Brexit - Post Match Reaction

I'm not a supporter of the EU in its current guise, as I have mentioned numerous times on this thread. However, I believe the country is stronger within the EU.

 

Anyway, why's that got any real relevance, unless you believe the issues are due to the EU? I personally don't - all those countries mentioned have struggling economies and political instability (and have had for years) even with the advantage of being in the EU - if they left it would be even more disastrous.

The Euro changed everything, because it’s a political project rather than a monetary project. Being in the EU has benefitted Spain, Italy , Portugal, and Greece ,but Maastricht was a step too far. The Greeks need to devalue their currency, but of course they can’t. The only other option is closer fiscal union, which is the whole point. They put the cart before the horse to drive further integration, and they threw a generation of youth overboard.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's just very, very lazy.

Has every Euro economy done badly over the same timeframes? If so you may have a point. If not, you're talking **** and you need to delve deeper into the figures, and stop using spurious correlation as an answer to causality.

For a country that is worried about a hard border between the Irish Republic and the UK, they were certainly keen on one during World War II.

.................

 

The US are one of the few countries that is trying to help us, as they did all those years ago. We need to remember who our real friends are...

In WW2, the US only jumped in after Pearl Harbour, and would have preferred to concentrate on the Pacific Theatre, but Adolf Hitler decided to actually declare war on them, and that helped Churchill persuade the US President that Europe would take priority. By the time the Japaneses attacked Hawaii our other 'friend' in adversity, the USSR, had already been fighting our cause for 6 months. Perhaps we should remember them ?

The US in only going to act in it's own best interest, so how are we going to match up ? Any negotiations won't be from a position of equal strength.

The latest in the Seaborne saga which has been accused of copying its T&Cs from a takeaway delivery website.

https://news.sky.com/story/no-deal-brexit-ferry-contractors-copy-conditions-from-takeaway-website-11597798

And to think the usual clowns and chumps were proudly trumpeting the very same no deal preparations just a few days ago

So, on the New Year I was at a gathering with a few local Councillors and civil servants. Obviously Brexit came up, a few times, with a mix of views and voters.

However, I got chatting to a civil servant who is heading up the “no deal” planning for the Nuclear and Scientific Research rules and regulations. Although he commented that “no deal” would be an utter disaster to try to organise due to the lack of time left before we 'crash' out, the real issue they have at the moment is that due to the instability of the ‘deal’ and the way that it has been dealt with, they have not been allowed to start work on no deal preparations properly. I think the quote was “I just don’t care anymore, but those ****ers in parliament just won’t let us get started.”

That's just very, very lazy.

 

Has every Euro economy done badly over the same timeframes? If so you may have a point. If not, you're talking **** and you need to delve deeper into the figures, and stop using spurious correlation as an answer to causality.

His subsequent post makes clear the argument, and in reality it is quite a widely accepted and problematic consequence of the Eurozone. Germany for example benefits from an artificially suppressed trading currency, and this directly benefits their exports. Conversely, Southern Europe suffers in this relationship, as from their perspective the trading currency is artificially inflated.

Essentially, Germany uses the Eurozone as a metaphorical heat sink for their strong economy. Hence why some economies prosper, and others suffer.

Laughable that a supporter of The EU talks about children’s prosperity. If UK youth are suffering abuse, what are the youth of Greece, Spain, and Italy suffering.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's just very, very lazy.

 

Has every Euro economy done badly over the same timeframes? If so you may have a point. If not, you're talking **** and you need to delve deeper into the figures, and stop using spurious correlation as an answer to causality.

Do try and keep up. We were discussing the youth of Greece, Spain & Italy, so yes the euro is the reason for the horrendous youth unemployment. You can not have monetary union without fiscal union, but until that happens these countries are ****ed.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So, on the New Year I was at a gathering with a few local Councillors and civil servants. Obviously Brexit came up, a few times, with a mix of views and voters.

 

However, I got chatting to a civil servant who is heading up the “no deal” planning for the Nuclear and Scientific Research rules and regulations. Although he commented that “no deal” would be an utter disaster to try to organise due to the lack of time left before we 'crash' out, the real issue they have at the moment is that due to the instability of the ‘deal’ and the way that it has been dealt with, they have not been allowed to start work on no deal preparations properly. I think the quote was “I just don’t care anymore, but those ****ers in parliament just won’t let us get started.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/28/exclusive-civil-servant-accuses-ministers-project-fear-mark/

Obviously he works in a broom cupboard far away from those who work with this bloke.

Or perhaps he is just not being honest with you as part of Project fear Mk111 where he sees you as an ardent remoaner, so useful to stoke up the fires of fear with doubts.

His subsequent post makes clear the argument, and in reality it is quite a widely accepted and problematic consequence of the Eurozone. Germany for example benefits from an artificially suppressed trading currency, and this directly benefits their exports. Conversely, Southern Europe suffers in this relationship, as from their perspective the trading currency is artificially inflated.

Essentially, Germany uses the Eurozone as a metaphorical heat sink for their strong economy. Hence why some economies prosper, and others suffer.

The inflexibility of the euro without some form of fiscal union is a significant problem; but the issue is far more complicated than some portray (Lord Pony is thick as s**t, so doesn't count). First and trivially, there are always distributional consequences associated with a stronger currency, hurting some groups but benefiting others (i.e. importers and consumers). More fundamentally, countries in Southern Europe weren't complaining when they could attract money from investors in larger amounts and at lower rates than would have been possible if national currencies had persisted -alas rather than being used as a tool for economic catch-up and growth, those large capital flows went to short-term, unproductive uses i.e. speculative housing projects in Spain (and Ireland) and funding lavish public entitlements in Portugal, Greece and Cyprus which may have felt good while it lasted but produced no lasting economic benefit. Finally devaluation may be one route to 'competitiveness' but it is no substitute for tackling deeper structural inefficiencies which plagued these countries well before the introduction of the euro. It is arguably one reason why other poorer countries within the Eurozone e.g. Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia etc. have fared much better, as illustrated by the fact that per capita incomes have converged with their richer eurozone peers.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/28/exclusive-civil-servant-accuses-ministers-project-fear-mark/

 

Obviously he works in a broom cupboard far away from those who work with this bloke.

 

Or perhaps he is just not being honest with you as part of Project fear Mk111 where he sees you as an ardent remoaner, so useful to stoke up the fires of fear with doubts.

Les - you're getting very flustered. Talking about fires, what did you make of Sadiq Khan's firework display?

http:// https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/01/02/euro-has-failed-threatens-democracy-should-abolished/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Finally devaluation may be one route to 'competitiveness' but it is no substitute for tackling deeper structural inefficiencies that plagued these countries well before the introduction of the euro.

Certainly agree with that. However on the inefficient use of loan capital point, I’m morally torn.

From a purely analytical perspective you are quite correct, but as I have mentioned before, my parents have lived Spain for nearly 20 years, and the EU cash has been used to greatly improve the lives of their citizens.

I always cite the example of school busses. I see the children is Spain being driven to school in shiny new purpose built vehicles, compare that to the 40 year-old repurposed busses we see spewing diesel muck and breaking down in this country. It’s a small insignificant example that resonated with me, but there are many more. Take for example the newly built public hospital built a few miles from my M&D’s house; I can’t remember the last time I saw a new hospital built in this country.

Anyway, as I’m now arguing a different point, I’ll leave it there!

what did you make of Sadiq Khan's firework display?

If you are referring to the New Year’s Eve display. My thoughts were that the cost of each firework that went off could probably feed a low income family for a day, but hey, **** em!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/28/exclusive-civil-servant-accuses-ministers-project-fear-mark/

 

Obviously he works in a broom cupboard far away from those who work with this bloke.

 

Or perhaps he is just not being honest with you as part of Project fear Mk111 where he sees you as an ardent remoaner, so useful to stoke up the fires of fear with doubts.

He voted to leave, so doubt he's doing that.

Certainly agree with that. However on the inefficient use of loan capital point, I’m morally torn.

From a purely analytical perspective you are quite correct, but as I have mentioned before, my parents have lived Spain for nearly 20 years, and the EU cash has been used to greatly improve the lives of their citizens.

I always cite the example of school busses. I see the children is Spain being driven to school in shiny new purpose built vehicles, compare that to the 40 year-old repurposed busses we see spewing diesel muck and breaking down in this country. It’s a small insignificant example that resonated with me, but there are many more. Take for example the newly built public hospital built a few miles from my M&D’s house; I can’t remember the last time I saw a new hospital built in this country.

Anyway, as I’m now arguing a different point, I’ll leave it there!

 

 

 

If you are referring to the New Year’s Eve display. My thoughts were that the cost of each firework that went off could probably feed a low income family for a day, but hey, **** em!

Not disputing the role of EU funding or indeed the role of public investment (plenty of which is productive - I'm sure the likes of Guided Missile would agree). Simply pointing out that the flipside of the euro's 'inflexibility' is that it gave poorer countries access to cheaper credit as they saw Germany's economic credibility rub off on themselves. Once upon a time that was considered a good thing; today it is considered a problem. But it can't be both.

His subsequent post makes clear the argument, and in reality it is quite a widely accepted and problematic consequence of the Eurozone. Germany for example benefits from an artificially suppressed trading currency, and this directly benefits their exports. Conversely, Southern Europe suffers in this relationship, as from their perspective the trading currency is artificially inflated.

Essentially, Germany uses the Eurozone as a metaphorical heat sink for their strong economy. Hence why some economies prosper, and others suffer.

I didn't see that - looks like we both posted at the same time.

So, if that's the case, you'll both be able to show me some causality between those economies, the strength of the Euro, and the rise in youth unemployment.

I'm happy to discuss that and even admit I'm wrong, but I need some empirical economic and statistical evidence to show that.

Personally, I think it's due to historical economic and political weaknesses rather than that.

He voted to leave, so doubt he's doing that.

Next Les will be telling you that he was privy to your conversation and saying it didn't happen.

Les - you're getting very flustered. Talking about fires, what did you make of Sadiq Khan's firework display?

No, as I said before, I'm perfectly sanguine about the whole situation. I'm thinking that some sort of Advent Calendar counting off the days until the 29th March might be a popular item.

Any illusions Ireland might have had that the EU is going to reward them in some way for being its Brexit patsy have evaporated today with the news that the European Commission is pressing ahead with its plan to abolish national vetoes over a swathe of taxation issues. Removing one of the last major hurdles towards an EU-wide tax policy…

Ireland will be particularly hard hit by the changes as their competitive corporation tax rate is central to their impressive growth rates. The EU does not like tax competition or regulatory competition because they expose its own glaring inefficiencies. Hence why their long-term goal is for unaccountable commissars to set all the taxes for 500 million people – and collect them too. It’s only a matter of time before Ireland starts to feel the costs of the EU far more heavily than the benefits…

So, if that's the case, you'll both be able to show me some causality between those economies, the strength of the Euro, and the rise in youth unemployment.

My point (and I had assumed his also, but it’s hard to tell) was that it was not a requirement for all countries using the Euro to have performed poorly over the same timeframe as you suggested.

I have no specific evidence to share regarding youth unemployment, and while I accept it had been in discussion, my point did not address it.

I'm thinking that some sort of Advent Calendar counting off the days until the 29th March might be a popular item.

If you are waiting for the coming of a Messiah, I suspect you will be severely disappointed.

No, as I said before, I'm perfectly sanguine about the whole situation. I'm thinking that some sort of Advent Calendar counting off the days until the 29th March might be a popular item.

Do you know how to make gammon jerky Les? Cook it in some ginger beer or proper drinker’s ale, stick it behind the doors as kippers count down to the magic day and watch the money come rolling in. Guess it beats flushing your money down the toilet to join the tory party.

Still it is a tad disturbing that Adam Werrity came up with the exactly same idea. Great minds and all that.

If you are waiting for the coming of a Messiah, I suspect you will be severely disappointed.

No, not some Messiah, but the rebirth of the UK as an independent nation once again, free to control its own destiny perhaps. As we will be freed from Brussels, it could be fitting to have Belgian chocolate behind each daily door.

I know the referendum result has sent a lot of remoaners round the bend, but AC Grayling has finally cracked.

Corbyn a Tory lipspittle lol.....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Shylock has much more of an inside track on how this contract came to be (I don't have access to his Rothschild channels), but the obvious explanation is that Failing Grayling's incompetence exceeds any known uselessness found anywhere in the universe.

Another could well be that the government knows privately and perfectly well that the whole 'crashing out with no deal' business is a complete and utter sham, played out for fools, so why bother wasting competent civil servants' time on vetting contractors who will never be get their hands on the lolly?

Next Les will be telling you that he was privy to your conversation and saying it didn't happen.

It's the way of the world now, instead of actually dealing with the situation, cry fake news and ignore it.

It good to read both sides debating on this, but I haven't seen anyone put up how we can come out of this mess without us being really hurt

It good to read both sides debating on this, but I haven't seen anyone put up how we can come out of this mess without us being really hurt

Because there isn't a way, and no-one on here is economically enough inclined to even start to debate why we wouldn't. It's all about the amount of damage that is being debated. Some of us think it will be a huge, detrimental effect. Others think we'll see little difference.

So this is interesting, as not seen this before.

As post EU we will be looking to lower corporation tax for multi-nationals, the harmonisation of corp tax within the EU could actually help the UK to attract investment going forward, and much of it from Ireland.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/eu-should-scrap-national-vetoes-on-tax-says-juncker-1.3626563

It good to read both sides debating on this, but I haven't seen anyone put up how we can come out of this mess without us being really hurt

Objectively, the least damaging way out is to have a People's Vote in which the outcome is to remain in the EU. Even that is not damage-free, because so much harm has already been done.

Any other option is unsupported in Parliament (and parliament is sovereign, no matter how much Jihadists mewl and puke about any option that isn't carpet-bombing the economy).

Objectively, the least damaging way out is to have a People's Vote in which the outcome is to remain in the EU. Even that is not damage-free, because so much harm has already been done.

 

Any other option is unsupported in Parliament (and parliament is sovereign, no matter how much Jihadists mewl and puke about any option that isn't carpet-bombing the economy).

The original question was in or out and to a degree no deal with WTO rules result is the true democratic outcome.

Objectively, the least damaging way out is to have a People's Vote in which the outcome is to remain in the EU. Even that is not damage-free, because so much harm has already been done.

 

Any other option is unsupported in Parliament (and parliament is sovereign, no matter how much Jihadists mewl and puke about any option that isn't carpet-bombing the economy).

I wouldn't expect anything else from you, as you are clearly not a democrat. As for this laughable description of a "people's vote", what the f*ck was the last referendum?

As for it being the least damaging way out, it is quite the opposite. A substantial percentage of the electorate who voted to leave the EU will lose all faith in our democracy and their MPs. If the result of this further referendum was 52% to remain v 48% to leave, the campaign to have another referendum would begin the day after. In any event, there is the strong possibility that the leave side would tell their supporters to boycott the vote, rendering it void of credibility.

As for your last sentence, it is the usual shrill stuff that one has come to expect from hardcore remoaners like you. Carpet-bombing is a new one on me. Full marks for your imagination of the even more bizarrely extreme description of the effects to the economy. It makes a change from cliff edges, crashing out, etc.

As i believe in democracy I find it difficult to back another vote.

Yes, because democracy should never involve voting.

The original question was in or out and to a degree no deal with WTO rules result is the true democratic outcome.

That's just something you've made up. No one knew a damned thing about WTO (and the damage that it would cause) at the time of the vote. They didn't even know about Article 50 - I'm not aware of a single debate pre-referendum about how and when it should be triggered. Equally, no one has remotely claimed that Norway is 'in' the EU. Nor Switzerland. And Canada+++ is a pure invention (each plus equal to a virgin).

Yes, because democracy should never involve voting.

 

 

 

That's just something you've made up. No one knew a damned thing about WTO (and the damage that it would cause) at the time of the vote. They didn't even know about Article 50 - I'm not aware of a single debate pre-referendum about how and when it should be triggered. Equally, no one has remotely claimed that Norway is 'in' the EU. Nor Switzerland. And Canada+++ is a pure invention (each plus equal to a virgin).

Considering we’ve had 3 votes on the whole Eu crap. I’d say enough probably is enough. That’s from a remain voter.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

.....

As for your last sentence, it is the usual shrill stuff that one has come to expect from hardcore remoaners like you. ....

Verbal's 'last sentence" ;

Any other option is unsupported in Parliament (and parliament is sovereign,......

As things stand, this is a true statement. ( The rest of the sentence doesn't alter this fact ).

Verbal's 'last sentence" ;

As things stand, this is a true statement. ( The rest of the sentence doesn't alter this fact ).

Wrong. There is a very good article in the FT on December 9th 2016. Its title is "After the referendum, the people, not Parliament, are sovereign.

It is written by one of the most preeminent authorities on British Constitutional history, Vernon Bogdanor.

You and Verbal might care to read it to set yourselves right.

Wrong. There is a very good article in the FT on December 9th 2016. Its title is "After the referendum, the people, not Parliament, are sovereign.

 

It is written by one of the most preeminent authorities on British Constitutional history, Vernon Bogdanor.

 

You and Verbal might care to read it to set yourselves right.

The British People are sovereign during the build up to, and voting for, a General Election. At all other times we are a secondary consideration. If it was the way you think it is, Brexit would have been signed, sealed, and delivered long since.

One of my ITK sources, admittedly at the gloomy end of things, thinks that a 3 month extension to prepare for a managed no deal is increasingly likely. Ultimately May will do whatever she can to keep the Conservative Party together -and save getting her deal through Parliament, will run down the clock as it is the least destructive option from the narrow calculus of internal party unity.

The British People are sovereign during the build up to, and voting for, a General Election. At all other times we are a secondary consideration. If it was the way you think it is, Brexit would have been signed, sealed, and delivered long since.

You didn't read the article, did you?

If you did, then no doubt you will be happy to point out where you think Bogdanor is wrong, and explain your superior qualification to question his verdict.

You didn't read the article, did you?

 

If you did, then no doubt you will be happy to point out where you think Bogdanor is wrong, and explain your superior qualification to question his verdict.

Did you read all of the article Les?

Did you read all of the article Les?

Of course he didn’t, or at least failed to understand it. Bogdanor, as you know but Wes hasn’t grasped, writing in 2016 said “our exit from the EU depends upon the continuing consent of the people. The notion of finality is quite alien to the spirit of democratic politics. For it must always remain open for a sovereign people to reassess its verdict.”

Wes my hard of thinking chum, Bogdanor is writing in favour of a second referendum as he states here

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjclOCP-9TfAhVJWxoKHTY6A9QQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2018%2Fnov%2F23%2Fpeoples-vote-brexit-mps-second-referendum&psig=AOvVaw3K3pEUInQ4BQaq6_CgemT9&ust=1546719994021925

One of my ITK sources, admittedly at the gloomy end of things, thinks that a 3 month extension to prepare for a managed no deal is increasingly likely. Ultimately May will do whatever she can to keep the Conservative Party together -and save getting her deal through Parliament, will run down the clock as it is the least destructive option from the narrow calculus of internal party unity.

If that’s true Shurlock then May needs removing asap. The Conservative Party and its members - and the Labour Party as well - are irrelevant. What we need is the Labour MPs, Tory moderates/non far right loons, LDs and form a temporary coalition of national unity to save the economy. SNP would perhaps vote with them on certain issues.

Would take the DUP and Tory Brexit nutcases out of it.

If that’s true Shurlock then May needs removing asap. The Conservative Party and its members - and the Labour Party as well - are irrelevant. What we need is the Labour MPs, Tory moderates/non far right loons, LDs and form a temporary coalition of national unity to save the economy. SNP would perhaps vote with them on certain issues.

 

Would take the DUP and Tory Brexit nutcases out of it.

And Corbyn and Momentum out of the picture too. Clean up politics from extremism all round and have a government people can actually live under, businesses plan and invest.

You didn't read the article, did you?

 

If you did, then no doubt you will be happy to point out where you think Bogdanor is wrong, and explain your superior qualification to question his verdict.

I did read it, and it is an opinion piece, not fact. If your interpretation of his piece is correct, then why have Parliament not yet delivered what their sovereign people have determined is the nation's will ?

( And I recommend the Guardian article in buctootim's post. )

Of course he didn’t, or at least failed to understand it. Bogdanor, as you know but Wes hasn’t grasped, writing in 2016 said “our exit from the EU depends upon the continuing consent of the people. The notion of finality is quite alien to the spirit of democratic politics. For it must always remain open for a sovereign people to reassess its verdict.”

 

Wes my hard of thinking chum, Bogdanor is writing in favour of a second referendum as he states here

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjclOCP-9TfAhVJWxoKHTY6A9QQzPwBegQIARAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2018%2Fnov%2F23%2Fpeoples-vote-brexit-mps-second-referendum&psig=AOvVaw3K3pEUInQ4BQaq6_CgemT9&ust=1546719994021925

Of course I read it. And I highlighted it to point out that the title of his piece indicated that the people's sovereignty trumped Parliament's over issues like this.

Regrettably I don't get your link to work, so I cannot read his thoughts on a second/third referendum. Is he arguing that the second/third referendum is needed because the people are sovereign again, as he did the first time? Taking that line about the finality of democratic politics being alien I agree with. That is precisely why this second referendum was long overdue over 40 years after the first one. However, I would disagree with him if he was arguing that a third referendum was needed when the second one had not even been enacted.

I did read it, and it is an opinion piece, not fact. If your interpretation of his piece is correct, then why have Parliament not yet delivered what their sovereign people have determined is the nation's will ?

( And I recommend the Guardian article in buctootim's post. )

Ask Theresa May and her majority Remoaner cabinet and the majority remoaner house why they have not delivered on the nation's will expressed in the referendum. One thing is for sure, if they don't get it done, then the repercussions for our parliamentary democracy will be very severe.

And Corbyn and Momentum out of the picture too. Clean up politics from extremism all round and have a government people can actually live under, businesses plan and invest.

Is wishing to leave the EU and returning to governing ourselves as a sovereign independent nation extremism? I hadn't realised that. I thought that any self-respecting nation would wish to be able to do that. The problem with your little fantasy of wishing to have our parliamentary democracy run by centrist moderates, is that they have to be elected by the voters. And if you choose to ignore the will of over half of them, then what you will encourage is the growth of more extreme populist parties and the decline of the traditional parties.

Is wishing to leave the EU and returning to governing ourselves as a sovereign independent nation extremism? I hadn't realised that. I thought that any self-respecting nation would wish to be able to do that. The problem with your little fantasy of wishing to have our parliamentary democracy run by centrist moderates, is that they have to be elected by the voters. And if you choose to ignore the will of over half of them, then what you will encourage is the growth of more extreme populist parties and the decline of the traditional parties.

If NI had voted leave, you could have a point, but they didn’t. So the DUP are obstructing the will of the NI people.

As for not being a sovereign state, why don’t you tell the Queen that? Or explain to me why I’ve got Sterling ten and twenty pound notes in my wallet and not Euros? Or why the self assessment tax form I filled out was for HMRC. That is HMRC of he Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and her Majesty’s government, UK. See the commonality here?

I hate to tell you this, but the Tory Party is literally dying in terms of its membership. Like Labour, it has been propped up by an influx of single issue extremists but history shows these people never build or sustain anything. So the main parties will go the way of the Lib Dem’s anyway. The biggest short term danger you have is that no deal pushes younger voters - and I mean 18-22 here - into the arms of Corbyn. I thought him being PM was impossible but the post Brexit UK you want and the leave voters in Sunderland, Barnsley, S Wales, cannot be reconciled. They want increased public spending and renationalisation, you want Singapore super light. So they aren’t going to like your post Brexit ideas and the miners strike showed those areas won’t take it lying down.

The Uk is leaving - we all know that. It’s on what terms and what follows. I make no apologies for saying that I think May was appalling at the Home Office and set the Windrush scandal going, Boris is a useless oaf, Grayling is an example of why Brexiteers should never be allowed to be ministers. Pellegrino or Branfoot would be better as Transport Sec. Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell all make me equally sick. Someone like Philip Hammond or Jo Johnston are my sort of politicians and the sort of people you can work with and live under. Nationalism and xenophobia don’t put bread on the table and make the world a s hit place. It’s bad enough with the c nuts in charge of the US and Brazil.

‘

Of course I read it. And I highlighted it to point out that the title of his piece indicated that the people's sovereignty trumped Parliament's over issues like this.

 

Regrettably I don't get your link to work, so I cannot read his thoughts on a second/third referendum. Is he arguing that the second/third referendum is needed because the people are sovereign again, as he did the first time? Taking that line about the finality of democratic politics being alien I agree with. That is precisely why this second referendum was long overdue over 40 years after the first one. However, I would disagree with him if he was arguing that a third referendum was needed when the second one had not even been enacted.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/23/peoples-vote-brexit-mps-second-referendum

Wrong. There is a very good article in the FT on December 9th 2016. Its title is "After the referendum, the people, not Parliament, are sovereign.

 

It is written by one of the most preeminent authorities on British Constitutional history, Vernon Bogdanor.

 

You and Verbal might care to read it to set yourselves right.

Bognanor's conclusion in that article is:

"Today, similarly, our exit from the EU depends upon the continuing consent of the people. The notion of finality is quite alien to the spirit of democratic politics. For it must always remain open for a sovereign people to reassess its verdict."

Which I presume means you'll now support a second referendum. Or did you not read that bit - you know, the actual point of the article?