How right we were

Do you REALLY think that Jeremy Corbyn is disliked because people don’t like what he looks like? Have you been at the cooking sherry?

Lessor, he's not too bad as a clown

Labaik - Yes, Trump-ism has divided families, friends, communities, and parts of the country!! Here in the US, you're either from a "blue" state or a "red" state; we're extremely polarized. I'm not sure how this happened. Whitewavemark2, you mention you fear moderates will be replaced by hard right-wingers in the UK and I'm afraid it's already happened over here. I've actually been quite down about it as of late.

gmarie

What puzzles me, is how did we get to this?

In the U.K. we were toddling along, with one centre left government being replaced by a centre right periodically and whilst things were not perfect, especially for the poor, we seemed to be progressing towards a better society, with investment in our schools, NHS etc accepted as the norm and the aim of at the very least seeing society as one nation.

But then we had this ridiculous decision to hold an advisory referendum, (they can’t be anything else in a parliamentary democracy) which suddenly became written in stone having the affect of totally destroying the cohesion in our society and pitching the two sides into this prolonged sterile battle.

For 3 years now, the uks economy has faltered, no thought has been given to what needs doing or changing. All minds are concentrated on how best to destroy the adversaries argument and that is all.

The effect is that polarisation is getting more and more extreme, with the effects spilling out into society which is reflecting it by greater violence and hate language. The sort you would never have dreamed of 10 years ago.

I hope that history is being constantly referred to and that we avoid what happened in 1930s by refusing to accept the propaganda and hate so prevalent then and now.

He lied and lied and lied

Anna Turley MP
@annaturley
So no work has been going on to get a new deal. Since TM’s deal nothing has been done. What a colossal waste of time & what a mess. Strategy was entirely based on Boris getting into No10 & having an immediate general election & then no deal. Sorry but we’re not playing your games

Whitewave, you know as well as I and everyone else does, that whilst the referendum was legally advisory, the public were told, rightly or wrongly, that whatever they voted in the supposedly ‘once in a lifetime’ referendum would be implemented.
What exactly is so hard to understand about that? Some people may not like it, but why is it difficult to understand?

They were also told that we wouldn't leave until we had a deal. And there was no mention whatsoever about how, if we voted to leave, it would be implemented. This should have all been sorted out beforehand and then put to the people. It's all very well making a promise to people but not when you have no idea how to fulfil that promise.

maddyone why do you keep saying that the politician's promise usurps the law? The law is that the referendum was advisory. Why do you still believe a couple of politicians, looking for support? If David Cameron told you it was okay to drive at 60 mph in a 30 mph limit would you be trying to convince the court that you believed Cameron's word was superior to the law in that instance? Worse still would you tell a child that someone in authority can disregard the law.

I’m sorry Gracesgran, but I DON’T keep saying that a politician’s promise usurps the law. Where on earth have you got that from? Please do not misrepresent me!
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about when you say I ‘......still believe a couple of politicians looking for support.’
The driving analogy is pointless, the referendum was advisory, we all know that, BUT the public were told that the result would be implemented. That is the fact whether you like it or you don’t.

Labaik, you are right in saying that there should have been a plan for leaving, and the public should have understood in simple terms, what that plan was, however as my barrister son (who strangely enough deals in law somewhat more often than you or I do) as he says frequently, we are where we are. The country has to deal with what has happened and find a way through it. I’m not suggesting what way through might be, I’m simply stating facts.

In a car crash interview this morning with Andrew Marr, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that,-

The Prime Minister would never ask for an,extension to Article 50

and

The Prime Minister would not break the law.

Andrew Marr pointed out that a law was just about to be passed obliging him to ask, in certain circumstances for an extension and therefore these two statements were incompatable.

No answer

youtu.be/4XtpJVFldRc

I am astonished that some people seem to be okay with the idea of trashing the economy, causing people's deaths, impoverishing the worst off, removing protection of our rights, taking away our freedom of movement, giving people who are most affected and yet had no vote sleepless nights about the break-up of their families and now even attacking our democracy!! Are you bots or have you just been reading the Sun/Mail/Express/Telegraph for too long?

A question many of us ask graykat

In simple words maddyone. No one, saying anything, over-rules the law. The fact that someone said something does not over-rule the law and you are still, as in your last post, inferring that carried some weight. It didn't. Although you still seem to be saying it did. They lied. They often lie. Why do you think there word carried any weight at all?

graykat I totally agree.

Worse still is the continuing propogandising and lying. There really is no such thing as a no-deal. It's as meaningless as "Brexit". It is either a deal before leaving, when we have something to barter with or a deal after leaving when we don't. The week after we leave, without agreeing a deal, our politicians will have to sit down and start negotiations once again while the country is in some level of turmoil.

Yes Gracesgran, I do understand that, but what do you think should have happened? Are you saying that the government of the day should have said, yes, we see how you have voted, but we’re not going to do anything about it?
And what about the fact that Parliament then went on to vote to trigger Article 50, and to implement Brexit? I don’t know what you think should have happened?

Lies! Lies! Lies! They give me a headache and I can't keep up. Seriously, values really have been all turned upside down.

Maddyone is correct that people were promised that the result of the referendum should be implemented, but I'm not so sure that everybody realised that a referendum is only advisory.

The £350,000 a week was dismissed nonchalantly, despite the fact that people did believe it. The promise to implement the result come hell or high water could have been dismissed too.

I think the triggering of Article 50 changed the game plan. Once that had been done, it was "legal", but I'm expect your barrister son would know more.

maddyone Quote [ The referendum was advisory, we all know that, BUT the public were told that the result would be implemented ] End Quote.

maddyone, the electorate were also told that Britain would leave the European Union in an orderly manner, and that a leave agreement would be the easiest negotiations ever concluded.

Leaving with no deal fulfils neither of the above.

OK! In simple terms, my understanding is that the Withdrawal Agreement (the deal) is about Ireland, citizens' rights and the divorce "bill".

Detailed trade negotiations can't start until a WA has been agreed.

Therefore, if there is no WA, Ireland and citizens are left in limbo AND trade negotiations can't even start, so we're automatically on WTO terms, which in many cases will push up prices. That's without starting on all the hundreds of other agreements for services, etc.

We were warned, but it was dismissed as Project Fear.

Are you saying that the government of the day should have said, yes, we see how you have voted, but we’re not going to do anything about it?

When the government of the day saw the very close result they should have said that they needed to think about it and see how they were going to deal with it. They could have used it as a negotiating tool to go back to the EU for more concessions than DC had previously been able to achieve (though, I'll remind you that he did achieve some meaningful ones; no requirement to join the euro and no 'ever closer' political union among them). They could have formulated a plan which would have been more acceptable to both 'sides', such as gradual withdrawal by rejoining EFTA.

And once they realised (which they did, as admitted in court by May's Counsel) that fraud and illegality had been involved on the Leave side of the campaign they could have declared the result void; set about formulating controls to ensure a 'clean' campaign and rerun the referendum (as happens in countries where referendums are commonly used as part of the political process) to confirm that there was a real 'will' to leave the EU.

What they shouldn't have done is precisely what May did.

Isn't it strange that Tony Blair literally got away with mass murder, conning and conniving to justify an illegal war with the help of a crooked attorney general, yet the H of C hardly raised a murmur. The inquiry into that war took 5 years to see the light of day! and guess what, no action was deemed necessary! People years later are still suffering with ruined lives, a country now lies in complete ruins, a young woman languishes stateless, her babies dead her life in ruins, just to scratch the surface, but no matter, it was all justified, covered up and TB has flourished! (OH and don't forget Dr Kelly!)
Now Boris, is trying to deliver what people voted for in a referendum and is being threatened with prison! I would have said that death and destruction is a bigger crime! but I'm clearly wrong!!

I feel that those who keep saying "but we were told" probably believe in common-law marriage too. If you don't have a legal and binding agreement, you don't have an agreement.

Whose son has joined GN by the way. I missed that.

You could try "in my opinion", Jabberwok. No such thing has ever been taken to court let alone proved to be true and we wouldn't want GN up on a libel charge.

Well said, Maizie. It would have been a loss of face for Cameron (who resigned anyway), but that's exactly what he should have done.

Tony Blair might have got away with mass murder, but the Labour Party hasn't. It was responsible for rise of anti-Blairites and a more left wing Labour Party, which is why the Labour Party is split and weak.