There was a moment when I thought there might be a chance for consensus. A new party is to be formed, seeking to appeal to the centre/left of the Tories, and the centre/right of Labour. Surely that could provide a springboard to finally move forward.
But no. What we have is a collection of embittered people who have only soundbites and the desire to attack their former party.
Their first opportunity to showcase their policies came on Question Time. Anna Soubry couldn't make it. So who replaced her-Chuka Umunna (like him or not, the man has media skill)? No-Chris Leslie. A man who spent his entire time sniping at Labour, and none at the Conservatives.Who demands that the people have a second say on Europe, while steadfastly denying his electorate the same courtesy. His attack on Baroness Chakrabati was particularly mean-spirited. The only realistic hope of a majority is an agreed deal on Brexit.
We could be having a sensible discussion about whether a Norway or Canada model would be better. We could be doing our utmost to avoid the no-deal Brexit that will hurt the economy far more than leaving. But no. We have a new party whose genius idea is to pretend the Referendum never happened, declare that they will vote down the Deal on the table, while simultaneously insisting that "no deal" is taken off the table.
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
It is true to say that the 2 Main parties have deep divisions on Brexit. But let's not forget that the LibDems and the Greens went into the last election united and with a clear message on Brexit. Between them, they have 12 MPs, while the 2 main parties got 500-odd. Hardly a groundswell for a 2nd referendum, was it?
Normally it has taken a comedian to outshine politicians on political debate on QT. Now it is clear that footballers can be added to that list.
In late news, the new Independent party want to rerun the World Cup semi between England and Croatia, while the Scottish wing want the 1966 linesman replaced
I think that Labour solidarity has only been maintained by not actually saying anything.
Their opposition to the Tories has been completely ineffective.
Their input to the Brexit debate has been nonexistent, until fairly recently.
They have suddenly decided to pressure the PM, to remove the prospect of no deal, and to support a Customs Union.
The Yvette Cooper amendment, stopping the no deal option, only failed to get through, because of the Labour MPs that defied the whip, and voted against, or abstained. There was no action taken against them despite it being a three lined whip vote.
The Labour suggestions on a Customs Union, Single Market access etc, belong in phase 2 negotiations, and fail to offer assistance in solving the immediate problem.
Also when Corbyn has been asked to articulate the difference between the PMs deal and being in a Customs Union, he seems unable to do so.
Corbyn has clearly been forced into offering support for another referendum, against his will.
Just extending Article 50, only postpones a no deal outcome.
To avoid no deal, will involve getting a deal through at some point. So the difficulty relates to the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than any future deal.
Unless the Withdrawal Agreement can be passed, there will be no future deal.
Article 50 seems odds on to be extended, assuming the EU agree to it.
If another referendum was to happen, an extension of sufficient time to accommodate it would be required. The EU have already agreed that they would extend Article 50, to allow for an election, or referendum
The latest Labour proposals seem to support a Norway plus a Customs Union deal. This can only return the debate to claims from leavers regarding a lack of democracy, and not being what they voted for.
This Norway type deal seems to have garnered cross party support. I think it is about the closest you could be to the EU, without being a member. My view is that to argue for this deal, is to admit that staying in is the best option. We would almost be staying in, but without a say in anything, and without any opportunity to assist in shaping the future of the EU.
If a Norway plus a Customs Union deal was done, we would surely alienate many leave voters. We would maintain Freedom of Movement, make annual financial contributions, and be unable to have an independent trade policy. Although this may cause the least damage to our economy, the only thing that would be considered a worse outcome by Brexiteers, is another referendum.
I don't think you can attribute the lack of support for the smaller parties purely to their positions on Brexit, as many other factors will have come into play.
I think that the resignations have encouraged others to become more outspoken. If the result of this, is that the no deal option was removed next week, then it can only be seen as a good thing.
Whatever the outcome, it seems that it will only have been supported by a minority.
I don't feel disposed to voting for either of the two main parties. I realise that the chances of those that have resigned, forming a successful new party, are slim. Although if they were, there are plenty of people like me that would vote for them.
There are questions being asked about the ERG. This is a peculiar name, as they hate Europe, do very little Research, and aren't much of a Group.
I don't see any point in going through the catalogue of errors made by the Tories during the period since the referendum.
Theresa May has been a disastrous leader, and has proved to be useless throughout the negotiations.
The Meaningful Vote was supposed to be on the trade deal, not the Withdrawal Agreement. All negotiations were meant to be concluded by the end of next month. Liam Fox and the easiest trade deal in human history, and David Davis with, we will have all the same benefits, spring to mind.
I think that the whole thing has proved that the delivery of Brexit, as promised, was always going to be impossible.
Why would that be ? you are more than happy to apportion a large amount of blame on Labour for the brexit situation we find ourselves in .
I have maintained that they are one as bad as the other. Although the Tories have been doing the negotiations.
There was a moment when I thought there might be a chance for consensus. A new party is to be formed, seeking to appeal to the centre/left of the Tories, and the centre/right of Labour. Surely that could provide a springboard to finally move forward.
But no. What we have is a collection of embittered people who have only soundbites and the desire to attack their former party.
Their first opportunity to showcase their policies came on Question Time. Anna Soubry couldn't make it. So who replaced her-Chuka Umunna (like him or not, the man has media skill)? No-Chris Leslie. A man who spent his entire time sniping at Labour, and none at the Conservatives.Who demands that the people have a second say on Europe, while steadfastly denying his electorate the same courtesy. His attack on Baroness Chakrabati was particularly mean-spirited. The only realistic hope of a majority is an agreed deal on Brexit.
We could be having a sensible discussion about whether a Norway or Canada model would be better. We could be doing our utmost to avoid the no-deal Brexit that will hurt the economy far more than leaving. But no. We have a new party whose genius idea is to pretend the Referendum never happened, declare that they will vote down the Deal on the table, while simultaneously insisting that "no deal" is taken off the table.
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
It is true to say that the 2 Main parties have deep divisions on Brexit. But let's not forget that the LibDems and the Greens went into the last election united and with a clear message on Brexit. Between them, they have 12 MPs, while the 2 main parties got 500-odd. Hardly a groundswell for a 2nd referendum, was it?
Normally it has taken a comedian to outshine politicians on political debate on QT. Now it is clear that footballers can be added to that list.
In late news, the new Independent party want to rerun the World Cup semi between England and Croatia, while the Scottish wing want the 1966 linesman replaced
I think that Labour solidarity has only been maintained by not actually saying anything.
Their opposition to the Tories has been completely ineffective.
Their input to the Brexit debate has been nonexistent, until fairly recently.
They have suddenly decided to pressure the PM, to remove the prospect of no deal, and to support a Customs Union.
The Yvette Cooper amendment, stopping the no deal option, only failed to get through, because of the Labour MPs that defied the whip, and voted against, or abstained. There was no action taken against them despite it being a three lined whip vote.
The Labour suggestions on a Customs Union, Single Market access etc, belong in phase 2 negotiations, and fail to offer assistance in solving the immediate problem.
Also when Corbyn has been asked to articulate the difference between the PMs deal and being in a Customs Union, he seems unable to do so.
Corbyn has clearly been forced into offering support for another referendum, against his will.
Just extending Article 50, only postpones a no deal outcome.
To avoid no deal, will involve getting a deal through at some point. So the difficulty relates to the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than any future deal.
Unless the Withdrawal Agreement can be passed, there will be no future deal.
Article 50 seems odds on to be extended, assuming the EU agree to it.
If another referendum was to happen, an extension of sufficient time to accommodate it would be required. The EU have already agreed that they would extend Article 50, to allow for an election, or referendum
The latest Labour proposals seem to support a Norway plus a Customs Union deal. This can only return the debate to claims from leavers regarding a lack of democracy, and not being what they voted for.
This Norway type deal seems to have garnered cross party support. I think it is about the closest you could be to the EU, without being a member. My view is that to argue for this deal, is to admit that staying in is the best option. We would almost be staying in, but without a say in anything, and without any opportunity to assist in shaping the future of the EU.
If a Norway plus a Customs Union deal was done, we would surely alienate many leave voters. We would maintain Freedom of Movement, make annual financial contributions, and be unable to have an independent trade policy. Although this may cause the least damage to our economy, the only thing that would be considered a worse outcome by Brexiteers, is another referendum.
I don't think you can attribute the lack of support for the smaller parties purely to their positions on Brexit, as many other factors will have come into play.
I think that the resignations have encouraged others to become more outspoken. If the result of this, is that the no deal option was removed next week, then it can only be seen as a good thing.
Whatever the outcome, it seems that it will only have been supported by a minority.
I don't feel disposed to voting for either of the two main parties. I realise that the chances of those that have resigned, forming a successful new party, are slim. Although if they were, there are plenty of people like me that would vote for them.
There are questions being asked about the ERG. This is a peculiar name, as they hate Europe, do very little Research, and aren't much of a Group.
I don't see any point in going through the catalogue of errors made by the Tories during the period since the referendum.
Theresa May has been a disastrous leader, and has proved to be useless throughout the negotiations.
The Meaningful Vote was supposed to be on the trade deal, not the Withdrawal Agreement. All negotiations were meant to be concluded by the end of next month. Liam Fox and the easiest trade deal in human history, and David Davis with, we will have all the same benefits, spring to mind.
I think that the whole thing has proved that the delivery of Brexit, as promised, was always going to be impossible.
Why would that be ? you are more than happy to apportion a large amount of blame on Labour for the brexit situation we find ourselves in .
I have maintained that they are one as bad as the other. Although the Tories have been doing the negotiations.
No. One Party called for the Referendum, and chose the oversimplistic question.. One Party is Governing the country. The only Candidate to lead the Conservative Party during the UK's biggest need for diplomacy since 1945 was the self-styled "Blo ody difficult Woman" One Party chose to seek extra votes from people implacably opposed to compromise from within its own party, rather than seeking the cross-party support that was always the only realistic option. You believe that one Party's folly is the same as another Party's failure to effectively oppose them.
I think that Labour solidarity has only been maintained by not actually saying anything.
Their opposition to the Tories has been completely ineffective.
Their input to the Brexit debate has been nonexistent, until fairly recently.
They have suddenly decided to pressure the PM, to remove the prospect of no deal, and to support a Customs Union.
The Yvette Cooper amendment, stopping the no deal option, only failed to get through, because of the Labour MPs that defied the whip, and voted against, or abstained. There was no action taken against them despite it being a three lined whip vote.
The Labour suggestions on a Customs Union, Single Market access etc, belong in phase 2 negotiations, and fail to offer assistance in solving the immediate problem.
Also when Corbyn has been asked to articulate the difference between the PMs deal and being in a Customs Union, he seems unable to do so.
Corbyn has clearly been forced into offering support for another referendum, against his will.
Just extending Article 50, only postpones a no deal outcome.
To avoid no deal, will involve getting a deal through at some point. So the difficulty relates to the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than any future deal.
Unless the Withdrawal Agreement can be passed, there will be no future deal.
Article 50 seems odds on to be extended, assuming the EU agree to it.
If another referendum was to happen, an extension of sufficient time to accommodate it would be required. The EU have already agreed that they would extend Article 50, to allow for an election, or referendum
The latest Labour proposals seem to support a Norway plus a Customs Union deal. This can only return the debate to claims from leavers regarding a lack of democracy, and not being what they voted for.
This Norway type deal seems to have garnered cross party support. I think it is about the closest you could be to the EU, without being a member. My view is that to argue for this deal, is to admit that staying in is the best option. We would almost be staying in, but without a say in anything, and without any opportunity to assist in shaping the future of the EU.
If a Norway plus a Customs Union deal was done, we would surely alienate many leave voters. We would maintain Freedom of Movement, make annual financial contributions, and be unable to have an independent trade policy. Although this may cause the least damage to our economy, the only thing that would be considered a worse outcome by Brexiteers, is another referendum.
I don't think you can attribute the lack of support for the smaller parties purely to their positions on Brexit, as many other factors will have come into play.
I think that the resignations have encouraged others to become more outspoken. If the result of this, is that the no deal option was removed next week, then it can only be seen as a good thing.
Whatever the outcome, it seems that it will only have been supported by a minority.
I don't feel disposed to voting for either of the two main parties. I realise that the chances of those that have resigned, forming a successful new party, are slim. Although if they were, there are plenty of people like me that would vote for them.
There are questions being asked about the ERG. This is a peculiar name, as they hate Europe, do very little Research, and aren't much of a Group.
I don't see any point in going through the catalogue of errors made by the Tories during the period since the referendum.
Theresa May has been a disastrous leader, and has proved to be useless throughout the negotiations.
The Meaningful Vote was supposed to be on the trade deal, not the Withdrawal Agreement. All negotiations were meant to be concluded by the end of next month. Liam Fox and the easiest trade deal in human history, and David Davis with, we will have all the same benefits, spring to mind.
I think that the whole thing has proved that the delivery of Brexit, as promised, was always going to be impossible.
It is only proving to be impossible because there are 3 camps, and 2 of them are failing to move.
The ERG are confident that the question the electorate answered was to completely cut ourselves off from Europe.
Remainers refuse to accept the result of an vote that has already taken place.
Are May and Corbyn fairly useless? Yes. But, in fairness, they appear to be 2 of the few people who are trying to broker some form of compromise, as opposed to staying in their own ideological hut and throwing rocks. You reserve your criticism for the only 2 people who could realistically resolve this issue in time.
You have provided lots of evidence about how we can not do this, that and the other deal in time. I agree. However, you conveniently fail to address the time issues for a 2nd referendum in my last post.
The main reason it is proving "impossible" as loads of politicians refusing to compromise. How very un-British.
Whatever the reason for it, it is proving impossible.
There is no evidence to support the ERGs position.
Some remainers refuse to accept the result, and some Brexiteers have changed their minds.
Dominic Raab has said that he would choose to remain if offered a choice between the PMs deal and remaining.
The buck stops with the leaders. Good leadership would have resolved the issues long ago.
I am not sure which referendum issues you refer to.
Whatever the reason it is still proving impossible. There is no point in saying that we could have found a satisfactory outcome if we weren't British, as we clearly are.
The one immediate problem we face is the Backstop.
Theresa May on day one ruled out all the obvious solutions to the Irish border problem.
The Backstop was only invented because she had done this.
How could we even contemplate leaving the EU without any thought of what would be done about the Irish border.
The two solutions for avoiding a hard border in Ireland, were obvious on day one.
No other viable solutions have emerged in the meantime.
We could have proposed staying in the Customs Union, but would have still required a Backstop, until trade negotiations were completed.
The other option was a border in the Irish Sea.
Both options were immediately obvious, yet we have spent the majority of the last 2 years discussing the problem.
The Backstop only came about through the PMs refusal to accept either option.
The Backstop seems to be the only reason that we are hurtling towards a no deal outcome.
The EU were helpful, and lenient on the checks that would have to occur on the ferries between NI and the UK. Some checks already occur.
Pointing out the reasons for the impossibility, doesn't alter the fact that it is impossible.
There was a moment when I thought there might be a chance for consensus. A new party is to be formed, seeking to appeal to the centre/left of the Tories, and the centre/right of Labour. Surely that could provide a springboard to finally move forward.
But no. What we have is a collection of embittered people who have only soundbites and the desire to attack their former party.
Their first opportunity to showcase their policies came on Question Time. Anna Soubry couldn't make it. So who replaced her-Chuka Umunna (like him or not, the man has media skill)? No-Chris Leslie. A man who spent his entire time sniping at Labour, and none at the Conservatives.Who demands that the people have a second say on Europe, while steadfastly denying his electorate the same courtesy. His attack on Baroness Chakrabati was particularly mean-spirited. The only realistic hope of a majority is an agreed deal on Brexit.
We could be having a sensible discussion about whether a Norway or Canada model would be better. We could be doing our utmost to avoid the no-deal Brexit that will hurt the economy far more than leaving. But no. We have a new party whose genius idea is to pretend the Referendum never happened, declare that they will vote down the Deal on the table, while simultaneously insisting that "no deal" is taken off the table.
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
It is true to say that the 2 Main parties have deep divisions on Brexit. But let's not forget that the LibDems and the Greens went into the last election united and with a clear message on Brexit. Between them, they have 12 MPs, while the 2 main parties got 500-odd. Hardly a groundswell for a 2nd referendum, was it?
Normally it has taken a comedian to outshine politicians on political debate on QT. Now it is clear that footballers can be added to that list.
In late news, the new Independent party want to rerun the World Cup semi between England and Croatia, while the Scottish wing want the 1966 linesman replaced
I think that Labour solidarity has only been maintained by not actually saying anything.
Their opposition to the Tories has been completely ineffective.
Their input to the Brexit debate has been nonexistent, until fairly recently.
They have suddenly decided to pressure the PM, to remove the prospect of no deal, and to support a Customs Union.
The Yvette Cooper amendment, stopping the no deal option, only failed to get through, because of the Labour MPs that defied the whip, and voted against, or abstained. There was no action taken against them despite it being a three lined whip vote.
The Labour suggestions on a Customs Union, Single Market access etc, belong in phase 2 negotiations, and fail to offer assistance in solving the immediate problem.
Also when Corbyn has been asked to articulate the difference between the PMs deal and being in a Customs Union, he seems unable to do so.
Corbyn has clearly been forced into offering support for another referendum, against his will.
Just extending Article 50, only postpones a no deal outcome.
To avoid no deal, will involve getting a deal through at some point. So the difficulty relates to the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than any future deal.
Unless the Withdrawal Agreement can be passed, there will be no future deal.
Article 50 seems odds on to be extended, assuming the EU agree to it.
If another referendum was to happen, an extension of sufficient time to accommodate it would be required. The EU have already agreed that they would extend Article 50, to allow for an election, or referendum
The latest Labour proposals seem to support a Norway plus a Customs Union deal. This can only return the debate to claims from leavers regarding a lack of democracy, and not being what they voted for.
This Norway type deal seems to have garnered cross party support. I think it is about the closest you could be to the EU, without being a member. My view is that to argue for this deal, is to admit that staying in is the best option. We would almost be staying in, but without a say in anything, and without any opportunity to assist in shaping the future of the EU.
If a Norway plus a Customs Union deal was done, we would surely alienate many leave voters. We would maintain Freedom of Movement, make annual financial contributions, and be unable to have an independent trade policy. Although this may cause the least damage to our economy, the only thing that would be considered a worse outcome by Brexiteers, is another referendum.
I don't think you can attribute the lack of support for the smaller parties purely to their positions on Brexit, as many other factors will have come into play.
I think that the resignations have encouraged others to become more outspoken. If the result of this, is that the no deal option was removed next week, then it can only be seen as a good thing.
Whatever the outcome, it seems that it will only have been supported by a minority.
I don't feel disposed to voting for either of the two main parties. I realise that the chances of those that have resigned, forming a successful new party, are slim. Although if they were, there are plenty of people like me that would vote for them.
There are questions being asked about the ERG. This is a peculiar name, as they hate Europe, do very little Research, and aren't much of a Group.
I don't see any point in going through the catalogue of errors made by the Tories during the period since the referendum.
Theresa May has been a disastrous leader, and has proved to be useless throughout the negotiations.
The Meaningful Vote was supposed to be on the trade deal, not the Withdrawal Agreement. All negotiations were meant to be concluded by the end of next month. Liam Fox and the easiest trade deal in human history, and David Davis with, we will have all the same benefits, spring to mind.
I think that the whole thing has proved that the delivery of Brexit, as promised, was always going to be impossible.
Why would that be ? you are more than happy to apportion a large amount of blame on Labour for the brexit situation we find ourselves in .
I have maintained that they are one as bad as the other. Although the Tories have been doing the negotiations.
No. One Party called for the Referendum, and chose the oversimplistic question.. One Party is Governing the country. The only Candidate to lead the Conservative Party during the UK's biggest need for diplomacy since 1945 was the self-styled "Blo ody difficult Woman" One Party chose to seek extra votes from people implacably opposed to compromise from within its own party, rather than seeking the cross-party support that was always the only realistic option. You believe that one Party's folly is the same as another Party's failure to effectively oppose them.
To be clear. The Tories are completely responsible for getting us into this mess. Although if the Labour Party had provided a more effective opposition, they would have made it much more difficult.
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
If you were referring to the above,
I thought I had covered this.
Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.
I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.
I don't buy the riots.
The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.
If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.
If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.
There was a moment when I thought there might be a chance for consensus. A new party is to be formed, seeking to appeal to the centre/left of the Tories, and the centre/right of Labour. Surely that could provide a springboard to finally move forward.
But no. What we have is a collection of embittered people who have only soundbites and the desire to attack their former party.
Their first opportunity to showcase their policies came on Question Time. Anna Soubry couldn't make it. So who replaced her-Chuka Umunna (like him or not, the man has media skill)? No-Chris Leslie. A man who spent his entire time sniping at Labour, and none at the Conservatives.Who demands that the people have a second say on Europe, while steadfastly denying his electorate the same courtesy. His attack on Baroness Chakrabati was particularly mean-spirited. The only realistic hope of a majority is an agreed deal on Brexit.
We could be having a sensible discussion about whether a Norway or Canada model would be better. We could be doing our utmost to avoid the no-deal Brexit that will hurt the economy far more than leaving. But no. We have a new party whose genius idea is to pretend the Referendum never happened, declare that they will vote down the Deal on the table, while simultaneously insisting that "no deal" is taken off the table.
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
It is true to say that the 2 Main parties have deep divisions on Brexit. But let's not forget that the LibDems and the Greens went into the last election united and with a clear message on Brexit. Between them, they have 12 MPs, while the 2 main parties got 500-odd. Hardly a groundswell for a 2nd referendum, was it?
Normally it has taken a comedian to outshine politicians on political debate on QT. Now it is clear that footballers can be added to that list.
In late news, the new Independent party want to rerun the World Cup semi between England and Croatia, while the Scottish wing want the 1966 linesman replaced
I think that Labour solidarity has only been maintained by not actually saying anything.
Their opposition to the Tories has been completely ineffective.
Their input to the Brexit debate has been nonexistent, until fairly recently.
They have suddenly decided to pressure the PM, to remove the prospect of no deal, and to support a Customs Union.
The Yvette Cooper amendment, stopping the no deal option, only failed to get through, because of the Labour MPs that defied the whip, and voted against, or abstained. There was no action taken against them despite it being a three lined whip vote.
The Labour suggestions on a Customs Union, Single Market access etc, belong in phase 2 negotiations, and fail to offer assistance in solving the immediate problem.
Also when Corbyn has been asked to articulate the difference between the PMs deal and being in a Customs Union, he seems unable to do so.
Corbyn has clearly been forced into offering support for another referendum, against his will.
Just extending Article 50, only postpones a no deal outcome.
To avoid no deal, will involve getting a deal through at some point. So the difficulty relates to the Withdrawal Agreement, rather than any future deal.
Unless the Withdrawal Agreement can be passed, there will be no future deal.
Article 50 seems odds on to be extended, assuming the EU agree to it.
If another referendum was to happen, an extension of sufficient time to accommodate it would be required. The EU have already agreed that they would extend Article 50, to allow for an election, or referendum
The latest Labour proposals seem to support a Norway plus a Customs Union deal. This can only return the debate to claims from leavers regarding a lack of democracy, and not being what they voted for.
This Norway type deal seems to have garnered cross party support. I think it is about the closest you could be to the EU, without being a member. My view is that to argue for this deal, is to admit that staying in is the best option. We would almost be staying in, but without a say in anything, and without any opportunity to assist in shaping the future of the EU.
If a Norway plus a Customs Union deal was done, we would surely alienate many leave voters. We would maintain Freedom of Movement, make annual financial contributions, and be unable to have an independent trade policy. Although this may cause the least damage to our economy, the only thing that would be considered a worse outcome by Brexiteers, is another referendum.
I don't think you can attribute the lack of support for the smaller parties purely to their positions on Brexit, as many other factors will have come into play.
I think that the resignations have encouraged others to become more outspoken. If the result of this, is that the no deal option was removed next week, then it can only be seen as a good thing.
Whatever the outcome, it seems that it will only have been supported by a minority.
I don't feel disposed to voting for either of the two main parties. I realise that the chances of those that have resigned, forming a successful new party, are slim. Although if they were, there are plenty of people like me that would vote for them.
There are questions being asked about the ERG. This is a peculiar name, as they hate Europe, do very little Research, and aren't much of a Group.
I don't see any point in going through the catalogue of errors made by the Tories during the period since the referendum.
Theresa May has been a disastrous leader, and has proved to be useless throughout the negotiations.
The Meaningful Vote was supposed to be on the trade deal, not the Withdrawal Agreement. All negotiations were meant to be concluded by the end of next month. Liam Fox and the easiest trade deal in human history, and David Davis with, we will have all the same benefits, spring to mind.
I think that the whole thing has proved that the delivery of Brexit, as promised, was always going to be impossible.
Why would that be ? you are more than happy to apportion a large amount of blame on Labour for the brexit situation we find ourselves in .
At some point, whatever's Labour's many failings are you have to ask yourself this question.
Whose primary job is it to govern this country? The Government? Or the opposition?
That is easy, and very obvious.
I am clear on the responsibilities.
This doesn't improve Labours performance.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The Tories are responsible for the Brexit negotiations.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
If you were referring to the above,
I thought I had covered this.
Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.
I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.
I don't buy the riots.
The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.
If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.
If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.
You had covered it. But some of what you say will not be true. Let's take these one by one.
"The 9 month extension". Fine in theory. Just one problem-2 people need to agree to it, the UK Parliament, and the EU. Both refuse to do so.
"5 to 6 months to set up a Referendum." True. But only if you can agree as to what the question should be. There will be no agreement on that for the exact same reasons as nothing gets agreed on Brexit. There is no 1 "right question"-it all depends on your point of view. I know that. And you know that.
"Riots"? We promised to abide by the will of the people. If we do not, you are facilitating the rise of the Far Right and Far Left. You might not buy it, but every extremist in this country bets you are wrong.
We have had 2 referendums ever in this country. On the same thing. With different results. Leavers waited 41 years for their chance. You want to cancel their victory, and do not think that will cause problems. And you think the 3rd referendum, unlike the first 2, will not cause problems.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
If you were referring to the above,
I thought I had covered this.
Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.
I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.
I don't buy the riots.
The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.
If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.
If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.
You had covered it. But some of what you say will not be true. Let's take these one by one.
"The 9 month extension". Fine in theory. Just one problem-2 people need to agree to it, the UK Parliament, and the EU. Both refuse to do so.
"5 to 6 months to set up a Referendum." True. But only if you can agree as to what the question should be. There will be no agreement on that for the exact same reasons as nothing gets agreed on Brexit. There is no 1 "right question"-it all depends on your point of view. I know that. And you know that.
"Riots"? We promised to abide by the will of the people. If we do not, you are facilitating the rise of the Far Right and Far Left. You might not buy it, but every extremist in this country bets you are wrong.
We have had 2 referendums ever in this country. On the same thing. With different results. Leavers waited 41 years for their chance. You want to cancel their victory, and do not think that will cause problems. And you think the 3rd referendum, unlike the first 2, will not cause problems.
Firstly the EU have said a number of times that they would agree to an extension to Article 50, if it was to be used to allow for an election, or referendum, but not if it were to be used for just more thinking time.
Labours position seems to be evolving on this subject.
I dont think the question is that difficult.
We have in reality three possibilities at present. Who could complain if the three were included on the ballot paper.
Riots is a matter of opinion. So there is no point in arguing over that.
The extremists cause trouble on a regular basis, though this falls short of riots
Will we have riots because the majority are unhappy with the result?
Many leavers will feel robbed of their victory by us doing a Norway deal.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
The majority will be unhappy with the result.
Is that democracy?
No idea what you mean . The majority voted to leave in the referendum , any polling that suggests subsequently that has changed , is merely speculation unless it was proved otherwise in a rerun . Lets assume ( for arguments sake) there was a change in mood over the issue with leave voters , I would maintain that is entirely down to the complete ineffectiveness of this government , rather than the principles of Brexit itself .
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
If you were referring to the above,
I thought I had covered this.
Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.
I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.
I don't buy the riots.
The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.
If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.
If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.
You had covered it. But some of what you say will not be true. Let's take these one by one.
"The 9 month extension". Fine in theory. Just one problem-2 people need to agree to it, the UK Parliament, and the EU. Both refuse to do so.
"5 to 6 months to set up a Referendum." True. But only if you can agree as to what the question should be. There will be no agreement on that for the exact same reasons as nothing gets agreed on Brexit. There is no 1 "right question"-it all depends on your point of view. I know that. And you know that.
"Riots"? We promised to abide by the will of the people. If we do not, you are facilitating the rise of the Far Right and Far Left. You might not buy it, but every extremist in this country bets you are wrong.
We have had 2 referendums ever in this country. On the same thing. With different results. Leavers waited 41 years for their chance. You want to cancel their victory, and do not think that will cause problems. And you think the 3rd referendum, unlike the first 2, will not cause problems.
Firstly the EU have said a number of times that they would agree to an extension to Article 50, if it was to be used to allow for an election, or referendum, but not if it were to be used for just more thinking time.
Labours position seems to be evolving on this subject.
I dont think the question is that difficult.
We have in reality three possibilities at present. Who could complain if the three were included on the ballot paper.
Riots is a matter of opinion. So there is no point in arguing over that.
The extremists cause trouble on a regular basis, though this falls short of riots
Will we have riots because the majority are unhappy with the result?
Many leavers will feel robbed of their victory by us doing a Norway deal.
Genius. The public are asked "in" or "out. You (and for that matter, me) did not agree with the majority. So you now want the question changed to 3 options "in", "soft brexit" and "hard brexit". Thereby effectively doubling the value of Remainers votes.
Suppose people replicated the likely voting pattern of last time.
2016. In 48%. Out 52%. 2020. In 48%. Soft brexit 26%. Hard brexit 26%.
Ooh, look. We've won. And every single leave voter is going to think that is fair. Really?
I fear your version of a simple answer is to have a "1 man, 1 vote" system. Where you are the 1 man with the 1 vote
Every single option will leave large numbers feeling dissatisfied. I'd prefer 1 that keeps to promises already made, however much i personally disagree with them.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
The majority will be unhappy with the result.
Is that democracy?
Yes. Democracy relates to votes, not happiness.
Ok lets put it another way. The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
The majority will be unhappy with the result.
Is that democracy?
Yes. Democracy relates to votes, not happiness.
Ok lets put it another way. The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
I agree. But that is going to be true for every option. And you cannot "unask" the question from the last referendum
NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.
If you were referring to the above,
I thought I had covered this.
Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.
I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.
I don't buy the riots.
The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.
If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.
If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.
You had covered it. But some of what you say will not be true. Let's take these one by one.
"The 9 month extension". Fine in theory. Just one problem-2 people need to agree to it, the UK Parliament, and the EU. Both refuse to do so.
"5 to 6 months to set up a Referendum." True. But only if you can agree as to what the question should be. There will be no agreement on that for the exact same reasons as nothing gets agreed on Brexit. There is no 1 "right question"-it all depends on your point of view. I know that. And you know that.
"Riots"? We promised to abide by the will of the people. If we do not, you are facilitating the rise of the Far Right and Far Left. You might not buy it, but every extremist in this country bets you are wrong.
We have had 2 referendums ever in this country. On the same thing. With different results. Leavers waited 41 years for their chance. You want to cancel their victory, and do not think that will cause problems. And you think the 3rd referendum, unlike the first 2, will not cause problems.
Firstly the EU have said a number of times that they would agree to an extension to Article 50, if it was to be used to allow for an election, or referendum, but not if it were to be used for just more thinking time.
Labours position seems to be evolving on this subject.
I dont think the question is that difficult.
We have in reality three possibilities at present. Who could complain if the three were included on the ballot paper.
Riots is a matter of opinion. So there is no point in arguing over that.
The extremists cause trouble on a regular basis, though this falls short of riots
Will we have riots because the majority are unhappy with the result?
Many leavers will feel robbed of their victory by us doing a Norway deal.
Genius. The public are asked "in" or "out. You (and for that matter, me) did not agree with the majority. So you now want the question changed to 3 options "in", "soft brexit" and "hard brexit". Thereby effectively doubling the value of Remainers votes.
Suppose people replicated the likely voting pattern of last time.
2016. In 48%. Out 52%. 2020. In 48%. Soft brexit 26%. Hard brexit 26%.
Ooh, look. We've won. And every single leave voter is going to think that is fair. Really?
I fear your version of a simple answer is to have a "1 man, 1 vote" system. Where you are the 1 man with the 1 vote
Every single option will leave large numbers feeling dissatisfied. I'd prefer 1 that keeps to promises already made, however much i personally disagree with them.
You have problems with a second referendum being undemocratic, I don't.
If you argued that your 2020 result was really the 2016 result, though the leave vote was not separated into the preferred options. This would mean that only 26% of the electorate would think they got what they voted for.
If you look at where we are now. According to the polls no deal is more popular than the PMs deal.
Consider the other options.
Labour is now supporting Norway, and therefore has the best chance of going through.
Many people who think they voted for, or have been convinced by politicians that they voted for a no deal, could not consider that they voted for a Norway deal in a million years.
Whether or not having 3 questions doubles the value of remainer votes cant be helped. I think that having less choice would be unfair to one group of voters, as there is wide support for all 3 options. This is a reflection of the poor value of the first referendum.
Any other solution would assume that all leave voters would be equally happy with the outcome, whether it was no deal, or Norway, which is patently not true.
Some leave voters do not think that a Norway deal would not construe leaving, despite the fact that Norway are not EU members.
Some people will say that anything but no deal, is not what they voted for.
Equally many leave voters were expecting the same EU benefits, as per David Davis, and think that anything else is not what they voted for.
I think it is strange to think that an outcome that the minority think they voted for would represent democracy.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
The majority will be unhappy with the result.
Is that democracy?
No idea what you mean . The majority voted to leave in the referendum , any polling that suggests subsequently that has changed , is merely speculation unless it was proved otherwise in a rerun . Lets assume ( for arguments sake) there was a change in mood over the issue with leave voters , I would maintain that is entirely down to the complete ineffectiveness of this government , rather than the principles of Brexit itself .
I pretty much covered my answer to this in my last post.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
The majority will be unhappy with the result.
Is that democracy?
Yes. Democracy relates to votes, not happiness.
Ok lets put it another way. The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
I agree. But that is going to be true for every option. And you cannot "unask" the question from the last referendum
Comments
One Party is Governing the country.
The only Candidate to lead the Conservative Party during the UK's biggest need for diplomacy since 1945 was the self-styled "Blo ody difficult Woman"
One Party chose to seek extra votes from people implacably opposed to compromise from within its own party, rather than seeking the cross-party support that was always the only realistic option.
You believe that one Party's folly is the same as another Party's failure to effectively oppose them.
The Tories are completely responsible for getting us into this mess.
Although if the Labour Party had provided a more effective opposition, they would have made it much more difficult.
If you were referring to the above,
I thought I had covered this.
Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.
I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.
I don't buy the riots.
The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.
If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.
If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.
I am clear on the responsibilities.
This doesn't improve Labours performance.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The Tories are responsible for the Brexit negotiations.
If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing.
If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen.
To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
"The 9 month extension". Fine in theory. Just one problem-2 people need to agree to it, the UK Parliament, and the EU. Both refuse to do so.
"5 to 6 months to set up a Referendum." True. But only if you can agree as to what the question should be. There will be no agreement on that for the exact same reasons as nothing gets agreed on Brexit. There is no 1 "right question"-it all depends on your point of view. I know that. And you know that.
"Riots"? We promised to abide by the will of the people. If we do not, you are facilitating the rise of the Far Right and Far Left. You might not buy it, but every extremist in this country bets you are wrong.
We have had 2 referendums ever in this country. On the same thing. With different results. Leavers waited 41 years for their chance. You want to cancel their victory, and do not think that will cause problems. And you think the 3rd referendum, unlike the first 2, will not cause problems.
Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
Labours position seems to be evolving on this subject.
I dont think the question is that difficult.
We have in reality three possibilities at present. Who could complain if the three were included on the ballot paper.
Riots is a matter of opinion. So there is no point in arguing over that.
The extremists cause trouble on a regular basis, though this falls short of riots
Will we have riots because the majority are unhappy with the result?
Many leavers will feel robbed of their victory by us doing a Norway deal.
Is that democracy?
The public are asked "in" or "out. You (and for that matter, me) did not agree with the majority.
So you now want the question changed to 3 options "in", "soft brexit" and "hard brexit". Thereby effectively doubling the value of Remainers votes.
Suppose people replicated the likely voting pattern of last time.
2016. In 48%. Out 52%.
2020. In 48%. Soft brexit 26%. Hard brexit 26%.
Ooh, look. We've won. And every single leave voter is going to think that is fair. Really?
I fear your version of a simple answer is to have a "1 man, 1 vote" system. Where you are the 1 man with the 1 vote
Every single option will leave large numbers feeling dissatisfied. I'd prefer 1 that keeps to promises already made, however much i personally disagree with them.
The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
But that is going to be true for every option.
And you cannot "unask" the question from the last referendum
You have problems with a second referendum being undemocratic, I don't.
If you argued that your 2020 result was really the 2016 result, though the leave vote was not separated into the preferred options. This would mean that only 26% of the electorate would think they got what they voted for.
If you look at where we are now. According to the polls no deal is more popular than the PMs deal.
Consider the other options.
Labour is now supporting Norway, and therefore has the best chance of going through.
Many people who think they voted for, or have been convinced by politicians that they voted for a no deal, could not consider that they voted for a Norway deal in a million years.
Whether or not having 3 questions doubles the value of remainer votes cant be helped. I think that having less choice would be unfair to one group of voters, as there is wide support for all 3 options. This is a reflection of the poor value of the first referendum.
Any other solution would assume that all leave voters would be equally happy with the outcome, whether it was no deal, or Norway, which is patently not true.
Some leave voters do not think that a Norway deal would not construe leaving, despite the fact that Norway are not EU members.
Some people will say that anything but no deal, is not what they voted for.
Equally many leave voters were expecting the same EU benefits, as per David Davis, and think that anything else is not what they voted for.
I think it is strange to think that an outcome that the minority think they voted for would represent democracy.