Nige now says he wants to be Trumps ambassador to the EU. Obviously wants to make yet more hundreds of thousands of pounds from the institution he purports to hate once the UK looses their MEP’s.

I see he is intending to raise a rabble to try and intimidate the Supreme court in December.

Classy

Or perhaps a lot of people are extremely far left and think everyone right of them is far right.

Well, I’m a centrist by nature so have people to the left and right of me

On a differnt note, from my perspective it was entertaining to see Nige get fairly comprehensively swatted down on the Marr show today.

Gina Miller demonstrated this morning the absolute lack of any form of suitable governance in respect to Brexit by The leavers either in or out of government, she laid bare in simple language the absolute inadequacy of these people to actually do any thing other than shout.

And how often does Nige have to incte unrest before he gets his collar felt?

Nope, it’s conclusively correct. You can have a referendum on whether people think single market membership (under current rules) is any better than EU membership if you like and it won’t even be close. Following the same rules, whilst not getting a say in them can only be worse, not better. It’s essentially like giving a current UK citizen the option of remaining an UK citizen but with no vote. Why would anyone choose that willingly?

It would be really interesting to hear his reasoning because every single EU rule we currently adhere to would still apply except we wouldn’t have a representation in EU parliament, so the EU could design rules and structure other trade agreements to make our industries uncompetitive and we’d have no ability to veto them. Why would anyone want that?

But you originally said no one who voted leave would want to stay in the single market. I am glad you are now acknowledge that at least some may hold that view- otherwise why ask about his reasoning?

Also by suggesting “it won’t even be close’ you again are acknowledging that there are some who would be content with that. thanks for the clarification

on a different note, I am glad even Amber Rudd has backed the judges against the howls of the tabloid press ( although grudgingly by the tone of her reply)

“The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/tory-mps-and-ex–ministers-call-on-government-to-defend-judiciar/

This proves that asking the question in an ill defined way might not lead to the expected result.

Go Kirsty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwsQ_5Wm4oo

Frankly I’m puzzled. Referendums have exactly the same remit as elections – to demonstrate the democratic majority will of the people. If, legally, referendums are purely advisory then elections must be the same.

If both types of plebiscite can be ignored or revisited until you get the result that you want, what exactly is the point ?

It was very clear at the start of the referendum campaign that it was an advisory one from a legal perspective for those who wanted to listen, although in effect it would determine the policy of the goverment. Which it has. This judgement has not changed that, Britain will be leaving the EU but it may change the pace and tone of policy.

Referenda are not universally seen as admirable, to quote Chris Patton:
“I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that—not very surprisingly—they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: “Oh, we’re not going to talk about that, we don’t need to talk about that, that’s all for the referendum.” So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn’t have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.”

Clearly I think the Leave vote was a triumph of stupidity over sense but to have a referendum and then suggest, afterwards, that parliament has primacy over the actually quantified will of the people is an utter absurdity.

It has not done what you have suggested. The ruling has no bearing on the merits or demerits of the result of the referendum. In that way it is an apolitical judgement whatever the howls of rage from the right, although I have no doubt the motivation of the plaintifs was political in origin.That Is what the Daily Fail,the Torygraph and UKIP want to be the narrative because it suits their mindset but it is not an accurate one
It will almost certainly lead to a parliamentary vote in favour of brexit, as most commentators agree, so fulfilling the ‘quantified will of the people’ but crucially will hopefully involve the two houses of parliament in ratifying a decision on the terms. That is why in my opinion it was a good day.