Topic: Show Me The Mané's Tedious Circular Argument Topic

[SP]

To take one example, "Frottage said we could have a Norway option" doesn't invalidate the result of the referendum because we COULD have had a Norway option - it's just that the PM decided to go a different route. The reverse could have been claimed by the "Hard Brexiteers" if she had opted for the Norway option instead.

It was known before the vote that the subsequent political course would be steered by politicians - that is the inescapable fact since there was only the option of Leave/Remain on the ballot paper.

I would be happy to concede to anyone who can demonstrate  - factually - that the result of the referendum should be disregarded but arguments that the people were too stupid / ill informed / unwise to know what they were voting for are not sufficient grounds as, arguably, that has been the case in every vote in history.

The argument is not that the results of the referendum should be disregarded. The referendum result started the current political process. The argument is that the destinations that are possible having started on this route are so varied that the people should be consulted. The Government, with a completely different cabinet and leader, were elected on a manifesto of remain. There is no mandate for their choice of a hard Brexit. Whilst you can argue that they could be punished at the polls, it is all too late. The government are recklessly careering towards a WTO conditions cliff edge, and they have no mandate for doing that. For major constitutional changes, a mandate is required. They lack even a general election mandate, which given the nature of the changes would be unsatisfactory. The are pursuing an irrevocable course without a mandate.

David Cameron fucked up the referendum question. A referendum only really works if the choice is between 2 clearly defined options, with the appropriate course of action for each defined. Cameron deliberately did not define the Leave result, to present it as untenable. The incompetence of the Tory party is no excuse to allow the Tory party to unilaterally reshape the country, improvising as they go.

The results of the referendum are not being discarded. But the referendum was flawed. The decisions of EEA membership and the like are so important that the people should be consulted. The referendum result is no longer justification for anything. It started the current process. That is all that it has said.

I would like a fully costed plan, with all the implications spelled out presented to the country before it is committed to. The country were sold a pup being told that we could have unrestricted access to the single market and control freedom of movement. Let BJ negotiate with Brussels and sort out his plan. But if it is shit, as it inevitably will be, the people should be able to say that it is shit and not what they were promised and reject it. If BJ delivers all that was promised, it should pass any public scrutiny easily, and not be an issue.

If you want to restore sovereignty to the British people, why not trust them?

[classycarra]

Yes it was the point.

But you cant keep having referendums for exactly what type of Brexit / Remain we should have in perpetuity which is why a second referendum was ruled out BEFORE the vote took place.

In fact, you could argue that had people known there was going to be a second referendum on the terms, the margin of the Leave victory would have been much bigger as it would have represented less of a risk (this is precisely why a second referendum was ruled out).

The rules were in place before the vote - we cant change them afterwards because we didn't like the result .

Either this is a lie, or an accidental falsehood. Either way it's not one of your claimed 'facts'.

The leader of Vote Leave himself stated that there was a big chance if Leave won that a second referendum may be required to vote on the options presented.

As for your repeated whinging that people aren't opposing your 'facts' or arguments, I would suggest you look up intransigence. And then ask yourself if you think it's a virtue in discussions, or if perhaps it's one of the causes of your perpetually circular and tedious arguments

[Conocinico]

But if it is shit, as it inevitably will be, the people should be able to say that it is shit and not what they were promised and reject it.

If it's inevitable, how would a mandate to leave ever be given?

[oldfordie]

How would you propose that future elections are never again tainted by lies from either side?

Interesting topic but not relevant to the Brexit argument. governments react to the economy.
Corbyn may want to genuinly make great change, he will campaign for this, Brexit will stop him making this great change for the good, would he be lying for not carrying out his manifesto promises.?
Your mixing up 2 different arguments. GE and referendum. when you say May could call a GE on this Brexit issue and all indications are she would win a massive majority you must know Corbyns labour would have been a big factor in this happening. 

[SP]

If it's inevitable, how would a mandate to leave ever be given?

The government could win if they persuade the people of the merits of their leave package. The inevitably shit bit was me editorialising. But if the deal is shit, it should be rejected by the people, because a referendum result starting the process does not rubber stamp the shit end point that Teresa May is personally responsible for. If a deal is not good enough to pass a referendum, then there is no way that it should be enacted. A second referendum would not be a rerun of the first, it would be vote on the specific deal.

[Conocinico]

The government could win if they persuade the people of the merits of their leave package. The inevitably shit bit was me editorialising. But if the deal is shit, it should be rejected by the people, because a referendum result starting the process does not rubber stamp the shit end point that Teresa May is personally responsible for. If a deal is not good enough to pass a referendum, then there is no way that it should be enacted. A second referendum would not be a rerun of the first, it would be vote on the specific deal.

What incentive then would the EU have to compromise on a single detail?

[SP]

What incentive then would the EU have to compromise on a single detail?

What incentive do they have any way?

[Conocinico]

What incentive do they have any way?

Well we're leaving.

[classycarra]

Well we're leaving.

Haha that was a great microcosm of a failed Leave argument

[Zeb]

Its about as different an alternative as we are realistically going to get.

Does help to not base yourself in alternative reality when discussing it, otherwise people start wondering whether you'd keel over in horror at the 'centrist' economist, who wrote a substantial piece of academic work praising Brown's (and Darling's) management of the economy and response to the economic crash, playing a big role in shaping Corbyn's economic proposals and which are in turn based upon those Balls made. Corbyn and McDonnell consulting the people they did is something I've praised on here in the past btw. So if you're going to try and divvy up the Labour party between 'leftists' and 'centrists' on economics, let's not pretend you've a strong track record of getting things right for us to trust your judgement. From your quaintly Kipper view of the Five Presidents' Report to the idea that Corbyn is going to present "something that the “centrists” who have a similar economic policy to the Tories would not be able to do", I'm not seeing much support for you to be trying to take the piss on here.

[Conocinico]

Haha that was a great microcosm of a failed Leave argument

We would never leave if your idea was implemented is the point.

[Danny Boys Dad]

We would never leave if your idea was implemented is the point.

Cool

[oldfordie]

What incentive then would the EU have to compromise on a single detail?

They have no incentive to compromise as we all know the 2 main sticking points, FOM +the right to negotiate our own deals around the world, many of us knew this before the vote but the leave campaign won over millions arguing the EU need us more than we need them so they will give us this great deal, this is why the senior Tory leave campaigners have to be held accountable.
We know they wont get a great deal but they promised they would, they have been let off the hook by the Labour party, they should be telling the Torys to deliver the Brexit their senior ministers promised.
Tarrif free access to the single market.no excuses. get out their and deliver or come back and tell us you failed and we can let the nation decide our next step. this may well be a hard Brexit so it's no bluff.

[classycarra]

We would never leave if your idea was implemented is the point.

SP made it clear to you how we could leave. Our Government's job is to act in the best interests of the country it represents. If the argument to leave is not clearly in our best interests then, yes, hopefully we would never leave.

[Danny Boys Dad]

SP made it clear to you how we could leave. Our Government's job is to act in the best interests of the country it represents. If the argument to leave is not clearly in our best interests then, yes, hopefully we would never leave.

Getting excited now

[Show Me The Exit]

OK thanks for taking the time to formulate a comprehensive reply.

I agree that the starting point should be the referendum result – which was to leave the EU.
I would separate your line of argument into three main positions, the first that:

“The Government, with a completely different cabinet and leader, were elected on a manifesto of remain.”

True – however they were also elected with a manifesto to stage a referendum and there is no compunction to hold another election even if they failed to meet a contradictory manifesto promise – especially under the Fixed Term Parliament Act. If they WERE to stage a General Election tomorrow I think we all agree that Theresa May would be returned with a larger majority than she has now and would therefore be given a mandate for a Hard Brexit so – while you may rightly feel this way – I would say that this point holds relatively little water. Secondly:

“David Cameron fucked up the referendum question”
“.. the destinations that are possible having started on this route are so varied [..the decisions of EEA membership and the like are so important ..] that the people should be consulted.”

This is more persuasive however it has to be categorised as a political rather than a legal question. I agree with you that the referendum question was “fucked up” – simply put, David Cameron did not do his homework and I’m astonished that he did not specify a supermajority qualifying vote. But nevertheless, having taken the vote we are now where we are – which is to trust Parliamentary democracy to be accountable to the people ( I understand that you feel this is inadequate as it will “be too late” the next time politicians are held to account).

The problem with being a political issue is that it needs a political solution – and right now I do not feel that there is sufficient appetite or political will in the country to follow this course. If there is then Owen Smith, the Lib Dems and the like will profit from it however that would invalidate the original referendum since it was made clear before the vote that NO second referendum would take place otherwise the margin of “Leave” would have been likely to have been much greater as the electorate would regard it as a less-risky option to take. In addition, there would be no incentive for the EU to offer us a good deal in negotiations knowing that, by offering a crap deal, or even nothing at all, we would then vote to stay in the EU in a second referendum.

So while it may feel that that would be the right or the best course of action the political reality is that nobody expected a second referendum to take place on hard brexit, soft brexit, hard remain, soft remain or anything else at the time they were voting and they voted to leave the EU (and put those decisions in the hands of the politicians) regardless.

Might this situation change in the future as the public realise they are unhappy with the deal? Possibly, but right now that does not appear to be the case (as seen in the Tory opinion polls). Finally:

For major constitutional changes, a mandate is required.
..If you want to restore sovereignty to the British people, why not trust them?
 

There was no referendum mandate with the constitutional changes made with the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties (for example) as a parliamentary mandate was implied. The same applies here as Parliament is sovereign (with all its strengths and weaknesses including being “too late” with its accountability).

Therefore I think that the gist of your argument centres not around what is legal but what you regard as just and politically expedient. And that can only be decided by political judgement, in which, of course, you would differ from a Tory Prime Minister.

Currently, Theresa May would (presumably) say that there is a mandate for her actions given the opinion poll ratings and the fact that the British people decided to leave the EU knowing full well there would be no second referendum, that all the official channels said we would leave the Single Market and that that the main driving factor motivating them (immigration controls) are incompatible with membership of (but not access to) the market.

If you are correct then either she will be punished badly at the polls or there will be a uprising against Parliament – currently however there is little sign of either.

So, although you have put forward your strongly-held conviction, this does not “debunk” my original claim that a mandate exists for the present course of action and that a second referendum is not necessary for the PM in legal, political or moral terms.

[Conocinico]

They have no incentive to compromise as we all know the 2 main sticking points, FOM +the right to negotiate our own deals around the world, many of us knew this before the vote but the leave campaign won over millions arguing the EU need us more than we need them so they will give us this great deal, this is why the senior Tory leave campaigners have to be held accountable.
We know they wont get a great deal but they promised they would, they have been let off the hook by the Labour party, they should be telling the Torys to deliver the Brexit their senior ministers promised.
Tarrif free access to the single market.no excuses. get out their and deliver or come back and tell us you failed and we can let the nation decide our next step. this may well be a hard Brexit so it's no bluff.

SP made it clear to you how we could leave. Our Government's job is to act in the best interests of the country it represents. If the argument to leave is not clearly in our best interests then, yes, hopefully we would never leave.

If the EU know that we are leaving then we will be given the best deal we can get. If they know we are going to vote again, we won't, instead we'll be given the worst.

[Show Me The Exit]

Haha that was a great microcosm of a failed Leave argument

Ah, my friend, you have once again blundered into a debate that you seem to have little grasp over ( in the four threads I have interacted with you anyway).

Let me give you some advice - steer clear of this chap you have replied to - unlike me, he has the discipline to condense his answers into short form which should make you instantly wary.

I feel like you would be bringing a knife to an intellectual gun-fight and the results won't be pretty. i myself am much more gentle 

[classycarra]

If the EU know that we are leaving then we will be given the best deal we can get. If they know we are going to vote again, we won't, instead we'll be given the worst.

I'm sorry to be direct, but that is totally illogical.

The EU's intentions, to act in their best interests, are not influenced by whether we vote again (or not).

[SP]

True – however they were also elected with a manifesto to stage a referendum and there is no compunction to hold another election even if they failed to meet a contradictory manifesto promise – especially under the Fixed Term Parliament Act. If they WERE to stage a General Election tomorrow I think we all agree that Theresa May would be returned with a larger majority than she has now and would therefore be given a mandate for a Hard Brexit so – while you may rightly feel this way – I would say that this point holds relatively little water.

Bollocks. Saying she could get a mandate is not the same as actually getting one. The only way for the Tories to get a mandate is to actually seek one. Whilst I would loathe Corbyn sabotaging the way to a Hard Brexit, if they won a general election on a policy of hard Brexit, I would have to accept it. I will not accept that it is a forgone formality them getting that mandate.

[Show Me The Exit]

Interesting topic but not relevant to the Brexit argument. governments react to the economy.
Corbyn may want to genuinly make great change, he will campaign for this, Brexit will stop him making this great change for the good, would he be lying for not carrying out his manifesto promises.?
Your mixing up 2 different arguments. GE and referendum. when you say May could call a GE on this Brexit issue and all indications are she would win a massive majority you must know Corbyns labour would have been a big factor in this happening.

Hmm.

OK in that case, can you (very briefly) explain what the British people have actually given a mandate to in terms of ceeding our political, economic, legislative and military powers to Europe?

[Danny Boys Dad]

Hmm.

OK in that case, can you (very briefly) explain what the British people have actually given a mandate to in terms of ceeding our political, economic, legislative and military powers to Europe?

I could hear the Magic Roundabout theme tune as I read that.

[Conocinico]

The EU's intentions, to act in their best interests, are not influenced by whether we vote again (or not).

Of course they would be as they want us to remain. If we had to vote on the finalised settlement to leave they would give us the most unpalatable deal they could.

[Show Me The Exit]

Bollocks. Saying she could get a mandate is not the same as actually getting one. The only way for the Tories to get a mandate is to actually seek one. Whilst I would loathe Corbyn sabotaging the way to a Hard Brexit, if they won a general election on a policy of hard Brexit, I would have to accept it. I will not accept that it is a forgone formality them getting that mandate.

You're correct it's not the same but it's currently reasonably similar (that might change as public opinion changes).

Nevertheless, as I said it comes down to your opinion on what the Tories should do versus what they think they should do - and more importantly what they have to do.

To reiterate, they don't have to call for another referendum in either legal, political or moral terms (I understand that you disagree with the latter).

But it was always going to be the case that your opinion about what is just would differ from a Tory Prime Minister's - that is not sufficient grounds for another vote.

[Millie]

Ah, my friend, you have once again blundered into a debate that you seem to have little grasp over ( in the four threads I have interacted with you anyway).

Let me give you some advice - steer clear of this chap you have replied to - unlike me, he has the discipline to condense his answers into short form which should make you instantly wary.

I feel like you would be bringing a knife to an intellectual gun-fight and the results won't be pretty. i myself am much more gentle 

You really are a patronising condescending "you know what" aren't you?

[classycarra]

Of course they would be as they want us to remain. If we had to vote to leave on the finalised settlement they would give us the most unpalatable deal they could.

If you use the logic from your first sentence, then giving us the most unpalatable deal is inevitably what is going to happen anyway. There are no circumstances they would want to incentivise leaving.

[oldfordie]

If the EU know that we are leaving then we will be given the best deal we can get. If they know we are going to vote again, we won't.

Best deal was promised with no provisos, the EU will give us tariff free access to the single market.
We wont be getting any deal, the senior Tory MPs knew this before the referendum, this is why Johnson+Gove were in shock hours after the result. they know they could never deliver those promises.
This is there problem, get over and deliver, if they cant deliver then we should have the right to reconsider.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Ai8FKQhYDvo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/Ai8FKQhYDvo</a>

[Conocinico]

If you use the logic from your first sentence, then giving us the most unpalatable deal is inevitably what is going to happen anyway. There are no circumstances they would want to incentivise leaving.

But if we are leaving without a vote the incentive for the EU is to engage in some quid pro quo.

[Show Me The Exit]

You really are a patronising condescending "you know what" aren't you?

Its weird that you keep calling me patronising when you have no comment about the post I was replying to:

As for your repeated whinging that people aren't opposing your 'facts' or arguments, I would suggest you look up intransigence. And then ask yourself if you think it's a virtue in discussions, or if perhaps it's one of the causes of your perpetually circular and tedious arguments

Is it because you don't understand the meaning of the word or because you lack the intellectual integrity to apply it to both sides of the debate?

[Millie]

Its weird that you keep calling me patronising when you have no comment about the post I was replying to:

Is it because you don't understand the meaning of the word or because you lack the intellectual integrity to apply it to both sides of the debate?

I rest my case

[classycarra]

But if we are leaving without a vote the incentive for the EU is to engage in some quid pro quo.

As is the incentive in absolutely every negotiation that requires agreement between both parties.

If there was a second vote scheduled, negotiations would still engage in quid pro quo

[Conocinico]

If there was a second vote scheduled, negotiations would still engage in quid pro quo

No it wouldn't, as the incentive would be to give us the worst possible deal knowing the electorate would reject it.

[SP]

This is more persuasive however it has to be categorised as a political rather than a legal question. I agree with you that the referendum question was “fucked up” – simply put, David Cameron did not do his homework and I’m astonished that he did not specify a supermajority qualifying vote. But nevertheless, having taken the vote we are now where we are – which is to trust Parliamentary democracy to be accountable to the people ( I understand that you feel this is inadequate as it will “be too late” the next time politicians are held to account).

The problem with being a political issue is that it needs a political solution – and right now I do not feel that there is sufficient appetite or political will in the country to follow this course. If there is then Owen Smith, the Lib Dems and the like will profit from it however that would invalidate the original referendum since it was made clear before the vote that NO second referendum would take place otherwise the margin of “Leave” would have been likely to have been much greater as the electorate would regard it as a less-risky option to take. In addition, there would be no incentive for the EU to offer us a good deal in negotiations knowing that, by offering a crap deal, or even nothing at all, we would then vote to stay in the EU in a second referendum.

So while it may feel that that would be the right or the best course of action the political reality is that nobody expected a second referendum to take place on hard brexit, soft brexit, hard remain, soft remain or anything else at the time they were voting and they voted to leave the EU (and put those decisions in the hands of the politicians) regardless.

Might this situation change in the future as the public realise they are unhappy with the deal? Possibly, but right now that does not appear to be the case (as seen in the Tory opinion polls). Finally:

There was no referendum mandate with the constitutional changes made with the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties (for example) as a parliamentary mandate was implied. The same applies here as Parliament is sovereign (with all its strengths and weaknesses including being “too late” with its accountability).

Therefore I think that the gist of your argument centres not around what is legal but what you regard as just and politically expedient. And that can only be decided by political judgement, in which, of course, you would differ from a Tory Prime Minister.

Currently, Theresa May would (presumably) say that there is a mandate for her actions given the opinion poll ratings and the fact that the British people decided to leave the EU knowing full well there would be no second referendum, that all the official channels said we would leave the Single Market and that that the main driving factor motivating them (immigration controls) are incompatible with membership of (but not access to) the market.

If you are correct then either she will be punished badly at the polls or there will be a uprising against Parliament – currently however there is little sign of either.

So, although you have put forward your strongly-held conviction, this does not “debunk” my original claim that a mandate exists for the present course of action and that a second referendum is not necessary for the PM in legal, political or moral terms.

It is not a pure political issue. It is a fundamental constitutional change, which huge changes in the economic relationship with all of our trading partners. It is not a little political matter. It fundamentally affects human rights protections, workers rights and the ability of the government to raise taxation to fund services. The current MPs were elected with mandates predicated on manifestos pledging remain (with one solitary exception). The decisions are too important to not consult the people.

The opinion polls are already showing that a majority reject the possibility of reverting to WTO rules as May has threatened. There is far from clear polling data - and I suspect as the realities of the negotiated deal emerge - especially the economic costs, that support will weaken further. May's conduct in trying to circumvent parliament shows that she knows that she is pulling a fast one, and the case for the eventual deal is not going to be persuasive. If Corbyn were not so fucking useless, the recent Article 50 bill should have been a challenge. The commons ducked the responsibility to properly scrutinise the most critical legislation for decades.

The previous European treaties were enacted from manifesto pledges, such as the 1987 Tory manifesto:

Europe Grows in Strength

This Government has taken Britain from the sidelines into the mainstream of Europe. But being good Europeans does not prevent us from standing up for British interests. The agreement we negotiated on the Community Budget has saved Britain £4,500 million since 1984.

We will continue to work for strict controls on the Community Budget.

Britain has led the way in establishing a genuine common market, with more trade and services moving freely across national boundaries.

We will campaign for the opening of the market in financial and other services and the extension of cheaper air fares in Europe.

We will also continue to work with our European partners to defend our own trading interests and press for freer trade among all nations.

All of this will help safeguard existing jobs and create new ones.

We will continue to play a responsible leading role in the development of the Community, while safeguarding our essential national interests.

There is a convention that irrevocable constitutional changes are not made without a mandate. Just because the Tories could not frame a single question in such a way as it gave them a mandate does not absolve them of the need to seek a mandate for probably the largest set of constitutional changes that have been sought for decades.

knowing full well there would be no second referendum, that all the official channels said we would leave the Single Market and that that the main driving factor motivating them (immigration controls) are incompatible with membership of (but not access to) the market.

This is demonstrably false after a campaign characterised by deliberate misinformation.

[SP]

You're correct it's not the same but it's currently reasonably similar

Having a mandate and not having a mandate, but having some polls based on other judgements as there is little discernible difference between Corbyn and May on Brexit, is not similar. Mandates are like herpes. You either have one, or you don't. May does not. 

[classycarra]

No it wouldn't, as the incentive would be to give us the worst possible deal hoping the electorate would reject it.

Then it wouldn't be a deal, would it?

And you're only exploring one of the angles the EU could take in this hypothetical situation. If you are saying they are acting with the ultimate intention of trying to make the British electorate reject leaving the EU, surely they could also engage in some quid pro quo. But some that appeals to the electorate to (more positively) decide in favour of an offer they put forward, rather than risk full alienation of the electorate you believe they want to influence by encouraging them to vote (more negatively) against a deliberately bad offer.

[oldfordie]

Hmm.

OK in that case, can you (very briefly) explain what the British people have actually given a mandate to in terms of ceeding our political, economic, legislative and military powers to Europe?

Never knew the British people had any say in these matters anyway but our government made agreements on our behalf, your talking about sovereignty. were not dragging that one up again are we, we have chosen to be in the EU, we took part in making democratic decisions for the benefit of Euope and our country as members of the EU, we chose to abide by those agreements. we have never lost our sovereignty. 

[Conocinico]

Then it wouldn't be a deal, would it?

You're right. We would have to vote on the final disagreement.

And you're only exploring one of the angles the EU could take in this hypothetical situation. If you are saying they are acting with the ultimate intention of trying to make the British electorate reject leaving the EU, surely they could also engage in some quid pro quo. But some that appeals to the electorate to (more positively) decide in favour of an offer they put forward, rather than risk full alienation of the electorate you believe they want to influence by encouraging them to vote (more negatively) against a deliberately bad offer.

I don't understand. Offer incentives to stay? That's not going to happen.

[SP]

Hmm.

OK in that case, can you (very briefly) explain what the British people have actually given a mandate to in terms of ceeding our political, economic, legislative and military powers to Europe?

In terms of the economic ties, I have quoted the 1987 Tory manifesto to you. Thatcher had a mandate. Major inherited the mandate, as he continued the policies. Politically, parliament remains sovereign, as the recent Article 50 court cases should have reminded you. The EU has not military. That would be NATO. The UK and any other nation could veto anything military. Legislatively is interesting. The statistics given for the percentage of law from Europe were just about all bollocks. Most law is statutory instruments, which for those deriving from the EU is predominantly setting EU wide standards. Parliament could override these if it chose, but the vast majority just enable a widget made in the UK to be sold anywhere in the EU. That is a good thing for exporters.  The question for legislative issues, is which of the laws derived from the EU would you repeal. I have yet to hear a coherent case for any.

Mandatory bendy banana riposte. The banana standards were not to prohibit, it was to provide a definition of the various classes of bananas. Thus class I bananas meet a certain standard. And can be bought and sold without the need to inspect them on the dockside. It enables trade in bananas as traders are comparing like for like. The banana stories are a wilful malicious misrepresentation.

[Titi Camara]

I vote stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

[Show Me The Exit]

It is not a pure political issue. It is a fundamental constitutional change, which huge changes in the economic relationship with all of our trading partners. It is not a little political matter. It fundamentally affects human rights protections, workers rights and the ability of the government to raise taxation to fund services. The current MPs were elected with mandates predicated on manifestos pledging remain (with one solitary exception). The decisions are too important to not consult the people.

I meant that your argument centred around what was politically "just". Now that the Supreme Court has given its ruling and a Parliamentary vote has been confirmed its clear that what Theresa May is doing is not illegal or unconstitutional, the economic fallout remains to be seen. Your argument is therefore centred around what's politically right or wrong which (as I pointed out) doesn't provide enough weight to force a second referendum (much though we all respect your opinion) .

The opinion polls are already showing that a majority reject the possibility of reverting to WTO rules as May has threatened. There is far from clear polling data - and I suspect as the realities of the negotiated deal emerge - especially the economic costs, that support will weaken further. May's conduct in trying to circumvent parliament shows that she knows that she is pulling a fast one, and the case for the eventual deal is not going to be persuasive.

Perhaps. I think it's likely that public opinion will change however, under the terms of our Parliamentary democracy that is of course allowed. The referendum was meant to advise Parliament not to sanction ongoing votes on terms. Of course there might be a case for this if we had voted on each of the previous European treaties which also affected the constitution, worker rights etc. but we didnt have that opportunity and surely for your argument to be valid it would have to apply to both sides?

The previous European treaties were enacted from manifesto pledges, such as the 1987 Tory manifesto:


There is a convention that irrevocable constitutional changes are not made without a mandate. Just because the Tories could not frame a single question in such a way as it gave them a mandate does not absolve them of the need to seek a mandate for probably the largest set of constitutional changes that have been sought for decades.

In terms of the economic ties, I have quoted the 1987 Tory manifesto to you. Thatcher had a mandate. Major inherited the mandate, as he continued the policies.

Mandates are like herpes. You either have one, or you don't. May does not.

Hmm. I very much disagree with you here.

I think May has a mandate for Hard Brexit whereas you do not. I think the Tory Manifesto pledge you quoted to “work together with our European partners” was not a sufficient mandate to enact subsequent European treaties whereas you do. Those "mandates" would have enabled our entry into the Eurozone which would have ceeded Parliamentary soveriegnty in all but name (as we have recently seen in Greece)

So if we disagree, it can’t be the case that “you either have it or you don’t” – I’m sure we would both agree whether or not Theresas May had Herpes for example. So how do we decide?