Red on Red, Labour implode

[Jack Knave]

Please cite the source that makes only these people able to be the 'official' and correct assessment in things!

Please explain what you mean by 'official'


Note the wording of the official referendum  indicates you are officially wrong.

Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.

[Nearly Sane]

Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.

No, the technical detail in the referendum is membership of the EU. You are technically and legally incorrect.

[ProfessorDavey]

Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.

Rubbish, you simply cease to be a member. Any post referendum settlement in which the UK is no longer a member of the EU is consistent with that vote to leave. And that obviously includes being a member of the EEA like Norway.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only out there is is the way that the rest of the world is out, such as India and China.

But we can never be like India or China in relations with the EU for the simply reason that we are in Europe (not Asia) and even if we leave the EU we will retain a land border with the EU and all our closest geographical partners will be on the EU, so we will have to maintain relationships with the EU that are irrelevant to China or India.

[Jack Knave]

No, the technical detail in the referendum is membership of the EU. You are technically and legally incorrect.

So where is this set out? I hope you are not referring to the ballot paper wording.

[Jack Knave]

Rubbish, you simply cease to be a member. Any post referendum settlement in which the UK is no longer a member of the EU is consistent with that vote to leave. And that obviously includes being a member of the EEA like Norway.

Where did the team membership crop up in any of the government etc. wordings?

[ProfessorDavey]

So where is this set out? I hope you are not referring to the ballot paper wording.

Didn't you even bother to read the ballot paper JK.

Just to remind you, it was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Any settlement that means we are no longer a member of the EU is consistent with having left the EU.

[ProfessorDavey]

Where did the team membership crop up in any of the government etc. wordings?

See above - in the ballot paper wording.

[Jack Knave]

But we can never be like India or China in relations with the EU for the simply reason that we are in Europe (not Asia) and even if we leave the EU we will retain a land border with the EU and all our closest geographical partners will be on the EU, so we will have to maintain relationships with the EU that are irrelevant to China or India.

Our physical closeness is neither here not there.

[Jack Knave]

Didn't you even bother to read the ballot paper JK.

Just to remind you, it was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Any settlement that means we are no longer a member of the EU is consistent with having left the EU.

Now you're just splitting hairs. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Official as in technically correct, as per the stance of UKIP. If you leave something then you exit it in all forms, you cease to have any membership associations with it. Everyone else who says otherwise is wrong regardless of who they are.

Does UKIP's parliamentary party agree with that view Jack or does HE have a different view ha ha.

UKIP crashed the car Jack.

[jeremyp]

So where is this set out? I hope you are not referring to the ballot paper wording.

There are twenty eight nations in the EU. Norway is not one of them. That''s the end of it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Now you're just splitting hairs. 

No I'm not - if we end up in the EEA like Norway we would have left the EU - the referendum mandate to leave would have been met.

That you don't like that outcome is, frankly, tough. The referendum didn't have your preferred option post-brexit on the ballot paper. Indeed it didn't have any post brexit option on the ballot paper, which is of course one of the major flaws in the process.

[Jack Knave]

No I'm not - if we end up in the EEA like Norway we would have left the EU - the referendum mandate to leave would have been met.

That you don't like that outcome is, frankly, tough. The referendum didn't have your preferred option post-brexit on the ballot paper. Indeed it didn't have any post brexit option on the ballot paper, which is of course one of the major flaws in the process.

But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here. That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.

[ProfessorDavey]

But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here. That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.

We have no idea 'what the people voted for' we only know what they voted against - being a member of the EU.

If we are hypothesising on reasons why people voted leave I would have thought that one of the major reason was believing the lie that there would be an extra £350m a week going into the NHS.

But there is another point - the result was very close, 52/48 so given that 48% voted for the status quo there is certainly no mandate for major change so surely the most appropriate way forward, taking account of the views of the electorate in the advisory referendum is to leave the EU but to do so in a manner that results in the most limited changes otherwise. In other words Norway style EEA.

[Udayana]

But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here. That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.

But, obviously, there was no guarantee that "freedom of movement" would be removed. The leave campaign were not in a position to be able to promise anything, were not even a single party that could be given a mandate.

That is why an election or 2nd referendum is needed - either before Article 50 is triggered or when a negotiated deal can be put forward.

[Jack Knave]

We have no idea 'what the people voted for' we only know what they voted against - being a member of the EU.

If we are hypothesising on reasons why people voted leave I would have thought that one of the major reason was believing the lie that there would be an extra £350m a week going into the NHS.

But there is another point - the result was very close, 52/48 so given that 48% voted for the status quo there is certainly no mandate for major change so surely the most appropriate way forward, taking account of the views of the electorate in the advisory referendum is to leave the EU but to do so in a manner that results in the most limited changes otherwise. In other words Norway style EEA.

My post stands. The leading argument to leave was the total control of immigration and so anything less than that is a betrayal of the result, and of the peoples' wishes.

[Jack Knave]

But, obviously, there was no guarantee that "freedom of movement" would be removed. The leave campaign were not in a position to be able to promise anything, were not even a single party that could be given a mandate.

That is why an election or 2nd referendum is needed - either before Article 50 is triggered or when a negotiated deal can be put forward.

That's just stupid - a second referendum? - on what?

Leave was voted for so Art 50 needs to be triggered regardless. And for it to be done after negotiations is just ridiculous. You think they are going to spend years doing this just for the possibility that it could be rejected and start it all over again.  . And how are the people going to know what is in the deal and make a judgement on it? How can those brainless fucks do that and who are they going to trust to tell them when politicians' veracity is rock bottom.

[ProfessorDavey]

My post stands. The leading argument to leave was the total control of immigration and so anything less than that is a betrayal of the result, and of the peoples' wishes.

No it wasn't - it was one of a whole range of arguments and we don't know exactly the reasons why people voted as they did.

However we do have some idea from polling - so Lord Ashcroft has done extensive polling on reasons why people voted as they did. And controlling migration wasn't the top reason amongst leave voters, indeed only 33% of leave voters said that was the major reason for them voting leave. So that's just 17% of the total electorate see controlling migration as the key issue deciding their vote in the referendum.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's just stupid - a second referendum? - on what?

No it isn't stupid - it is very sensible, and might even be necessary under the European Union Act of 2011.

The referendum would offer a choice between the agreed negotiated post brexit deal and, presumably, remaining in the EU.

So there would be an equivalent choice - people would be for what they are for, not what they are against.

So out of interest if there was a referendum offering that choice - i.e. Norway style EEA membership (meaning we leave the EU) vs remaining in the EU - how would you vote, or would you even vote given that it seems neither choice seems acceptable to you.

[jeremyp]

But some of the key points in the Leave campaign was on immigration, control and parliamentary sovereignty from EU laws and the points system to those coming here.

If you had been listening to what the Remainers said, you'd have known that this was the likely outcome of leaving the EU long before you placed your vote.

That is what the people voted for and that excludes anything that includes freedom of movement of people, which would rule out the EEA and other such associations.

You don't know that. All you know is that 52% of the people voted to leave the EU. If the ballot paper had said "leave the EU with no access to the single market" your side might have lost.

Anyway, there's no point you whining about it now. It's not as if you weren't told about the possibilities before the vote.

[Jack Knave]

No it isn't stupid - it is very sensible, and might even be necessary under the European Union Act of 2011.

The referendum would offer a choice between the agreed negotiated post brexit deal and, presumably, remaining in the EU.

So there would be an equivalent choice - people would be for what they are for, not what they are against.

So out of interest if there was a referendum offering that choice - i.e. Norway style EEA membership (meaning we leave the EU) vs remaining in the EU - how would you vote, or would you even vote given that it seems neither choice seems acceptable to you.

That's a con. The people have voted to leave and Art 50 should be triggered.

[jeremyp]

That's a con. The people have voted to leave and Art 50 should be triggered.

And I'm sure article 50 will be triggered by the next PM. But the doesn't rule out doing a Norway style deal.

You seem very surprised that a Norway style deal is still on the table, even though people were discussing it for months before the referendum. It's almost as if you didn't understand what you were actually voting for.

[Jack Knave]

If you had been listening to what the Remainers said, you'd have known that this was the likely outcome of leaving the EU long before you placed your vote.

You don't know that. All you know is that 52% of the people voted to leave the EU. If the ballot paper had said "leave the EU with no access to the single market" your side might have lost.

Anyway, there's no point you whining about it now. It's not as if you weren't told about the possibilities before the vote.

What are you whittling on about. Jeremy? You are talking as though I'm surprised by some outcome that I didn't foresee. You really have lost it.

[Jack Knave]

And I'm sure article 50 will be triggered by the next PM. But the doesn't rule out doing a Norway style deal.

You seem very surprised that a Norway style deal is still on the table, even though people were discussing it for months before the referendum. It's almost as if you didn't understand what you were actually voting for.

The stupid Remainers may have been talking about it but the true Leavers weren't, they were talking about full exit.