Government in contempt of Parliament

[Eric the Half a Bee]

The other option to consider May knew the deal was crap , she creates a scenario the first vote is defeated, she goes back to Europe and demands unilateral right to declare an end to backstop due to the defeat , Europe blinks , DUP and Brexiteers feel they have morale victory , she wins the second vote .

So what did the people vote for? No-deal? Norway style? May's deal? Don't say leave, as we know leave meant a lot of different things.

[Wales-Bales]

So what did the people vote for? No-deal? Norway style? May's deal? Don't say leave, as we know leave meant a lot of different things.

Leave was never supposed to win. If you cast your mind back, Boris and Gove were totally shocked to have won. There was no statement on the following morning, and if I remember correctly they went off to a barbecue or something like that. Plan B was to hand over to Theresa May, and then we had the joke leadership contest where everybody fell on their sword, and May became PM unopposed. And now we find out there is a possible 150 year TIP clause in the leave deal that she cooked up with the EU! Cue the calls for a second referendum after two more years of project fear, and it's all very predictable when you know what the game is.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

If you cast your mind back, Boris and Gove were totally shocked to have won. There was no statement on the following morning, and if I remember correctly they went off to a barbecue or something like that. Plan B was to hand over to Theresa May, and then we had the joke leadership contest where everybody fell on their sword, and May became PM unopposed. And now we find out there is a possible 150 year TIP clause in the leave deal that she cooked up with the EU! Cue the calls for a second referendum after two more years of project fear, and it's all very predictable when you know what the game is.

That's 3 attempts to answer my question totally ignored.

[Wales-Bales]

That's 3 attempts to answer my question totally ignored.

I laid it all out two years ago. Leave wasn't expected to win, and in the remote chance that they did, a contingency plan was already in place. They were never going to be specific about what type of leave was on offer as it would be enforceable! What's so hard to understand?

[Eric the Half a Bee]

I laid it all out two years ago. Leave wasn't expected to win, and in the remote chance that they did, a contingency plan was already in place. They were never going to be specific about what type of leave was on offer as it would be enforceable! What's so hard to understand?

And a fourth. Tell me what you said 2 years ago.

[Wales-Bales]

And a fourth. Tell me what you said 2 years ago.

Read above!

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Leave was never supposed to win.

If leave was never supposed to win, why try and appeal to such a broad selection of leave voters, some of whom wanted no deal, some wanted a Norwegian style arrangement, some wanted some future deal with the EU for trade etc etc.

The best referendum question would have been remain vs no-deal. That would have been something like 62/38 in favour of remain if opinion polls regarding leave voters intentions are accurate. That's why the leave vote had to encompass as many possible scenarios as possible. Whether leave was supposed to lose or not is irrelevant here. Leave was given more of an opportunity to win. That's utterly obvious. That's why I'm certain the leave campaign would have refused a shoot out of remain vs no deal. Your lack of opposition to this tells me a lot.

[Wales-Bales]

If leave was never supposed to win, why try and appeal to such a broad selection of leave voters, some of whom wanted no deal, some wanted a Norwegian style arrangement, some wanted some future deal with the EU for trade etc etc.

The best referendum question would have been remain vs no-deal. That would have been something like 62/38 in favour of remain if opinion polls regarding leave voters intentions are accurate. That's why the leave vote had to encompass as many possible scenarios as possible. Whether leave was supposed to lose or not is irrelevant here. Leave was given more of an opportunity to win. That's utterly obvious. That's why I'm certain the leave campaign would have refused a shoot out of remain vs no deal. Your lack of opposition to this tells me a lot.

It's immaterial because they didn't want any actionable leave result, the intention was to stay in the EU! They already had the contingency plan ready and waiting in the form of Theresa May.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

It's immaterial because they didn't want any actionable leave result, the intention was to stay in the EU! They already had the contingency plan ready and waiting in the form of Theresa May.

Of course it's not immaterial. There's talk of civil war if Brexit doesn't happen. The issue was/is so divisive.

If it was immaterial, why didn't Cameron say, as he could have done, thanks for the result in this advisory referendum, we'll consider it as part of government policy, instead of it being something the government said needed to be acted on? Why let it run for 2 years instead of nipping it in the bud?

[Wales-Bales]

Of course it's not immaterial. There's talk of civil war if Brexit doesn't happen. The issue was/is so divisive.

If it was immaterial, why didn't Cameron say, as he could have done, thanks for the result in this advisory referendum, we'll consider it as part of government policy, instead of it being something the government said needed to be acted on? Why let it run for 2 years instead of nipping it in the bud?

Because there was already a contingency plan in place for May and her pals to step in, so Cameron made an immediate exit. Sweet dreams