Bye bye Theresa

[dinny_g]

It was tongue in cheek GG - I'm aware from conversations I've had with many Remain voters that they have no clue what they voted for...

[GG.]

I know - I was just spouting off (as per) in annoyance at that viewpoint .

[DeskJockey]

I'm not saying anything like that. Improving is always possible, I've not said anything about how. Interesting that you'll not even consider the point, but automatically assume that I'm talking about whatever is in May's deal.

[PaulJ]

[/quote]

This. Status quo defined as "not leaving".
[/quote]

They must have left as I definitely recall them Rocking all over the world.

[GG.]

I'm not saying anything like that. Improving is always possible, I've not said anything about how. Interesting that you'll not even consider the point, but automatically assume that I'm talking about whatever is in May's deal.

Where have I assumed you were talking about May's deal (as opposed to saying that presumably it would be your reformed European utopia versus May's deal in a referendum (or no deal))?

I have considered your point but (without wanting to be too harsh) there's not an awful lot to consider given its vagueness. I can't see that you've suggested any mechanism to try and deliver what the British people are asking for given the current structure of the EU. Improving things is manifestly not always possible if your ambition with regard to "improvement" is improving things in the British interest when that is opposed to the interests of other member states.

If it is improvement from the perspective of thowing ourselves headlong into the 'projet européen' against the wishes of the UK in the hope it would win you influence over the direction of that integration and maybe how many batallions you have to provide towards a European army and whether the speed limiter system is set at 75 or 80km/h, then as I said, you'd get absolutely panned if you put that the people and were honest about your intentions.

[ZedLeg]

I can't see that you've suggested any mechanism to try and deliver what the British people are asking for given the current structure of the EU.

What are the British people asking for? I don't think most people have a clue about what the EU actually do, let alone what they want them to do.

[GG.]

I understand that criticism of euroscepticism but the approach DJ is seemingly in favour of is us more "actively" participating in the EU which if it has any validity (i.e. rejecting the idea that we try the same tack but with more "serious" MEPs) must mean we behave more like France or Germany with relation to EU ideals.

Despite the criticism of people in the UK being unclear in what precisely they want, it is pretty clear on the other hand that they do not want further integration. That's precisely the opposite of what they want. Even on the remain side, I think it is pretty clear that's not what is being advocated.

The graph on this page is helpful in putting that into perspective, if not a direct poll but rather a relatively subjective one canvassing the opinions of experts (cough). Suprise surprise look who is bottom:

https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_ ... _core_four

[JLv3.0]

Can we rush Brexit through so GG shuts up for one second? God alive.

[GG.]

I'm basically in 'work jet-lag' with US clients that wake up mid afternoon so I'm scheduled to pipe down shortly anyway

I should really just come into work in the afternoons given i'm effective working 3-12

[Jobbo]

a confirmatory referendum on the deal is not likely to get past parliament (indeed it has already been voted against in indicative votes).

Everything has been voted against in indicative votes, hence my post earlier that there is no mandate for anything => revoke Art.50 being the only option.

[GG.]

So has revocation!!

Are you just advocating executive fiat in revoking if parliament doesn't approve it?

This is where Gina Miller massively shot herself in the foot.

[Richard]

Here comes 2000 words from GG

I think I underestimated

Why write so much? It just gets ignored and skipped over.

Try being a little more succinct

[GG.]

I can't help you if you have a short attention span. Why not just not read it and not keep whining that you can't be bothered to read it, you know.

There's nothing more of a waste of space than just posting the same whinge again and again and again.

[Rich B]

I can't help you if you have a short attention span. Why not just not read it and not keep whining that you can't be bothered to read it, you know.

There's nothing more of a waste of space than just posting the same whinge again and again and again.

I’d definitely question you on those figures.

[Jobbo]

So has revocation!!

Are you just advocating executive fiat in revoking if parliament doesn't approve it?

This is where Gina Miller massively shot herself in the foot.

No, I was pointing out the flaw in your argument.

But take a step back; they were indicative votes, not binding, and therefore they have done what was intended; they have ruled out the sillier options (Marcus Fysh's for instance) so the actual course of action is being narrowed down.

[GG.]

I said ‘waste’ not ‘use’ of space

[ste]

If you needed to buy Euros for Monday, would you do it today, or wait until after tomorrow?

[JLv3.0]

I can't help you if you have a short attention span. Why not just not read it and not keep whining that you can't be bothered to read it, you know.

There's nothing more of a waste of space than just posting the same whinge again and again and again.

Nope - sorry - it's not as easy as that. Your ramblings never seem to have a conclusion - it's nothing to do with a short attention span- they're just legalistic masturbation. If you want to hide behind the "short attention span" to justify them, that's up to you, but it's inaccurate.

[Swervin_Mervin]

a confirmatory referendum on the deal is not likely to get past parliament (indeed it has already been voted against in indicative votes).

Everything has been voted against in indicative votes, hence my post earlier that there is no mandate for anything => revoke Art.50 being the only option.

Those indicative votes were bloody pointless last night. As soon as May sold her Deal in exchange for a leadership contest, the indicative votes were nullified. Too many abstentions.

Is there any sign yet of if/when MV3 will happen? It has to happen before the next round of indicative votes imo, although it's clearly in her interests to not do so.

[Jobbo]

My initial reaction was that the indicative votes were pointless, too; but I have come to realise that they weren't because at least they give some direction and rule out some options. Knock out those which had a majority against, for instance, and move forward.