Brexit

Over the past two years polls have consistently shown that approx 75% of Leave voters support leaving on WTO terms.

Leaving the EU was a specific course of action and yet apparently a simple majority wasnt good enough.

The PM at the time made it extremely clear that if the Leave vote were successful the Government would trigger article 50 and the UK would then have 2 years to negotiate. At the end of those two years you are out...either with a deal or without. If he latter then you operate under WTO rules. That is a simple, black and white course of action.

In a referendum you are asking the nation what course of action they want Parliament to take. Parliament is then meant to honour the wishes of the people. They said they would, they voted to do as the people wished and then almost immediately set about doing all they could to thwart the will of the people. Remember, it was Parliament that asked they people to tell them what they wanted re EU membership.

Article 50 does specifically state that once triggered the country wishing to leave has 2 years to reach a withdrawal agreement with the EU. At the end of two years all EU treaties will cease to apply to the Member state that is wishing to leave.

Article 50 is a part of the Treaty on European Union that was enacted by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. It is an EU law.



Extensions are permitted if the EU agrees to any said extension request from the Member state.


None that I am aware of.

David Cameron on the EU referendum

David Cameron: Leave means Leave No Second Referendum

Parliament voted for a Brexit referendum. They voted to let the people decide if the UK stayed in the EU or left. They agreed in effect with the PM's promise that the decision to stay or leave would be the peoples. It wouldn't be for politicians to decide. It wouldnt be for Parliament to decide. It would be for the people to decide. The politicians and Parliament agreed to this. And yet what has happened? Politicians and Parliament have gone back on their promise to the people. They have simply ignored the result of the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. They have decided that it is they and not the people who will decide what happens re the UK's relationship with the EU. This is a disgraceful attack on democracy and it's no wonder that so many Britons feel betrayed and are pissed off.

Just listening to a Labour MP on BBCQT who has stated that if they won a General election they would go back to the EU to try and negotiate a better deal (fat chance when no deal is off the table) whilst pushing for a 2nd referendum where remain is again an option...AND then campaign for Remain. This in effect would mean campaigning against their own Brexit deal! So you have Labour politicians who would be going to the EU allegedly to try and get a better deal knowing that they will be campaigning against any deal they might agree to. Unreal.

This is why the Rebel Alliance efforts to prevent a no deal Brexit in reality is an attempt to stop Brexit entirely. They thought the people would vote remain in 2016. They didnt, and so now they are attempting to stop what over 17.4 million people voted for...and for them this is what passes as democracy!

Democracy ONLY works if you have losers consent.

Did they take no deal off the table before negotiations began? Is that why they had to take no deal off the table again yesterday?



"Strictly speaking the UK probably wouldn't owe the EU anything in the absence of an exit deal."

That is based on what exactly? I also notice you used the word 'probably'.



So, it's an opinion that if the Brexit vote was about, at least in part, controlling their own borders then publicly announcing that they have a 300+ mile, unmonitored, unguarded backdoor sitting right on the border with an EU country that has Freedom of Movement with the rest of the EU is counter to that interest? Alright then. Controlling their borders and no FoM means that having a giant hole in their border is completely acceptable, apparently. That hole's probably not going to be as acceptable if Brexit's doomsaying is right and the EU collapses by the by, but I guess that's just opinion as well.

Citation please?

Also NOW we accept the expert's opinions? When they support your assertions only?

It's a general course of action. It's like going to a restaurant and saying you want steak. When the waiter asks how you want that to be cooked, you just keep repeating that you want steak.

If you'll notice, there is a distinct difference between Gove's statements and Cameron's.

Gove's statements are wishy-washy and noncommittal. He talks about things that "should" happen, about things that "would ideally" happen. Not about things that will happen, and he certainly doesn't frame it as things that he will make, or even attempt to make, happen. It's the same reasoning as the justification for the infamous bus. It talked about a future that might happen. 'Let's do something' is not the same as 'we will do something'.

As for Cameron, I'd trust his characterization of his opponents as far as I could throw the entire continent of Europe. That'd be akin to trusting Democrats and Conservatives to give fair and honest assessments of each other's policies.

Wow... as an American, I almost pity you...

What a f***ing mess we're in ... different but still a mess...

[Sorry, back to our serious discussion]

Of course there is a difference. One is a minister with no executive power whilst the other is the PM.



Gove's comments are far from wishy washy. Saying “We should be outside the single market...we should not be governed by the rules that the European Court of Justice imposes on us.” is a very clear and forthright statement. If you listened to him speak you would know that he was very strong in what he believed should happen going forward. Now of course he doesn't say he will make things happen. He wasn't the PM. He had no power to make anything happen. People knew and understood this. What he did do though is very clearly state what he wanted to happen, what he believed should happen. Not wishy washy at all. He was very unambiguous re the direction he believed the country should take.

On the other hand Cameron was able to say what would happen as he was the PM. He had the power to make things happen. Gove obviously didnt. Hence the difference btw one saying what he thought they should do and the other saying what they would do.


If you don't wield executive power you can't say "we will do something" and so Gove doesnt. Instead he quite rightly says what "should" happen rather than what will happen. Cameron at the time was, as previously stated, the PM and so of course he can say what will happen.


As PM Cameron was saying what would happen if the Leave vote succeeded. It's nothing to do with him assessing the oppositions policies but rather about him saying what will happen in the event of a successful leave vote. So what he says is very important and what he says is that if the Leave vote succeeds that the UK WILL be out of the EU and out of the single market. I'm tipping you havent looked at any of the videos I posted.