. There is a different story to tell, on another day, of the imperial legacies of the English around the world but, domestically at least, English nationalism is a dog that can hardly bark. The European continent was convulsed and then set aflame by nationalisms during the 20th century. Britain avoided the excess and will probably do so again.


Though I loathe his mimicry of their populist methods, it is hard to envisage Mr Farage as the equivalent of the Le Pen family in France or the Brexit Party as a viable vanguard to disgrace such as the AfD in Germany or Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary. Radical nationalists are likely to do well across Europe in next week’s European elections and it will be tempting to lump Mr Farage into their pit.

Tempting but wrong. Britain is, in this case, exceptional. The threat of Mr Farage is not a prelude to politics that are truly dark. If we end up staying in the EU, I predict there won’t be riots in the streets. Anger will be expressed in the coming campaign but a lot of it will be synthetic, puffed-up, pretend anger about an issue (Europe) that, if only we can recall the times when we used to discuss other things, doesn’t matter nearly as much as everyone involved seems to think.


No, the risk of Faragism is not to be found in any invigorating passion. The risk is a vast deposit of cynicism, a boost to the popular myth that politicians are all liars and democracy yields no benefits to benighted people like us. Politics, in this reckoning, is a conspiracy against the people. Eventually, there are no winners when an idea like this gets its boots on.

There is a foolproof way of preventing this undesirable outcome and that is to leave the EU, as arranged. There is close to zero chance of this happening so all we can do is to spell out the consequences of not leaving so that we might at least proceed in plain sight. The immediate beneficiaries of upgraded cynicism are Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage. Mr Corbyn benefits because a Tory government that has failed to deliver Brexit is toast. It only had one job and it cannot do it. The Labour Party could be led by someone as hopeless as Mr Corbyn (oops, it is, apparently) and could hardly fail to win power in such circumstances.

While Mr Corbyn sets about nationalising the electricity supply, Mr Farage will be free to nurse his grievance. His case — that a solemn promise has not been redeemed — will be hard to answer. A second referendum which led to a reversal of the first would entrench the Faragist narrative of betrayal into British politics for decades to come. But if Brexit actually took place, it would end his political career. There are plenty of people who care about the EU sufficiently to say that Mr Farage cannot be allowed his victory. But let’s be clear about this — there is a choice. Leave the EU and bid farewell to Farage, and perhaps to Corbyn, or remain and see the two of them prosper. Is it worth the prize? Not for my money.

I feel I am in a category of one as someone whose view on Europe is that I would like to go back in. Leaving the EU is a mistake and, as the consequences unfold and a new generation comes to political maturity, that mistake will become plain. Nothing is for ever and Britain could seek to reverse its course once remorse has set in. Yet you can only be an advocate of going back in once you have left.

Imagine the difference in the atmosphere if, instead of launching the People’s Vote campaign, the Remain side of the argument had accepted the result and sought to make the feasible best of Brexit. Then, when the process fell into its own contradictions, the fault would unarguably have lain with the advocates, rather than the critics, of Brexit. A moment would come when, in sorrow rather than anger, it would have been possible to argue for a change of course.

Instead, we are going to have to take the unscenic detour via Faragism. Someone other than Mr Farage could express popular irritation that Britain has not left the EU, as the main party manifestos pledged, without rhetorical appeals to all that is most unforgiving and unpleasant in us. Mr Farage will not resist the temptation to be visceral, simplistic and cheap. Good leadership is about turning discontent to positive account but Mr Farage has no interest in that. He has nothing to say that is not cynical, nothing to offer that doesn’t make things worse.

It would therefore be naive to deny the political costs of remaining in the EU. By all means argue that the economic gain tips heavier on the scales than the political loss (though I disagree) but don’t pretend it’s all upside. The politics of leaving the EU have proven to be childish and divisive but they will be a monument to the wisdom of man when set beside the politics of not leaving the EU. The Brexit Party and the anti-Brexit movement are in lock-step and one will follow the other, like night after day.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bett ... -z3bb2cxlz

The issue I have with the Collins columns is he's continually presenting them as a pragmatic way forwards, when in reality they're only one model of what the future could hold, along with not leaving, a hard WTO Brexit and all manner of fudge in-between, and his solution would annoy a great many as will any other outcome yet I infer at least he's suggesting there is a rallying point.

There's also the other issue I'll now have Sssudio stuck in my head, the bastard