“Is the ACTUAL leaving dependant on remoaners agreeing a white paper? That is the bit I am confused about”
The ridiculous argument that Remainers are now putting forward is this: The electorate voted to leave but they did not vote on what our relationship with the remainder of the EU should look like after we have left (which is perfectly true). They are now suggesting that a second referendum be held to get the electorate to agree to the terms of our departure. What I have asked (on here and in the pub) is what happens if the second referendum rejects the terms of the “deal”? Do we not leave? Further, if the deal is rejected, how do politicians know why it has been rejected? Was it because it wasn’t good enough for the UK? Or was it because it was too good for the EU (and left us involved in some of the very institutions the electorate decided they no longer wanted any part of)?
Utter nonsense. The referendum was unconditional. The terms of the deal are immaterial to our leaving and if no satisfactory deal is struck we simply leave and adopt the position of every other normal country outside the EU.
I'm afraid the Remainers are being increasingly exposed as a bunch of very sore losers. Having lost the argument to remain they are now suggesting that in the wishes of the electorate can only be fulfilled if certain conditions are secured. They have not said what might occur in the very likely event that their wish lists are not achieved. The EU is scarcely likely to allow the UK to keep the bits of membership it likes and ditch those it does not and whilst I rarely ever agree with anything coming out of the EU, for once I would agree with them. But this is what the moaning Remainers are suggesting. Since they have suggested nothing else, I can only imagine they see the UK remaining should their dreams not come true. This is making them look ever more foolish.