Post

Of course there was no vision because none of the snake oil salesmen understood how it worked. Johnson for example didn’t understand CU. Farage hardly turned up when an MEP & I doubt he paid attention as its was all performative.

Wonder how many of Those voters are now the ones who have changed their mind and would now vote Remain?

fb.watch/zGRucLiqbI/?...

Many brexiteers were adamant that we would retain the benefits of the single market. Cakeism sounded too good to be true so naturally dimwits voted for it. No downsides they thought and were told.

And of course anyone saying there *would* be more barriers, we'd have to leave SM / CU to get the trade deals with US, or stop free movement, was dismissed as "project fear" doommongers. Rather than "yes! Leaving CU/SM is exactly what you're voting for! It'll be great!".

Much of the talk was about retaining access to the SM which, as a statement, is pretty ambiguous.

This notion of being logically consistent in public policy choices is new.

Nah, the precedent is set now; we have an in or out vote and any "in" vote is counted as a mandate to sign up to literally whatever the hell you want with no further consultation on the matter and anyone who objects to any of it being branded as a traitor to the country.

The joys of living in progressive evolving democracies They have every right to take any previous decisions and bin them & start from fresh Brexit is one of those things in 100 years will just be in the history books If we aren't erased from this planet by then

This is why eurosceptic nut jobs need to be ignored. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

It was a referendum. Not a vote.

See the Venice Convention on Referendums, item III.8, to which convention the UK is/was a signatory, and which convention the Tories merrily ignored for short-term electoral gain at the cost of the economy and the UK’s relationships with its neighbours. www.venice.coe.int/webforms/doc...

Yes and no. Both parties pretended that they were obliged to respect the referendum; the referendum was challenged in court as illegally influenced; Eadie *conceded that it was*, but said that didn’t matter because the referendum was (still) not binding. That’s the double standard

It was Dominic Cummings who wrote in 2015 "A NO vote really means that a new government team must negotiate a new deal with the EU and they will have to give us a vote on it”.

Exactly. You either make the referendum binding, but then your creative financing will get it voided. Or you make it non-binding, and then... uhm... it cannot be voided, and everyone will treat hard Brexit as as the sacred, non-negotiable will of the people anyway. Crap, how does this work again?

cf John Howard: do you want to retain the monarchy or have *this specific* form of republic?

Or recognise that you made a mistake (as we have) and work to fix it (as we are not).