Sometimes an image...

[BillyStubbsTears]

Captures a period of political history.

Churchill stood over the smouldering ruins of Parliament after a Luftwaffe raid.

The poor little naked Vietnamese girl running from the napalm attack.

The mounted copper with the riot stick in the Miners' Strike.

Gordon Brown trying to keep a smile on his face and failing during the GFC.

I wonder if this will be the defining image of this period of Tory rule?

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1545507260708884486

[scawsby steve]

Captures a period of political history.

Churchill stood over the smouldering ruins of Parliament after a Luftwaffe raid.

The poor little naked Vietnamese girl running from the napalm attack.

The mounted copper with the riot stick in the Miners' Strike.

Gordon Brown trying to keep a smile on his face and failing during the GFC.

I wonder if this will be the defining image of this period of Tory rule?

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1545507260708884486

Yes, it does look bad, because she's physically doing to the British public what Remainers metaphorically did in 2016.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah I remember that. Asking the public to have a vote to confirm that an outcome that had never been put to the public, but had been decided by a few dozen Tory MPs, was what the public wanted.

How absolutely sticking it up the public that was!

[scawsby steve]

Yeah I remember that. Asking the public to have a vote to confirm that an outcome that had never been put to the public, but had been decided by a few dozen Tory MPs, was what the public wanted.

How absolutely sticking it up the public that was!

That came later, BST, and you know it. I'm talking about 2016, and the disgraceful reaction to the result by Remainers.

Don't forget, just one year later, Labour promised to honour the Ref result in their 2017 manifesto. Then reneged on that in 2019.

A completely muddled up approach all the way.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've literally no idea what you are talking about re:2016.

Re:2017-19, circumstances change. By mid 2019, a no deal Brexit was firmly on the table. That was by no argument what the 2016 vote had mandated. In those circumstances, every previous argument is unvalidated.

But tell me. Why does everything ALWAYS have to come back to Brexit?

You won. It's done. Move on.

[drfchound]

Arrrggghhhhh

[Filo]

I've literally no idea what you are talking about re:2016.

Re:2017-19, circumstances change. By mid 2019, a no deal Brexit was firmly on the table. That was by no argument what the 2016 vote had mandated. In those circumstances, every previous argument is unvalidated.

But tell me. Why does everything ALWAYS have to come back to Brexit?

You won. It's done. Move on.

And that is the problem, the only people talking about reversing Brexit are the winners

[drfchound]

I've literally no idea what you are talking about re:2016.

Re:2017-19, circumstances change. By mid 2019, a no deal Brexit was firmly on the table. That was by no argument what the 2016 vote had mandated. In those circumstances, every previous argument is unvalidated.

But tell me. Why does everything ALWAYS have to come back to Brexit?

You won. It's done. Move on.

And that is the problem, the only people talking about reversing Brexit are the winners

Not true Filo.
I have been talking about it and I voted to remain.
Syd is talking about it and , errrr, he didn’t vote.

[Branton Red]

Yeah I remember that. Asking the public to have a vote to confirm that an outcome that had never been put to the public, but had been decided by a few dozen Tory MPs, was what the public wanted.

How absolutely sticking it up the public that was!

Sheer hypocrisy.

Bearing in mind you can't end freedom of movement without leaving the Single Market where does this quote come from? "Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union"

a) The 2017 Conservative General Election Manifesto
b) The 2017 Labour General Election Manifesto
c) A press release from a few dozen Tory MPs after the 2017 General Election.

In answer to the question "Why does everything come back to Brexit?"

Truth and honesty is important in politics. We've just seen a Prime Minister brought down due to his untruthfulness and dishonesty.

The current Labour leader as Brexit Secretary acted with considerable dishonesty in his attempt to overturn the Brexit referendum result during the 2017-9 Parliament. A dishonesty oft repeated by Labour Remainers on here inc the above post.

The election will be decided in red wall seats. Can red wall Brexit voters, formerly Labour voters, feel they can trust Keir Starmer on Brexit or in general enough to switch back to voting Labour?

It is a key question which will decide the next General Election regardless as to who the Tories appoint as next PM.

(The answer to the question was b).

[ravenrover]

No it will be the Piglet raising a glass at the party during lockdown

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

You've got your Brexit. Johnson delivered it for you. Not the one that was on the ballot paper as you interpreted it, granted, but one that satisfied the Tory party, which was always the only important point.

Not every discussion has to vanish down this rabbit hole now. Move on.

[drfchound]

Branton.

You've got your Brexit. Johnson delivered it for you. Not the one that was on the ballot paper as you interpreted it, granted, but one that satisfied the Tory party, which was always the only important point.

Not every discussion has to vanish down this rabbit hole now. Move on.

I seem to recall that the ballot paper only had two options to vote on, Leave or Remain.

[Branton Red]

Branton.

You've got your Brexit. Johnson delivered it for you. Not the one that was on the ballot paper as you interpreted it, granted, but one that satisfied the Tory party, which was always the only important point.

Not every discussion has to vanish down this rabbit hole now. Move on.

These clear, obvious and much repeated lies, of which you are a major proponent on here, that deliberately ignore Objective Truth are both deeply divisive and a threat to our precious democracy.

I will therefore call them out at every opportunity given by you and your like. Whilst continuing to give clear, unambiguous evidence of said untruth in response.

Therefore in said spirit in response to your usual nonsense on this subject matter underlined above - hardly 'moving on' are you. It is not how I interpreted it but what the voting public were clearly told. From The Andrew Marr show: -

With leader of the Remain campaign David Cameron 12/6/16: Cameron "What the British public would be voting for, if we leave, would be to leave the EU and leave the Single Market"

De facto leader of the Leave campaign Boris Johnson 5/6/16: Marr "I had Michael Gove in that chair and I asked
after Brexit will we be in the Single Market yes or no. He said no". Johnson "And he was right". Marr "So we won't be in the EU Single Market?" Johnson "Absolutely".

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton

You STILL insisting that what is said before a vote ties the hands of politicians afterwards?

Explain to me how that opinion fits with the Objective Truth that the UK didn't leave the SM and CU and then perhaps we can move on.

If you're not going to explain that, then forgive me if I gnite your high flown rhetoric as only applying when you want it to apply.

[phil old leake]

Some of you need to get over yourselves.

The idea of a vote is that the winner wins

It’s not if the loser doesn’t like the outcome you keep on voting

Your like the SNP. 

There was a vote and a winner.  Agree with it or disagree with it.  Move on and let’s try to make it work. 

[drfchound]

Some of you need to get over yourselves.

The idea of a vote is that the winner wins

It’s not if the loser doesn’t like the outcome you keep on voting

Your like the SNP. 

There was a vote and a winner.  Agree with it or disagree with it.  Move on and let’s try to make it work.

Phil, you are going to get a bit of slavver from our friend down under for that post.
Also, don’t forget that democracy is ok in the eyes of bst as long as it is in his favour.

[Bentley Bullet]

It's to be hoped BST isn't as bad a loser as a Donny Rovers supporter as he is when a democratic vote goes against his wishes. God knows Rovers have been bad enough a-lately, results-wise, but if they ever lost as many times as he did he'd be forever running on the pitch trying to stop the game and demanding a rematch!

[Branton Red]

Branton

You STILL insisting that what is said before a vote ties the hands of politicians afterwards?

Explain to me how that opinion fits with the Objective Truth that the UK didn't leave the SM and CU and then perhaps we can move on.

If you're not going to explain that, then forgive me if I gnite your high flown rhetoric as only applying when you want it to apply.

I have never said the vote “tied the hands” of politicians – that is your terminology.

This is the Objective Truth you are denying: As I've proven with evidence (and you've been unable to disprove) the voting public were clearly told during the campaign that a leave vote meant leaving the SM. That means there was a clear mandate from the vote to do just that.

The fact that after the vote a decision was taken that NI remains in the SM does not alter what was clearly said to the electorate before the vote and therefore what the vote's mandate was.

I'm trying to discern a difference between Tories excusing Boris' continued dishonesty over the last few months/longer and your dishonesty in coming up with increasingly illogical excuses for Labour/Starmer's dishonesty during the 17-19 parliament. I cannot.

Your position on this is untruthful and hypocritical. Though probably not deliberately so. You are an example of the dingy cul-de-sac the mind goes down when taken over by an ideology and the ability to think for oneself is closed down.

Like I've said before you're a UK Europhile equivalent of a Donald Trump acolyte.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.
This is a weird exchange. You previously seemed determined that the fact that several politicians said before the vote that voting Leave would mean leaving the SM (while, by the way, ignoring those who explicitly or implicitly said the opposite) meant that it would have been an outrage against democracy if "we" hadn't have left the SM.

But now you seem infinitely relaxed about the fact that the sovereign entity named on the ballot paper didn't leave the SM.

Let's just clear this up.

Do you think it was acceptable that NI remained in the SM?

Simple yes or no will do. 

[phil old leake]

Hound I await the onslaught

[SydneyRover]

Some of you need to get over yourselves.

The idea of a vote is that the winner wins

It’s not if the loser doesn’t like the outcome you keep on voting

Your like the SNP. 

There was a vote and a winner.  Agree with it or disagree with it.  Move on and let’s try to make it work.

Steve, you have accepted the role of village peddant can you deal?

[SydneyRover]

Captures a period of political history.

Churchill stood over the smouldering ruins of Parliament after a Luftwaffe raid.

The poor little naked Vietnamese girl running from the napalm attack.

The mounted copper with the riot stick in the Miners' Strike.

Gordon Brown trying to keep a smile on his face and failing during the GFC.

I wonder if this will be the defining image of this period of Tory rule?

https://mobile.twitter.com/MarinaPurkiss/status/1545507260708884486

Yes, it does look bad, because she's physically doing to the British public what Remainers metaphorically did in 2016.

Brexit must have seemed like one of those 'too good to be true' internet scams where even though you had a bad feeling you went for it. Now you have to deal with it, lower gdp and three governments that have given you the finger. Suck it up Steve.

[IDM]

Some of you need to get over yourselves.

The idea of a vote is that the winner wins

It’s not if the loser doesn’t like the outcome you keep on voting

Your like the SNP. 

There was a vote and a winner.  Agree with it or disagree with it.  Move on and let’s try to make it work. 

The only issue now is highlighted by your very last point - making it work.

That’s what the parties need to demonstrate to the voters, how they will do that effectively.

Have the Tories managed that so far?

[SydneyRover]

Apparently Mark Acklom has offered to take up the role of Ethics Advisor to the tories to improve their standing with the public

[Branton Red]

Branton.
This is a weird exchange. You previously seemed determined that the fact that several politicians said before the vote that voting Leave would mean leaving the SM (while, by the way, ignoring those who explicitly or implicitly said the opposite)

Given the underlined I give in!

I've asked you to provide evidence of senior politicians during the Brexit campaign saying a leave vote wouldn't mean leaving the SM. You failed.

Despite this you continue with the argument above.

How very Trumpian

You have a serious problem with facts and truth on this issue.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

I said "implicitly or explicitly." For a very good reason. Much of political campaigning is about planting an idea in a voter's head without necessarily telling an untruth.

So let's start with the Vote Leave website. http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html


It says, in relation to where we will be after leaving "We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."

You'll know of course that Iceland is in the SM. That's the way this sort of messaging works - When specifically questioned, of course you'll say that we'll leave the SM. But that is only targetted at the political obsessives like you and me. And yes, that website does say further down that we would leave the SM. But that's hidden in a dense set of paragraphs about Jacques Delors and the Clinical Trials Directive that had an obsessive like me yawning before I was 10% through.  For the majority of the population, you play smoke and mirrors with comments like the above in the Summary - leave them to interpret it as they wish.

Then there's your insistence on the sanctity of what was said in the campaign itself, as if that holds some special moral and legal position, and we just dismiss everything said in the previous months.

So, given that Farage had spent two years saying that we could be like Norway (in the SM) were we supposed to dismiss that when the campaign officially started>

When Hannan had stared down the camera a year before the vote and said "Let's be clear. Absolutely  nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" and never retracted that, are we supposed to mindread what he actually thought? (Actually, if we do it would be interesting, because he said a year or two back that he honestly  didn't think we would leave the SM, and it had been a mistake to do so.)

Finally, I'm a pragmatist. At the end of the day, what matters is not some  legalistic discussion about what precisely was said by whom, when. What matters is the evidence of what people think.

6 months after the Brexit vote, this poll found only 35% saying that leaving the EU meant leaving the SM.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-leaving-the-eu-mean-that-the-uk-leaves-the-european-single-market-or-should-the-uk-remain-in-the-single-market-even-if-it-leaves-the-eu/

2 months after the vote, only just over 30% said that they'd oppose staying in the SM, even if it meant we had less control over immigration. https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/do-you-support-or-oppose-staying-in-the-single-market-after-brexit-even-if-it-means-we-cannot-reduce-immigration-from-the-eu/

1 months after the vote, 70% in this poll thought the most likely outcome would be us remaining in the SM.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/what-do-you-think-is-the-most-likely-outcome-of-the-uks-negotiation-with-the-eu-regarding-a-new-deal-on-the-eu-single-market/

And THAT is my point. 6 years on, you talk about us leaving the SM as though it were an inevitability. It wasn't. It was a political choice. And one that elicited very vigorous debate in the months immediately after the vote.