People finally coming to their senses?

[muckles]

Winseer:

muckles:

Winseer:
Agreed. There was an almighty slump in 1975, right after we were fooled into joining the EEC. Property prices crashed, The stock market crashed, unemployment started to rise sharply, and inflation took off as well. Four years later, this country was on it’s knees, and voted for Thatcher to make the “Nasty” decisions to get us out of it…

A) I was commenting on your historical inaccuracies.

Thus the “History” as you see it, and I saw it - are going to be different.

So your view of history is that we didn’t join the EEC in 1973, the Conservatives weren’t in goverment at the time, labour didn’t win the 1974 Election and had as part of their manefesto that they would hold a referendum on EEC membership, which they did in 1975 or Margret Thatcher was pro EEC membership when she became PM in 1979?

[winseer]

That’s not what I said - and you know it.

Joining the EEC without asking the people - happened in 1973.
The Tories organized a tilted referendum to ratify that entry for 1975, which caused the hung parliament of February 1974.
Heath lost his majority, and smartly stepped aside for Labour, despite winning the popular vote and only having 4 less seats than Labour.

Enough seats changed hands, so that in the confusion - NO proper debate was ever held over the rights and wrongs of joining the EEC in 1973.
People voted “In” - because by that point, it was a fait accompli - and pretty much no other reason.

That Heath couldn’t face a coalition with Thorpe despite them both (unbenownst to the public) being members of the uphill gardening club - beggars belief.
The two parties should have had more in common, than not.
During the slump over the late 70’s - There was little accusation that the dire state of the UK economy - “was down to the EEC entry” being fudged. The price Britain paid for that politically - was a decade of Thatcher, following the WInter of Discontent 1979.

With regards to Brexit - if our mainstream parties fudge Brexit, then Corbyn hopes to be elected because he hasn’t admitted he’ll scrap it like a shot, on gaining power.
We’re not gonna trust him on that though, and any hopes the mainstream parties have that the public will go “Oh well, never mind” at the last minute - are far fetched in the extreme.
The winner of the next election (if Brexit isn’t done) - will be a coalition involving UKIP. Should Labour win more seats than the Tories at the next election - I can’t see Labour turning down a possible coalition, assuming that UKIP ask for “very little”.

If the Labour leadership’s attitude by that point is “We won’t give UKIP the steam from our ■■■■” - and turn DOWN power on that basis, then Momentum, Labour Grass Roots, and of course the Blairites - will have Corbyn’s head on a stick in pretty short order!

If they think Corbyn can stay another five years in opposition after turning down a coalition that might have even let Corbyn be PM - they can think again! This isn’t something that cannot be countenenced btw… Without his disciples, UKIP would run rings around Corbyn as PM, and deliberately won’t’ ask for much as part of any “coalition proposal”. UKIP could be pulling all the strings - with as little as the Chancellor’s job, changing Carney at the Bank of England, and Home Secretary to keep tabs on Law and Order. Pretty much all the other cabinet posts - can go to Labour people IF UKIP people hold those three posts. Batten as Home Secretary, Farage as Chancellor, and the Bank of England being dictated to by none other than Aaron Banks (for example) - would give UKIP strings of steel to show the country what REAL leadership is all about. We won’t be able to complete Brexit all the while Carney remains at the Bank of England btw. His tenure has just been extended as well, in yet another attempt to “kick Brexit down the road” this late in the proceedings.
There’s no point everyone assuming that “UKIP will go into coalition with the Tories, or not at all” - because the alternative is a VERY weak minority government that wouldn’t last the year out!
As for a “Grand Coalition” that sees UKIP becoming the official opposition - Forget it!

Then, as before - UKIP only need replace the Libdems on around 57 seats - to be in this powerful position of “blocking” both main parties from forming a government that would last longer than a fortnight without them.

I don’t beleive people will so easily be put off voting UKIP with “promises” any longer. Cameron promised a referendum. What can either main party promise the electorate to convince them NOT to vote UKIP at the next election, when it comes?

[carryfast]

Winseer:
That’s not what I said - and you know it.

Joining the EEC without asking the people - happened in 1973.
The Tories organized a tilted referendum to ratify that entry for 1975, which caused the hung parliament of February 1974.
Heath lost his majority, and smartly stepped aside for Labour, despite winning the popular vote and only having 4 less seats than Labour.

Enough seats changed hands, so that in the confusion - NO proper debate was ever held over the rights and wrongs of joining the EEC in 1973.
People voted “In” - because by that point, it was a fait accompli - and pretty much no other reason.

That Heath couldn’t face a coalition with Thorpe despite them both (unbenownst to the public) being members of the uphill gardening club - beggars belief.
The two parties should have had more in common, than not.
During the slump over the late 70’s - There was little accusation that the dire state of the UK economy - “was down to the EEC entry” being fudged. The price Britain paid for that politically - was a decade of Thatcher, following the WInter of Discontent 1979.

With regards to Brexit - if our mainstream parties fudge Brexit, then Corbyn hopes to be elected because he hasn’t admitted he’ll scrap it like a shot, on gaining power.
We’re not gonna trust him on that though, and any hopes the mainstream parties have that the public will go “Oh well, never mind” at the last minute - are far fetched in the extreme.
The winner of the next election (if Brexit isn’t done) - will be a coalition involving UKIP. Should Labour win more seats than the Tories at the next election - I can’t see Labour turning down a possible coalition, assuming that UKIP ask for “very little”.

If the Labour leadership’s attitude by that point is “We won’t give UKIP the steam from our ■■■■” - and turn DOWN power on that basis, then Momentum, Labour Grass Roots, and of course the Blairites - will have Corbyn’s head on a stick in pretty short order!

If they think Corbyn can stay another five years in opposition after turning down a coalition that might have even let Corbyn be PM - they can think again! This isn’t something that cannot be countenenced btw… Without his disciples, UKIP would run rings around Corbyn as PM, and deliberately won’t’ ask for much as part of any “coalition proposal”. UKIP could be pulling all the strings - with as little as the Chancellor’s job, changing Carney at the Bank of England, and Home Secretary to keep tabs on Law and Order. Pretty much all the other cabinet posts - can go to Labour people IF UKIP people hold those three posts. Batten as Home Secretary, Farage as Chancellor, and the Bank of England being dictated to by none other than Aaron Banks (for example) - would give UKIP strings of steel to show the country what REAL leadership is all about. We won’t be able to complete Brexit all the while Carney remains at the Bank of England btw. His tenure has just been extended as well, in yet another attempt to “kick Brexit down the road” this late in the proceedings.
There’s no point everyone assuming that “UKIP will go into coalition with the Tories, or not at all” - because the alternative is a VERY weak minority government that wouldn’t last the year out!
As for a “Grand Coalition” that sees UKIP becoming the official opposition - Forget it!

Then, as before - UKIP only need replace the Libdems on around 57 seats - to be in this powerful position of “blocking” both main parties from forming a government that would last longer than a fortnight without them.

I don’t beleive people will so easily be put off voting UKIP with “promises” any longer. Cameron promised a referendum. What can either main party promise the electorate to convince them NOT to vote UKIP at the next election, when it comes?

I don’t get the link bewteen a Heath/Thorpe led coalition and that being any different regards Brexit than what we got in the form of Europhile led Labour going against its own Party vote.IE at that point surely the best scenario would have been for Benn and Shore etc to force Callaghan and Wilson and Jenkins out providing us with the leave orientated Labour administration which we needed.IE the 1975 referendum was all about which direction Labour were going in and why.While the Cons were a lost cause at that point having ditched Powell.

[milesahead]

What’s wrong with second referendum, it’s not about voting until results come right, it’s about making an informed decision on the outcome of the negotiations, deciding whether we are going to be better or worst off.

+1

[juddian]

milesahead:

What’s wrong with second referendum, it’s not about voting until results come right, it’s about making an informed decision on the outcome of the negotiations, deciding whether we are going to be better or worst off.

+1

Just be careful what you wish for.

If the elites ignore the referendum result (which is par for the course re EU, or Germany by another name), then in future what’s to stop them ignoring all future votes by the public?

We didn’t like who you voted in this time, so we’ll run the election again, and if you vote the wrong way again you’ll have to keep voting until you do give the right answer.

Remember all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Here’s a chap, Pat Condell, who explains it all much more clearly than i ever could.
youtube.com/watch?v=R9T4dGAxtO0

If that video vanishes, as Google (youtube) seek to censor the wrong views, you will find Pat Condell’s videos (well worth looking up) on Bitchute…the free speech video forum.

[milesahead]

switchlogic:

Juddian:
I’ll happily have another referendum so long as the question is still the same as the first, In or Out, because what the remainers wish for is to weasel word another referendum question to split the Out vote at least two ways.

Not true at all though it is? Most remainers would be overjoyed with a another simple in out referendum

Yes, I would be.

[kcrussell25]

milesahead:

switchlogic:

Juddian:
I’ll happily have another referendum so long as the question is still the same as the first, In or Out, because what the remainers wish for is to weasel word another referendum question to split the Out vote at least two ways.

Not true at all though it is? Most remainers would be overjoyed with a another simple in out referendum

Yes, I would be.

And if remain wins then what? Surely its another for best of 3 as cant say that the remain win counts more than a leave win can we?

If so when is the third as its more uncertainty while it all drags on.

As many have said if we don’t leave I do see civil unrest as I voted leave (never expected to win) but we did and if you will tell me that my vote won’t count explain to me the difference between us and these African or middle east counties where the vote is “fixed” or only 1 name on the paper?

Right or wrong we were given a vote and as juddian says if they chose to ignore it thats a very slippery slope for all sides concerned

[milesahead]

milesahead:

switchlogic:

Juddian:
I’ll happily have another referendum so long as the question is still the same as the first, In or Out, because what the remainers wish for is to weasel word another referendum question to split the Out vote at least two ways.

Not true at all though it is? Most remainers would be overjoyed with a another simple in out referendum

Yes, I would be.

But I’m not asking for that.

Referendum on the final deal is in people’s who voted leave interest as well, it just seems logical to have opportunity to express your opinion on farther future and get Brexit right and if there is no way to get it right then why do it at all for any price, but all this should be decided by people.

[winseer]

milesahead:

What’s wrong with second referendum, it’s not about voting until results come right, it’s about making an informed decision on the outcome of the negotiations, deciding whether we are going to be better or worst off.

+1

It is because any subsequent referendum sends the message “Your vote doesn’t count first time, if it’s not what We, at Parliament - want”.

What next? - We vote an MP out in a future election, only for them to be “allowed to stay for ceremonial reasons” by the EU - because the winning electoral candidate is a Right Winger that cannot be countenenced by the EU?

… Or Jury Trials are done away with, because the public cannot be trusted to vote 12-0 on the cases the government wants you to find guilty, like sticking Tommy Robinson in jail forever for speaking nothing but the truth?

…Or the fact that even Brexiteers won’t vote for a stitch-up, and any “second meaningful vote” is likely to be along the lines of "Do you want (1) THIS stitch-up where we stay 99% in the EU or (2) To drop Brexit altogether or “Don’t vote” and the MPs will keep us in with the support of the 48% who of course WILL vote!

The result of the referendum - has to be final. We’re still waiting for the “Weigh In” though, and thus have yet to be settled up with.

Two years on, and so far - the only benefit from “voting” Brexit - has been the boost to exports caused by the drop in the pound.
Otherwise, progress has been scant. It is clearly obvious that Parliament doesn’t want to do it, and hopes that they can waste enough time that we’ll get tired of waiting, or die off because they mistakenly think that the 52% are all over the age of 70 FFS…

[winseer]

Complete Brexit, then at the following election - the public will vote for the government that offer the best policies “Post-Brexit”, including (if they are daft enough) for any party to continue standing on a “Reverse Brexit” ticket by that point.

I can see the Libdems being wiped out once Brexit is done so far as to be irreversible.
I can see the same happening to UKIP, but all the while Brexit isn’t done - there continues to be “unfinished business” with them.

Labour - need to come out as to what they will actually do in office.

Are we going to take the chance that an incoming Labour government won’t turn over Brexit on the spot otherwise?

Think of how tempting it would be…
EU: “Congratulations Mr Corbyn. You’ve become Prime Minister at last. As one Socialist Regime to another - We’ll supply you with UNLIMITED 0.1% interest loans to fund ALL your spending plans - so you won’t have to raise taxes AFTER all… IF you drop Brexit on the spot of course!”

Corbyn: “Hmmm. Oh. Yes. Ok. No Problemo, my Masters! The NHS will be saved, the country will be bankrupt - but I now am safe for my full five years in office. My local councils will spend money all over the place making sure the forces of the Right - never hold sway in this country again.” I’ll pass laws rendering continued pro-brexit speech counting as “Hate Speech”, and it being illegal in future to anyone more Right Wing than Nick Clegg to hold any public office in this country. EU Commissioner #3 - If you’d care to unzip yourself, as you can see I am already kneeling, ready to lick… Just say the word, and it will be made law in the UK."

EU: “Splendid fellow! - Now… We’ll need to ask you for a little more in future by way of Brussels Contributions… Orban is being a pain, and we’d like your funding and personnel to bring about “Regime Change” in Hungary. Your contributions will be raised from £351m per week to £750m per week, give or take a quid or two. Yes that’s right. We’ve admitted that the £350m on the side of the bus WAS the lie we always argued it was - it was in fact £351m per week!”

[carryfast]

Juddian:

milesahead:

What’s wrong with second referendum, it’s not about voting until results come right, it’s about making an informed decision on the outcome of the negotiations, deciding whether we are going to be better or worst off.

+1

Just be careful what you wish for.

If the elites ignore the referendum result (which is par for the course re EU, or Germany by another name), then in future what’s to stop them ignoring all future votes by the public?

We didn’t like who you voted in this time, so we’ll run the election again, and if you vote the wrong way again you’ll have to keep voting until you do give the right answer.

The smoking gun will be if a second referendum is drawn up as the same type of non binding document on the government as the 2016 one was,or not.Don’t be surprised if the second one miraculously turns into a binding document unlike the first in that regard.In which case who cares when neither side will recognise the outcome.IE Brexit supporters are being taken for mugs here if we think that any referendum was ever going to decide this issue in our favour.On that note don’t remember anyone on the leave side refusing to recognise the 1975 result and calling for a second vote.On the basis of ‘what ‘type’ of remain’ we’ll then go for.IE ‘soft remain’ EEA member state or full on ‘hard remain’ EU member state which the remainers are conveniently using as a trojan horse when it suits them now.

[milesahead]

Winseer:

milesahead:

What’s wrong with second referendum, it’s not about voting until results come right, it’s about making an informed decision on the outcome of the negotiations, deciding whether we are going to be better or worst off.

+1

It is because any subsequent referendum sends the message “Your vote doesn’t count first time, if it’s not what We, at Parliament - want”.

What next? - We vote an MP out in a future election, only for them to be “allowed to stay for ceremonial reasons” by the EU - because the winning electoral candidate is a Right Winger that cannot be countenenced by the EU?

… Or Jury Trials are done away with, because the public cannot be trusted to vote 12-0 on the cases the government wants you to find guilty, like sticking Tommy Robinson in jail forever for speaking nothing but the truth?

…Or the fact that even Brexiteers won’t vote for a stitch-up, and any “second meaningful vote” is likely to be along the lines of "Do you want (1) THIS stitch-up where we stay 99% in the EU or (2) To drop Brexit altogether or “Don’t vote” and the MPs will keep us in with the support of the 48% who of course WILL vote!

The result of the referendum - has to be final. We’re still waiting for the “Weigh In” though, and thus have yet to be settled up with.

Two years on, and so far - the only benefit from “voting” Brexit - has been the boost to exports caused by the drop in the pound.
Otherwise, progress has been scant. It is clearly obvious that Parliament doesn’t want to do it, and hopes that they can waste enough time that we’ll get tired of waiting, or die off because they mistakenly think that the 52% are all over the age of 70 FFS…

The result of anything in this world can’t be final, life goes on, things change, people’s opinions change. In 2016 one idea has won over other, but 5, 10, 20, 50 years later life may change, world may change, people’s opinions may change and if there will be enough support there can be new referendums about anything, EU, African Union, or anything else in this world.

[raymundo]

To the remoaners I only have this to say … ■■■■ it up buttercup, you ■■■■■■ lost so end of, an no second referendum for the snowflakes

[franglais]

Some people are coming to their senses. Some arent. [express.co.uk/news/uk/10182 ... -May-video](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1018299/Brexit-news-Andrew-Marr-Michael-Gove-Chequers-blueprint-UK-EU-withdrawal-Theresa-May-video) So Mr Gove reckons we can maybe, just, cobble together a version of The Chequers deal with the EU, and then when a new P.M. comes in just....magically .... get a new and better one....? Im a gobby sonso, but I`m speechless. (Almost)
Stable government? Known trading conditions? A place for safe future investment?
If we must have Bexit, why are we cursed with this bunch of inept clowns trying to negotiate a deal that suits their own selfish party political ambitions?

[winseer]

Adolf Hitler was a master of “Political gains that cannot be reversed.”

It is also rather hard to come back from the dead to make any kind of “future protest” at what has been done of course.
Whilst the subject of the Holocaust has been looked at many times - we don’t often discuss “What was Hitler actually doing it for?” much.

Just the actions of a madman, or was it because he wished purely to take out the political opposition class entirely?

If we are to learn anything from that - it would be that “Genocide” isn’t limited to Races, Religions, or Nations. It can also include “Political Leanings” as found within a single party as well.

What label would the world put on a “Holocaust of Communists” or “Holocaust of Liberals” etc etc?

I would not object to the issue of “Brexit” being looked at in another 40 years time. If “Leaving” didn’t work - then the public can do what they are doing now - “turn over that mistake from 40 years prior”. If it DID work though? - We won’t even know what the word “Brexit” meant, any more than we asked the question “Was it necessary to go to war?” in 1953, the year the austerity caused by WWII finally came to an end for the general population.

The way our Con-self-servatives are behaving right now - makes me kinda hope that Labour will vote down Hammond’s emergency budget this autumn - and force another election before Christmas!

UKIP might not still be around by 2022 to pick up votes otherwise…
If we’re to truly “hold Parliament’s feet to the fire” - then it has to be a case of “the sooner the better”!

I don’t want Hammond doing the next budget.
I don’t want May leading the Tories into the next election.
I don’t want Labour failing to admit that they’ll turn over Brexit upon being elected, only getting elected because people falsely believe that Labour would “complete the Brexit that the losing Tories could not”.
I don’t want to see the Libdems win any seats at all at the next election.
I don’t want to see UKIP throw the baby out with the bathwater - by alienating those further Right than they are.
I don’t want to see someone else take over the Conservative Party - who isn’t prepared to purge the party of Remainers who fail to fall into line.
There should be no platform for those already proven to be on the “Wrong side of History”. The “Anti Brexits”, the “Pro Terrorists”, the “Anti Low-Unemployment ZHCs” and the “Pro EU High Unemploment” establishments, who seem to think the public “cannot get rid of them” any time soon.

How soon can the next election be?

Betting is currently linked here:

Betfair Exchange | Best Odds Online, Back and Lay Betting

The price for “The next election in 2019” - is rather short don’t you think…
I reckon the price for “The next election in 2022” - is looking a bit like a “Barry’s Bismarck” by this point as well!

[muckles]

Winseer:
That’s not what I said - and you know it.

Joining the EEC without asking the people - happened in 1973.
The Tories organized a tilted referendum to ratify that entry for 1975, which caused the hung parliament of February 1974.
Heath lost his majority, and smartly stepped aside for Labour, despite winning the popular vote and only having 4 less seats than Labour.

Enough seats changed hands, so that in the confusion - NO proper debate was ever held over the rights and wrongs of joining the EEC in 1973.
People voted “In” - because by that point, it was a fait accompli - and pretty much no other reason. :

You did say that, in so many words,

And now though you agree we joined in 1973, you seem to believe that the 1975 Referendum was part of a Conservative policy to see how it went and then allow the people to decide. The Consevatives didn’t want a referendum, they were quite happy we’d joined snd didn’t want a looming threat to our continued membership, they said as much in their 1974 manifestos.
Many in the Labour leadership were happy as well, but they faced so much opposition to EEC membership from notable senior party members such as Tony Benn and Eric Heffer and from the Unions they had to hold a referendum at the very least or fade massive problems.
So without the election of a Labour Goverment there would have never been a referendum at that time.

As for proper debate, the level of debate was far better than we got in 2016, just look on You Tube for the debate between Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins, not a 5 minutes of sound bites, but proper debate. And although young at the time, probably a similar age to you, I remember it taking up much of people’s time, I remember the posters and my parents and their friends talking about it.

[muckles]

milesahead:
Referendum on the final deal is in people’s who voted leave interest as well, it just seems logical to have opportunity to express your opinion on farther future and get Brexit right and if there is no way to get it right then why do it at all for any price, but all this should be decided by people.

Continual referendums aren’t really a good way of running Country, although there are arguments for a lot more grass roots representation, if we’d had that we might not be in this position now, it would also play into the idea many have that the establishment will keep having a vote until they get the answer they want or they can rig it.
And also we’ve had a General Election since the referendum, with Brexit fresh in people’s minds the one party which has stood on a platform of overturning the referendum result and staying in the EU got a drubbing.
However with both main parties split on their policies maybe there is a good argument for a referendum on a Deal or No Deal with the EU, Noel Edmunds could host it and Barnier could play the banker.

[juddian]

The next election might be interesting, one wonders if the single party with red and blue badges that is Labour and Tory (both left leaning in their current forms) will still be the default tribal votes for people who still cling to the laughable notion that Labour are representative of the working class and Tories having Conservative ideals , neither party fulfils either of those roles.

Sweden have just voted for their own self destruction once again, which is barely believable with what’s happening there, and the chances are we’ll do exactly the same.

I’d like to think the electorate will punish severely the death of democracy as this Brexit farce is proving, but sadly going by the memory span of the average voter and how so many can be bought with money promised (borrowed) in the names of others (millions yet to be born) to repay, i fear we’ll revert en mass to the tribal two dead parties once more, and once more expect a different outcome.

[winseer]

muckles:

Winseer:
That’s not what I said - and you know it.

Joining the EEC without asking the people - happened in 1973.
The Tories organized a tilted referendum to ratify that entry for 1975, which caused the hung parliament of February 1974.
Heath lost his majority, and smartly stepped aside for Labour, despite winning the popular vote and only having 4 less seats than Labour.

Enough seats changed hands, so that in the confusion - NO proper debate was ever held over the rights and wrongs of joining the EEC in 1973.
People voted “In” - because by that point, it was a fait accompli - and pretty much no other reason. :

You did say that, in so many words,

And now though you agree we joined in 1973, you seem to believe that the 1975 Referendum was part of a Conservative policy to see how it went and then allow the people to decide. The Consevatives didn’t want a referendum, they were quite happy we’d joined snd didn’t want a looming threat to our continued membership, they said as much in their 1974 manifestos.
Many in the Labour leadership were happy as well, but they faced so much opposition to EEC membership from notable senior party members such as Tony Benn and Eric Heffer and from the Unions they had to hold a referendum at the very least or fade massive problems.

So without the election of a Labour Goverment there would have never been a referendum at that time.
It is a shame that Wilson was able to win the election by being “Not the Tories” rather than on a ticket to turn over Heath’s taking us into the common market in 1973 without bloody well asking the public first! If Labour had been behind in the polls across winter 1973, then I would imagine that Labour might have been stimulated to have made “taking us back out again” their policy, rather than being won-over by the IMF-style argument “If you’re in - you can borrow your way out of your money problems!” Yeh right. That worked well in the late 70’s under Callaghan - didn’t it?

As for proper debate, the level of debate was far better than we got in 2016, just look on You Tube for the debate between Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins, not a 5 minutes of sound bites, but proper debate. And although young at the time, probably a similar age to you, I remember it taking up much of people’s time, I remember the posters and my parents and their friends talking about it.

We still got pumped by the both sides of Parliament to return a “Yes” vote though. Nothing much changed there then.

Social Media was partly responsible in 2016 for the successful Leave campaign. Otherwise, we would have all brought into the £9m leaflet drop, and would have probably voted in a similar pattern to the 1975 referendum all over again.

[winseer]

muckles:

milesahead:
Referendum on the final deal is in people’s who voted leave interest as well, it just seems logical to have opportunity to express your opinion on farther future and get Brexit right and if there is no way to get it right then why do it at all for any price, but all this should be decided by people.

Continual referendums aren’t really a good way of running Country, although there are arguments for a lot more grass roots representation, if we’d had that we might not be in this position now, it would also play into the idea many have that the establishment will keep having a vote until they get the answer they want or they can rig it.
And also we’ve had a General Election since the referendum, with Brexit fresh in people’s minds the one party which has stood on a platform of overturning the referendum result and staying in the EU got a drubbing.
However with both main parties split on their policies maybe there is a good argument for a referendum on a Deal or No Deal with the EU, Noel Edmunds could host it and Barnier could play the banker.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we, once per parliament - got to have a 10 question referendum on the most burning issues of the day? - Knowing that the clear difference between governments would be (1) Which questions made it onto the ballot paper and (2) Which party do you actually trust to implement any likely results that might stand against that party’s principals.

I think it has been kinda absurd that Cameron held a referendum in the first place - if he bloody well wasn’t prepared to LOSE it! “Resigning” should have been a way out for him. He should have called the election that, in the end - MAY called. The electorate would have smelled blood, and UKIP I reckon - would have built on the 4m votes they got in the 2015 election.