Remainers - What do you want? When do you want it?

[optionalrationale]

We had the referendum, we had the legal challenge, we had the Supreme Court ruling, Article 50 has been triggered. The United Kingdom will no longer be part of the European Union.

So my questions to Remainers are
What do you want? When do you want it?

Here's what I want..

I want the negotiations to go well. I want future relations with our neighbours to be cordial. I want a good deal for UK and the EU. I want us to walk away if their demands are unacceptable (and stem from vindictiveness and to deter other members from following our lead). I want the UK to be free to make good trade deals with any country it wants. I want the UK to lead in creating a new model of trade without excessive interference in each partner's social and political arena.

Go back to ignoring me cause you can't actually debate me.

Your never present any facts for anything but I have to wade through piles of stuff to prove it to you?

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/163283/GfK-NOP_EU20Referendum20Question20Testing20Research20Report-WEB.pdf

The research found low levels of contextual understanding of the European Union, with some participants having no knowledge of the European Union, or the status of UK membership of the EU, at all. Most reported that they felt under informed about the subject matter as well as the arguments for and against the United Kingdom
remaining a member.

26 interviews, 103 "mini interviews" from 2013. Well whoop-di-do.

It might be a representative sample. It might not. But what's your point?

The purpose of a campaign is to get your message and information across. You had virtually the whole establishment on your side including every living former PM, the majority of MPs AND Saint Bob Geldof (Peace be Upon Him).

What went wrong?

The October 2013 report, that the EC were required to do on 'intelligibility'?

Danny, youll have to do better than that. Unless of course you can show us that the entire nation was put into suspended animation, missed an entire general election, the entire passing of the EU Referendum Act, election campaigning and were woken on the 23rd June, to simply wander to a polling station, asking the postman on their way, what are we voting on?

Had virtually the whole establisment on your side?

The leave campaign was all establishment, the biggest 4 Daily newspapers in the country, and for far longer than the campaign was actually allowed for. These papers have printed anti EU stories for years, and the Sun and Mail printed negative front pages regarding the EU/EU immigration once a week for 6 months leading up to the vote. That's just the front page not what else is in the paper.

What went wrong?

The leave campaign promised every vested interest holder that it was their interests they would have at heart.

They confirmed people's prejudices regarding immigration.

There was a significant protest vote regarding people feeling ignored ( not to do with the EU)

Add this to years of misinformation by the right wing press, misrepresentation of things, and yes people not understanding the complexity of the issues. Then you get the leave win.

On the vested interests thing. Remember Farage sailing up the Thames and Geldof chasing him ?

Well Farage was on the TV the other day saying he thought there were going to be compromises on Fishing rights and that would be a good thing as it would mean better access for other larger industries.

He promised, he hasn't delivered.

I'll also add the irony of Farage being on the CFP comittee for 3 years, but attending only 1 meeting, when their were votes to make ammendments to policy, Farage was in the building, but didn't attend.

Yet feels that he can represent fishermen?

Oh and before you say it wouldn't have made a difference, one of the votes he missed was the part of the reform of the CFP that introduces an obligation on governments to give more fishing quota to sustainable fishermen who contribute the most to the local, coastal economies.

Cause you know the government deals with handing out the quotas, and the vast majority of it goes to big business trawlers.

Farage could have done something, made a difference, he chose not to. Yet the fishermen knew so little about his representation of them at the EU, that SOME of them campaigned with him.

Danny
" and yes people not understanding the complexity of the issues...."

When you get your second referendum , you should definitely run the campaign.

It will be called Project Poopy Pants (because Project Fear clearly didn't work, and Project Terror is just not quite hitting the mark). Your campaign slogan should be

Remain, cos you don't understand the complexity of the ishoos. WE DO

Winning formula right there.

What went wrong?

The leave campaign convinced a critical mass of people that life would be better outside the EU. There would be more money for the NHS, fewer immigrants ( which most leave voters saw as a plus), and the EU would no longer be able to impose rules on regulations on the UK without our consent.

All of this was lies.

Going back to the OP title, what I want is to see a really effective pro-EU strategic coalition of MPs getting together, led by the liberal democrats, with a view to winning back enough seats to secure a hung parliament in 2020.

Danny, you may not have realised but the referendum campaign and vote was 10 months ago.
Why are you still carping on about it?

Since then, parliament have voted to agree to act on the result (therefore rendering it a moot point whether it was advisory or not), voted to trigger A50 & begin Brexit, and Theresa May has taken that parliamentary approval and begun the process.

The whole thing has moved on from the fight you're still attempting to fight.

Remember Farage

Ah yes, Farage. The man who extolled the Norway option of being in the EEA i.e. Freedom of Movement. Just in case anyone, including the man himself, have forgotten. You can find it there on t'internet if you look.

No legal or parliamentary mandate copperrose

May's unelected, she's enacting things not in tory manifesto, there's no opposition, 20 of her government's seats were gained through election mal practice ( according to Electoral Commission findings and fine), i.e. her majority, police investigation into alleged illegal election practices in her majority seats and the referendum was advisory.

No mandate no authority, at least that's how democracy used to work.

Figment every Lib/Dem vote atm is a proxy vote for the Conservatives. You would not get a hung Parliament. You would get a 100+ Tory majority. (factor in all the UKIP votes going back to the Tories and the 30% Labour voters who are pro Brexit. Most Tory voters are not single issue on EU and so won't defect). Also there is no way the SNP would go into coalition with Lab / LibDem atm and any left leaning coalition would need them.

woman last time I checked TM was an elected MP nominated by her Party to lead them in implementing their programme for government with the resounding support of the PCP - sounds like a mandate.

oth JC is an elected MP who has won 2 leadership elections decisively but cannot command the confidence of his PLP to form an effective opposition.

Since then, parliament have voted to agree to act on the result (therefore rendering it a moot point whether it was advisory or not), voted to trigger A50 & begin Brexit, and Theresa May has taken that parliamentary approval and begun the process.

It's lucky for you then, Copperrose isn't it, that Deir dos Santos and Gina Miller went to court to clarify the legality of acting without Parliamentary authority? Thankfully the Court ruled not. Otherwise, by your own arguments, May would have no mandate whatever.

Have you forgotten the Mail comments about the Supreme Court judges at the time? It's mighty convenient to say it was all ten months ago. Then such things as the screaming Mail headlines, straight out of the Nazi copybook, as befits a paper which supported Fascism, can be forgotten. Except it can't. The country is now hopelessly divided, and there are no easy solutions available.

What about election expenses and funding of Leave campaign?
^The £70,000 question: what does the Conservative party election expenses scandal mean for the government?
A dozen police forces have passed files on up to 20 Conservative MPs' election campaigns to the CPS. Could the government's slim majority be at risk^?
www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/03/70000-question-what-does-conservative-party-election-expenses-scandal
She's carrying out a policy which was not in any tory manifesto (hard brexit) and her majority is questionable at best.

Who paid for Brexit?

Why are you still carping on about it?

In large part I think this is driven by people claiming that the referendum was a mandate for x, y and or z or that it clearly shows people feel a, b or c.

The only (electoral) mandate delivered was to leave the EU and the only thing it showed a relatively small majority felt was that they wanted to leave the EU. However you wouldn't think that to see the large numbers of people claiming the result backs their own preferred model/policy position.

In that context, looking at the referendum campaign, how it was conducted and who was promised what can be instructive and useful.

I agree though that the way in which it's discussed can be reductive and unhelpful - OP's recent comments are a good example of how it can hinder and distract from meaningful discussion.

Perhaps we can have a Mumsnet pact - particularly given many have agreed that neither campaign was particularly edifying? An agreement that Remainers won't refer to £350 million on the side of a bus, and Leavers won't refer to Project Fear?

On mandate.
MPs are representatives not delegates. The referendum was advisory.
May is supposed to represent the wishes of the electorate. A democracy represents the wishes of the minority as well as the majority.

What about the 48%?
And what about the business leaders Hammond is refusing to meet?
Is that democratic, not listening or hearing?

sounds like a mandate

This reminds me of ' We never lost sovereignty, it just felt like it'. I.e. it's not a mandate, we are just pretending it is. May has luck on her side because most of the official Opposition has gone to sleep. (Napoleon wanted Generals who were lucky, but Napoleon didn't win in the end.)

Peregrina, further back you asked why I though Theresa was doing well and I didn't answer it at the time, sorry.

I think she's the best option for our current situation wrt Brexit - every other politician I see (across all parties) apart from a very few exceptions, I cannot imagine them being PM at the moment one bit.

Theresa is much better at keeping her own counsel on things - not press happy & pushing out countless pithy tweets about every little thing.
She comes across as sensible & pragmatic and doesn't appear to me to be spiteful or reactionary.

She hasn't pushed for a General Election, even though it's been widely considered that the Tories would increase their majority significantly - many others would have done that from a vanity POV as well as a political one.
By not having one, she's left the balance roughly equal, which means that if the opposition get a grip there is the opportunity for proper scrutiny & robust debate - votes on key areas can't be shoved through without support from the other parties (and potential rebels within her own).
In 2020 she can run on her own manifesto & we'll go from there, but at the moment she's prioritised correctly in my opinion.

She's got good ideas, she's picked a good chancellor who has good ideas and when her hands are untied from the current manifesto promises she will be free to propose & implement her vision, rather than the Cameron/Osborne vision.

I like her a lot at the moment.

It's lucky for you then, Copperrose isn't it, that Deir dos Santos and Gina Miller went to court to clarify the legality of acting without Parliamentary authority? Thankfully the Court ruled not. Otherwise, by your own arguments, May would have no mandate whatever.

But they did, and she has.

Again, a moot point - it's already happened, no need to keep rehashing it.

The referendum was advisory.

Yes.
And then there were months of wrangling which ended up with the decision that parliament would vote on whether or not to act on the outcome.
They did.

Hence, it may have been an advisory ref, but through due process it now has parliamentary approval & backing.

CopperRose.

Thanks for answering, I asked for your opinion and you gave it.

IMO the best of a bad bunch, is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
To me she appears totally spiteful and mean minded. She gives good soundbites, yes, all the stuff about 'a country which works for everyone' but personally I haven't seen any constructive policies. We have seen petty nastiness like cutting the money to bereaved parents.

She couldn't easily have pushed for a GE - since the Fixed Term Parliament act, it has become more difficult, although not impossible.