Another Waste Of Time....

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics
Can we just get out with no deal now?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//spending more than its £7m limit on that campaign//

...without which overspend the result would have been different?

Whatever happened to basic honesty, Ellipsis?

[-Talbot-]

jim360
Any deal that sees us outside the EU, legally at least, satisfies the question on the 2016 referendum.


Pathetic.

[mushroom25]

since ken Clarke's customs union was the least-losey option from last night, and (alleged) PM (designate) Corbyn has thrown his weight behind it, it may be what we end up being lumbered with. so it calls for the negotiation of a customs union - but would that be before Brexit, or to be negotiated after? if before, are the EU really going to U-turn and negotiate with the government?

[naomi24]

Ellipses, The Leave campaign was restricted to spending £7m as I presume, in fairness, was the Remain campaign. So … where does the £9.3m cost of the government’s pro-Remain leaflet figure in the Remain budget?

//no dealers bleat that they're not getting their way. Well guess what ... nobody is getting their way.//

Why should Remainers get their way? They lost.

From v_e, //Whatever happened to basic honesty, Ellipsis?//

Basic honesty? Wot dat den?

[Kromovaracun]

I think that leaflet was (rightly or wrongly) sent out prior to the period when spending restrictions applied (and by the government rather than by Remain). Or at least I remember reading as such in Tim Shipman's 'All Out War.' Because everyone knew the referendum date far in advance they had an officially-designated campaign period quite far in advance.

Usually of course that isn't possible because the campaign period starts whenever an election is called - but once again the UK does not have the legal infrastructure to run referenda properly, they are alien to how our political system is supposed to work.

The point is - that leaflet was legal, rightly or wrongly. Both of the major Leave campaigns (for remember there were two) seem to have broken electoral law.

[Kromovaracun]

Also not all Leavers are no-dealers. Not by a long shot. The official Leave campaign to all intents and purposes promised a deal - in fact they even said we didn't necessarily have to trigger A50 after the vote. The 2016 referendum wasn't a vote between Remain and no-deal, it was a vote between Remain and Leave in all in its many forms.

[naomi24]

Krom, //I think that leaflet was (rightly or wrongly) sent out prior to the period when spending restrictions applied (and by the government rather than by Remain).//

That’s handy. Handier still that the government encouraged the electorate to vote ‘Remain’.

//The 2016 referendum wasn't a vote between Remain and no-deal, it was a vote between Remain and Leave in all in its many forms. //

You keep telling yourself that, Krom. Any deal Leavers expected didn’t relate to remaining tied to the EU and its regulations.

[Old_Geezer]

"So, we have the situation that the vote was either advisory or it should be re-run because it was not advisory."

Not so. Legally if may have been advisory but the pledge to enact the result made that unimportant. One doesn't spent public money on a referendum that the House has promise to enact the result of just to ignore it. So having a valid result, there isn't any reason to rerun it (unless one us trying to overturn an undesired result in the cynical and disrespectful way the EU acts. And getting away from that is one reason we wish to leave.)

"with their referendum-respecting Remain majority"

We have to assume that's sarcasm as it's certainly contradicting itself.

[Kromovaracun]

Vote Leave promised a deal, naomi.

[ichkeria]

Interestingly, the latest poll shows roughly 35% of the public support a No Deal Brexit.
If you look at the numbers of Tory MPs who have signed up to this and add on a few cabinet ministers for luck, you could say that roughly 30% of Parliament do also.
So actually in respect of No Deal parliament is probably not that far off public opinion.

[youngmafbog]

And a deal could have been had if remoaners hadn't stuck their oar in.

All that had to be done was declare leave no deal and sit back to wait for the phone to ring. Simple negotiating tactics that remoansers dont seem to understand.

[ToraToraTora]

yeah a deal, perhaps kromo but we didn't want to be tub guffed on prime time. May's deal is so bad it's better to stay in.

[youngmafbog]

Although for me I have never been one for a deal anyway, I dont think any deal would have been much use, at least to start with.

[New Judge]

"The 2016 referendum wasn't a vote between Remain and no-deal, it was a vote between Remain and Leave in all in its many forms."

But it was made quite clear - by both sides - that leaving would mean no longer being a member of the single market or the customs union and no longer being subject to the ECJ. Anything that involves any of those is not leaving other than in name.

[naomi24]

Krom, //Vote Leave promised a deal, naomi. //

It didn't promise a deal that kept this country tied to the EU and its regulations. Leave meant Leave with no ifs and buts. Remember?

[Kromovaracun]

They clearly were not promising no-deal as an outcome, though. So it's not terribly convincing to use the 2016 result as a way to legitimise no-deal.

[naomi24]

Krom, why do you and the rest of the avid Remainers speak to Leavers as though you know what was going on and they didn’t? We heard the same as you – but unlike you, we haven’t conveniently forgotten.

[Kromovaracun]

"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"

"Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave."

"We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests"

None of these are consistent with no-deal. It is not what Vote Leave was promising in 2016, so their victory can't be easily interpreted as an endorsement of no-deal 3 years later.

You were sold a turkey.

[naomi24]

Krom, where in any of that does it say we would remain tied to EU regulations?

[Kromovaracun]

//Krom, why do you and the rest of the avid Remainers speak to Leavers as though you know what was going on and they didn’t?//

I'm not, I'm just disagreeing with you. I don't think the 2016 result provides an obvious mandate for a no-deal outcome considering that the victorious campaign made promises that were incompatible with it.