Kinda though Cameron came back from negotiations with a deal on the table that he effectively presented to the country. Clearly this only defined the short term commitment to the EU and it's not a short term commitment people were voting on but there were certain things it was known to entail like freedom of movement and access to EU markets.

However I do think that portraying the vote as one on detail is a mistake and it was a referendum on the principle of EU membership rather than the practicalities and should probably be respected despite the challenges leaving entails.

The point was made that the question being just leave yes or no with no detail was a boon to the remain camp, that somehow leave won despite of this.

In reality it was a huge boon for leave.

You think a few '000 thousand people changing their mind will effect the result and it appears you don't even know what the referendum question was!

Seriously, do a bit of research and learn what the adults are talking about.

I'll spell it out in the hope that you can understand.

1) The referendum asked should we leave or should we stay.

2) in one of the largest turnouts of all time the leave supporters came out on top by over 1.25M votes.

3) no mention was made anywhere of what our future agreements with Europe, if any, would be.

The UK voted out of Europe. That is it. The govt now needs to carry out that instruction and hand in our resignation.

Whatever our new agreements with Europe will be is up to the govt to negotiate and Parliament to ratify if necessary.

So you mean you would accept leaving the EU but if the UK makes deals with the EU which keep single market, free movement and all the other stuff that would be ok for you?

lol at over 1.25M votes as though that is some crushing victory.

36% of possible voters voted for Brexit, fine, that is a procedural victory, it is not the will of the people.

Also none of what I am saying is to do with not knowing what the question is, or that the question had any plans on it, I know what the question is, this is just you desperately grasping at straws.

Everyone else but you can see the massive cognitive dissonance you have in relation to your hostility to our Sovereign Parliament debating Brexit.

Return sovereignty to Parliament, Parliament debate the return of its own sovereignty, get the **** out. Lol u.

Of course he would,no one actually voted for any of those things, just to leave.

Parliament has already debated Brexit on a number of occasions, such as

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ons-Parliament

What you want is for parliament to have a second chance to vote it down, even though everyone's understanding at the time the original bill was passed was the will of parliament was for the vote to be final and "advisory" only to Cameron who said he would trigger Article 50 the next day without going back to parliament.

You're entitled you your hardline parliament > people view but you should at least be intellectually honest about it.

Very weak try but I have explicitly said about a billion times Parliament should "pass" Brexit and it obviously will, there is zero chance of Parliament over turning Brexit and any one hoping for that would be fool.

Which is why the hostility to having a debate just shows the radical childish insecurity of Leavers and there silly immature requests for everyone to just shut up about it.

And no, Parliament had not debated the executive's plans for Brexit, because no one knows what they are yet even the executive.

Last I check the Parliament is still sovereign over the executive.

Also quoting the Express, says it all. Get on the bus. It is about a debate about a second referendum triggered by some online poll.

Could not fail moah.

Diebitter on the left with the hat, just behind richdog burning the flag

In which case, as an intellectually honest person, I'm sure you can confirm you have absolutely tons of money on at the available odds on Betfair of 1.23 = 2/9.

Unless they are completely stupid I'm sure the executive has no intention of revealing its plans in the debate before the Article 50 vote, so they won't get one now either.

In which case it's simple, parliament merely has to schedule the debate and inform the executive when it is. Parliament also had the chance to define any further procedures it wanted in the intial referendum bill. It chose not to because it was assumed Cameron would immediately act on the advice of the people.

The express was just the first thing that came up in google. We've also had remainers like Andy Burnham banging on about whether his Dutch wife of 22 years will be deported.

You might at least try to keep up with current developments:

May says she will reveal Brexit plan before triggering article 50

Government accepts Labour motion to publish plan for leaving EU but calls on MPs to vote for process to begin by late March

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ing-article-50

I'd be perfectly alright with anyone opposing the triggering of article 50 regardless of the referendum result and I think the UK should probably leave.

I'm not hoping for it but I'd be alright with MP's using it as an opportunity to nail their colours to the mast

The only issue is everyone wants these details because they 'want the best possible deal'. That's as vacuous a phrase as 'brexit means brexit'.

It's actually just a means for the butthurt to try and wreck the outcome, IMO. And I am definitely not alone.

Its so pot kettle for leavers to call anyone buthurt over the issue of Parliament in this spot.

Personally, I'm disappointed the red line for the gov is immigration, I don't care about that. I also don't care about paying money for market access - that's just an obvious cost benefit thing.

I think long term the most important issue is the ability for the UK to make its own trade deals. Without that, we tie ourselves way too tightly to the economic fiasco that is the EU right now.

(Being beholden to EU law is also ridiculous - except for trading law/standards)

I'm talking very long term. I appreciate that.

BBC says it's just the "timetable".

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38232780

Its funny that the government basically used very few if any of the arguments the so called constitutional experts of Leave in this thread are using (wonder why) but instead based most of their case on the idea of prerogative left over the age of Kings and Queens. Oh how very democratic.

This revealing a plan stuff is totally ******ed. It basically tells the EU our bottom line, thus making the best deal we can get the bottom line by default.

It's completely Negotiation 101

Brexit could see net migration from the EU fall by 150,000 a year and give pay boost to low-income workers – major new report

great headline there dt. and great vote everyone. but hey, at least you get to make all the same trade deals the eu already has.

on one hand we'll all be substantially poorer than we could have been, but on the other hand we get to make life worse for 150k eu nationals a year. one of the great dilemmas of our time.

No bias in that headline.

The plan revealing is merely to expose the lack of a plan. We have no bottom line or indeed any lines. The EU will say what they will give the UK and perhaps concede on some minor points, but as they hold all the cards we will have to accept what we are offered or it's hard brexit and tariffs.

The only social group to emphatically back remain were middle class.liberals...


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.tel...ally-back/amp/

back remain you mean

also in shock news "wealthy eurosceptics" backed leave

I did,. My bad.