Brexit

Only it's not.

You seem to imply that people who voted leave didnt really know what they were voting for. This is nonsense. Read comments at the bottom of articles on UK websites, listen to talk back radio, watch shows like BBCQT and you will be under no doubt that leave voters knew exactly what they were voting for. The problem has been that remain pollies have refused to accept the result of a referendum that they approved, that they promised to honour. They have done all they can to keep the UK in the EU and to frustrate the will of the people. Their actions have the potential to greatly hurt democracy in the UK. If people feel that their vote will only count if MP's agree with it they may well lose whatever faith they have in Parliament and the democratic system.

Parliament in general made it clear that they would not accept no deal as an option before negotiations began. May never seriously considered no deal as an option. It's why her government spent so little time and money in preparing for a no deal exit. It's why Hammond for example never advised businesses to prepare for a no deal exit...as he knew the government would prefer a bad deal over no deal. And so of course Parliament never sought to enact legislation to prevent the government from leaving without a deal. Why would they when they knew the government wouldnt accept leaving without a deal. But when BJ became PM everything changed. Does BJ want a deal? There is every reason to think so. Is he prepared to accept a bad deal over no deal? No he isnt. He is therefore prepared to leave without a deal and this is the simple reason why the Parliament have pushed a new law to tie his hands and to prevent him from leaving without a deal.

"You will have to judge what is best for you and your family, for your children and grandchildren, for our country, for our future...It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU...or whether we leave. Your decision. Nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you. You, the British people, will decide."
- Cameron, PM

Here in California, referendums have to be a lot more specific or they get thrown out before even reaching the ballot. We had a similar attempt a couple years ago split the state into three self governing states. It got enough signatures to otherwise qualify for the ballot, but was tossed for not being detailed enough in addressing all issues that would stem from such a move.

National referendums are very rare in the UK. There have infact only ever been three.

In the UK (as in Australia) a referendum is a vote on a single issue with voters making one choice between 2 options.

And then Cameron fled the PM seat and Parliament, thus making all of his promises worthless. Unless you think that successive PM's should be bound by the promises, not laws but promises, of previous PM's to the general public?

No, I simply imply that people who voted leave were not all of the same mind of what leave meant. As I've said before, May's Deal fulfills what was on the ballot, even if it doesn't fulfill what some of the politicians promised would happen.

I have a distinct memory of Nigel Farage saying that it wouldn't be so bad to be like Norway, completely glossing over the fact that Norway is participating in Schengen.

Neither Parliament nor May ever seriously considered preparing for a hard Brexit because Leave painted such a rosy picture of what might be possible that they never really put much thought into what would happen if they couldn't get what they wanted.

The fact that both Parliament and the negotiators were blinded by the shiny promises is not at all the same as saying that Parliament actively took no deal off the table and tied the negotiators hands. The negotiators and Parliament both CHOSE, through their own volition, not to entertain a no deal scenario.

The PM's position was clear before the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced to Parliament. Parliament then approved the bill knowing the Governments position re respecting the will of the people. Many MP's from the three major parties publicly stated that they would respect the result of the referendum. Furthermore, in the previous referendums Parliament had respected the wishes of the people. So should MP's have done what they promised voters they would do and respect the result? I think they should have. To do otherwise is to lie to and deceive the public. Furthermore, if Parliament are going to ask the public what they think they should do and then ignore what the public want unless it's what they want to hear then why have a bloody referendum in the first place?

That is absurd. The Remain campaign - that included May and most of Parliament - rejected everything the Leave campaign said. So to claim that come negotiations post the Referendum they suddenly believed the so called "rosy picture" painted by Leave is laughable.

To not prepare for a situation where you arent able to negotiate an acceptable deal is disgraceful and hardly the fault of Leave. It's ultimately the fault of May's government in particular, and Parliamment in general.

If you are serious about negotiating an exit then you have to let the other side know that you are prepared to accept no deal over a bad deal. To do otherwise is at best mind-boggingly incompetent. By letting the EU know that they would not accept a no deal exit May, her Government and Parliament as a whole, were telling the EU that they would accept a bad deal over no deal. And a bad deal is exactly what they got.

The reality is that May was a remainer and wasnt genuinely committed to leaving the EU. Most of Parliament were remainers and didnt want the UK to leave the EU. The true feelings of Parliament re the UK leaving the EU and honouring the result of the people's vote has been there for all to see in the past week.





In the words of John McEnroe; "You cannot be serious". Are you really blaming May's half arsed, incompetent negotiations on the Leave campaign???

To claim Parliament and the negotiators were somehow blinded by the "shiny promises" of the Leave campaign is laughable. These are the same people who openly rubbished all of the so called "shiny promises" to which you refer. The simple reality is that they were not blinded by any "shiny promises" but rather by their love of the EU. And Parliament did effectively take no deal off the table by making it clear that a no deal exit wasnt an option. May's negotiators never seriously considered a no deal exit. Meanwhile the EU were saying they were fine with the UK leaving without a deal...and so they had all of the power in the incredibly lopsided negotiations.

How about MP's honouring legislation they themselves passed into law?

It should be remembered that the House of Commons voted 498 to 114 to pass the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which allowed the PM to trigger article 50. Politicians did so knowing that article 50 clearly states that if no deal can be agreed upon btw the member state and the EU within 2 years then the member state shall in effect leave without a deal. But i guess it's too much to expect Parliament to abide by their own legislation.

I'm not disputing what the PM at the time promised, only that what he promised is basically irrelevant because he left office right afterwards. We can call promising something and then running away from his responsibilities any number of very nasty words, but it doesn't change the fact that doing so basically voided whatever he said.

Except that article 50 also has a provision in it that allows for extensions if both parties agree. You may not like the fact that it is there, but the legislation allows for extensions so to say that article 50 must result in leaving the EU within 2 years is willfully misleading.

Oh, so May's infamous "Red Lines" were a reflection of her being a Remainer were they? And her negotiators? And what other deal would have been acceptable again?

As for Parliament, the people vote in those in the house of commons, so if they don't reflect their interests then that's a problem the public has to address. Blaming the 'elites' is all well and good, but it doesn't address the root problem, that the public voted in people that do not reflect their interests. They put those 'elites' there to begin with.

Leaving is not a threat to the EU, just as it wasn't a threat for the UK. Both of them have bigger goals and ideals that they're protecting in the process, and are willing to suffer economic pain to attempt to reach them. Why you continue to insist that the threat of leaving with no deal gives the UK an advantage I just do not understand.

As an aside, reiterating that you believe that:

A) May and Parliament are for remaining (even though May had her red lines and Parliament actually invoked a50).

B) That this somehow affected the deal that could have been had, completely devoid of any evidence.

Does not automatically make it true.

In retrospect, while I do admit that blaming Leave's rosy picture as the main reason for the UK's lack of preparation is unfair and unsubstantiated, I still maintain that doing the same to Remain by attempting to paint Parliament and May as Remainers is equally unfair.