Why Do They Keep Saying "no Deal Legislation"?

[ToraToraTora]

It's a bill to compell the government to ask for an extension. No deal is not even mentioned in it.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Only Jim being the second bit citizen-wise.

[naomi24]

Will Oceania do?

[jim360]

I have never said that, I will never say that, and I will never think that, v-e. I'll thank you to withdraw that outrageous libel.

There's plenty of evidence, both here and elsewhere, to suggest that a fair number of people who voted to Leave didn't care how. I well remember MurrayMints's cries of "OOT OOT OOT" throughout the extensive discussion on this subject, and it's clear that she isn't the only one to think like that here. Fair enough. My point is that there is no evidence to suggest that the 17.4 million people who voted Leave were in full agreement on this point, and plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. Polls persistently put the question of whether Leave voters want No Deal, or whether they would accept No Deal, and -- with a little variation, it is true -- it tends to be the case that no more than half "want" no deal, and no more than half of the rest would accept it. So that leaves about a quarter of Leave voters who are not yet prepared to accept, let alone embrace, No Deal as a resolution to this.

We can find specific examples, too. Michael Gove was one of the architects of the Leave campaign, and is on record as stating, repeatedly -- under, of course, his career depended on denying it -- that:

// we didn't vote to leave without a Deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.
Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment. // (Gove, writing in the Daily Mail in March this year).

Or there is this, from the Green Party Member of the Lords, Baroness Jones, only today:

"As I have said previously here, I voted leave; I did not vote for no deal." (in today's debate in the Lords about five hours ago)

I do not dispute the notion that, for some, and perhaps more even that I'd care to admit, leaving with No Deal was either the deliberate aim of their vote or, as jourdain puts it, something that they were prepared for. I *do* dispute the notion that this was the only position of people who voted for Brexit. But I only dispute that because it's demonstrably false.

This isn't anything to do with "wonky words". People on here who claim to know what they wanted, and claim that No Deal was a part of that, I have no reason to doubt, and I will *never* sink so low as to think that you are stupid. What I take issue with is the simply false premise that this is how everybody who voted that way felt.

[naomi24]

Jim, Two simple ... repeat simple .... choices. Leave or Remain. You know the rest.... and so do we.

[jim360]

Also, I don't even know what v-e meant by his second outrageous attack on the last page, but, as a matter of fact: perhaps I have a different idea from v-e, and others, of what it means, but I consider myself British. And European. And a citizen of the world. And I don't see why there should be any reason these three positions are in conflict with each other.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Jim, I remember you're being asked about moral and political attachments, and your disappointing reply having been "I think of myself as citizen of the world, secondly as a citizen of Europe, and thirdly as citizen of the UK."

Have I misremembered that, Jim? I do not knowingly lie.

[jim360]

The devil, as they say, lies in the detail, Naomi. I don't dispute the wording of the referendum, but I won't use that as an excuse to stop caring about the detail. If a way to leave the EU can be found that honours the result of the referendum, respects the narrowness of the margin, and resolves this crisis in a way that threatens neither the country's economy, nor its democratic traditions, then I will embrace it.

But, for now. All the evidence points to No Deal threatening the economy, and to the way in which some are trying to force that through appear to threaten the democracy. And the way in which some Remain supporters are pushing back is marking a similar threat to democracy. There is nothing dignified about the present situation in particular, where a minority government is effectively hostage to a majority opposition.

[jim360]

Perhaps you are referring to this post from three years ago?

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1500759.html#answer-10459192

If that's the case, then you'll also note that it was not even a fortnight after the result and I was still hurting. And, even apart from that, it was three years ago and I'm now three years older.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I remember your views on Sir Tim Hunt, Jim.

Also your views on another bloke in his seventies (not a laureate) who was persecuted for a year by the legal system because, when asked to remove his shoes at an airport, he said "Why, do I look like a Muslim?". This was a joke. "Do I look like a Methodist?" would not have been a joke.

You approved the persecution of both these men, didn't you?

[10ClarionSt]

My perception of the referendum result was that the majority voted to leave. I don't recall any mention of a deal before the vote. It was for "leave", i.e. we walk away. I think most people who voted for "leave" had that perception too.

[vetuste_ennemi]

The Nobel Laureate Tim Hunt with his scientist wife have left England after their ritual humiliation by the Jims and are now living in Japan.

The 72 year old guy, who was hounded by the Peter Pedants for a year because his joke was possibly a "hate cri,I suppose is still living in Essex or wherever and hasn't been banged up. But he suffered a year of hassle because the fascist mobs and their child soldiers are out to get you.

[jim360]

With regards to Tim Hunt, I did. I have subsequently regretted doing so, and expressed that regret. I'm not instantly aware of the second case you mention. It is, though, a shame that you don't remember me having already retracted my earlier position on Tim Hunt, because this is definitely not the first time you've brought it up, and definitely not the first time I've replied.

But are you seriously proposing to go over all seven-plus years of my posts and clarify whether I still endorse them? If so, let me save you the bother: There is nothing I have posted that did not represent my honest position at the time I was writing. If I have since contradicted, either explicitly or implicitly, any of my previous positions, then it will be because my views have been modified in the light of new (new to me, at least) information, or because I reflected on what I previously thought and changed my mind.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Remember your retraction, Jim.

But can't forget the Stalinist/Maoist malice. Where did that come from here in England from a bright and well-educated guy?

[jim360]

I don't agree that it was remotely Stalinist, but whatever-it-was came from a knee-jerk reaction that I regret. I've tried to be more measured since, and make sure that I look a little deeper into things before I get involved in any rage-gasm.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I think (as far as far as we can infer these things on social media) you are not only a bright, but also a decent man, Jim.

The traditional old fogey view was that political disagreement was an intellectual (for want of a better adjective) debate about how best to achieve ends we broadly agree about, and that you can't (or shouldn't) infer bad motives of the guys who think they've got better ways to conduce to those ends.

[jim360]

How kind of you to say so. Makes a change from being accused of having no integrity, of trying to take everyone on this site for fools, twisting words, etc etc.

Although that does make me wonder what the heck motivated your earlier comments.

[Gromit]

VE
// Why would anybody with self-respect want to be subject to an organisation which insists on so many "musts"? //

Benn-Burt wrote the motion, not the EU. The EU are not insisting on so many ‘musts’ it is our own law. It is legalese, if this happens, that must happen.

[ichkeria]

Where one wonders is the PM going to conjure a deal from at the summit? Any deal would need to finalised before this. By preventing him calling an election for now, parliament is merely helping him focus on this aim :-)

[naomi24]

Jim, //it was three years ago and I'm now three years older….There is nothing I have posted that did not represent my honest position at the time I was writing. If I have since contradicted, either explicitly or implicitly, any of my previous positions, then it will be because my views have been modified in the light of new (new to me, at least) information, or because I reflected on what I previously thought and changed my mind.//

How long do you think it will be before you are old enough to understand the principle and the value of democracy?

[Old_Geezer]

I still say that even if there are many examples of folk claiming they didn't vote to leave without a deal, they still decided on the basis of balancing up the pros and cons that they would vote to leave knowing that not getting an acceptable deal was a possibility. So their protestations now are not relevant.

What's their next move: watching A50 get slung then claiming they didn't ask to stay in the EU ? They need to buck up and stick up for what they knew was right, not try to wriggle out of having made the correct voting decision because of flak from those opposed.