Did not think you would have a specific instance, just a general hand wave.

I am really against this thing, but cant tell you in any detail about the thing I am really against is standard argumentation from Leave.

Also the point about EU law does nothing to change the fact that Parliament should debate Brexit, nice try at deflection though.

Sure, but I thought you wanted them to vote on it.

Classic double think cognitive dissonance.

Return sovereignty to Parliament NOW!, Parliament debate how its sovereignty is returned? Get the **** out of here, NO NO NO.

Also lets clear up one more thing.

Having a completely open ended unknown Brexit helped Leave win in a big way.

It allowed people to cherry pick the type of Brexit they would assume would happen and then argue about Brexit as though that was a foregone conclusion.

If a potential downside was brought up, then it was argued dont be silly, they wont happen, the EU will concede on that point as it will hurt them more, we will do a Norway etc.

All the Leavers I know personally took it as given that the UK would find a way to stay in the single market.

We will do a Norway was indeed a central argument of several prominent Leavers and they seemed to genuinely believe that was possible.

Before you all throw your toys out of the pram I am responding to a speculation formulated by Leavers, and also I believe its possible that some forms of specific Brexit would have won a bigger majority, indeed there might even be formulations I would have voted for. That swings both ways, I am pretty certain if the choice had been hard brexit then Leave would have lost, indeed if we take several prominent Leave campaigners at face value, they would have voted remain also. Obviously not Nige.

This is all just discussion, you dont have to tell me to stfu we won already.

I'm fine with the parliament thing, btw. I just want them. To get in with it.

Your assumptions were wrong (again)

That leave choice we voted for. We still voted for it, despite the salespitch it would be catastrophic. We voted for article 50 being invoked the next day. So we voted for the worse case scenario, and leave still won the vote on that basis. So debate will not change any leavers mind, because we all accept it may well be the worst case anyway - still better than staying in the EU.

Sorry if this is confusing you, please try.

The govt thinks it will be a one liner, as it should be. But you know better than them of course.....

The only debate should be on 'should the house vote in favour of the referendum result which it asked the people for in the first place'.

Parliament voted 6-1 to let us decide and Leave won the vote by a huge 1.25M votes on a record turnout.

You may hate democracy and how it works but suck it up and stop the crying.

Oh so when I was arguing with RD about that very issue you kept jumping in to accuse me of hypocrisy was just trolling and dishonesty?

Backtrakements.

.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Try reading up on what the Brexit referendum question was instead of going off on a tangent.

No point debating anything with someone with whom the most elementary things go whoooosh.

Look all your fellow travelers seem to have conceded Parliament should debate Brexit, just get on the bus and stop looking stupid.

This.

Not remotely a this lol wtf.

Assumes to speak for 17 million people then tries to call me dumb.

I actually do know Leave voters, your reasoning here is just as horrible as it is everywhere else.

I can actually quote numerous posts ITT by leavers swearing blind the worst option will never happen, its trivial.

Im quickly losing interest here, can a leaver come in and try and say something that is just not monumentally stupid.

I agree with you substantively but the fact is that Leave wasn't offered as a plan, there wasn't a plan and given the process has to be negotiated a plan can only go so far without presuming the results of negotiations that have yet to be entered into. To this end I think you're right that not having a plan or a specific account of Brexit helped leave. But leavers didn't vote for a plan they voted for a principle, and they won. I don't think the forms of Brexit that may result changes that.

I disagree with diebitter but he's consistent, he voted for the principle of UK sovereignty he cares much less about how that sovereignty manifests only that it does.

If he had said I fine, but he said we which is just cmon, why should I even debate such a dumb phrasing, its trivial to disavow the idea that people voted for Leave thinking that the worst would not happen, they spent the whole referendum arguing blind that the worst would not happen. There was no plan, but people projected a **** ton what that plan would be in forming their rationalisations for voting.

Diebitter is actually trying to argue that if you changed the question, the result would have been the same which is nonsense. Even the most simple rephrasing of questions in referendums has been shown to have massive impacts on outcomes.

I think when the actual form of Brexit is subject to negotiation it's a mistake to focus on a particular form and argue about the consequences. Leavers always had the ability to dispute the implications of leaving by arguing that negotiations would turn out differently.

I'm not sure how you counter that, I'm not disputing that a different question may have led to a different result but I'm not sure how you present a different question without presuming the outcome of negotiations that are only initiated by triggering Article 50. There's two parties to the negotiations and voting on a plan requires the other party to agree first which can't happen.

I didn't argue that though. You seem deliberately obtuse.

Not aware of the logical extension of your own arguments.

FWIW the terms the Guberment has been using for Brexit are:

Black: Totally leaving the free market.
White: Staying in the free market, keeping free movement.
Grey: Paying to have access to elements of the free market, less free movement.

The semiology of the colouring should show you what they think about each option.

So you're arguing about your own assumptions again, rather than what was said?

Classic.

No I am arguing about exactly what was said and what was said implies, exactly that.

The thing is "stay" wasn't defined in the referendum campaign either.

A stay vote would have been another 40-year blank cheque that not enough people were willing to sign.

this is deliciously patronising, but youre both about 50 and this is the most boring conversation yet itt. you'll both probably be dead before the uk has completely left the eu anyway.

May has slipped an amendment into some labour proposal tomorrow, so parliament is voting to support (or not) article 50, and trigger by March 2017 tomorrow.