Chach

What do you think you heard here? It's not an admission of anything other than someone spelling out the withdrawal process, highlighting the fact a deal may not be agreed within the two years and that all the other member states would need to agree to an extension.

Very keen to see this, I've been trying to find evidence that the leaders of the leave campaign even mentioned no deal outside the Parliament let alone inside it.

You just did it again, Article 50 is a formal notice and a process by which member states notify the EU of their intention to leave, the reason that the Parliament had to vote to invoke article 50 is because the referendum was not pre-legislative. The invocation of Article 50 can be rescinded with a solitary letter. The Parliament is the only constitutional authority by which to make and repeal laws and that is what it is doing, the idea that it is not functioning can only be based on an ignorant understanding of how democracy works. They don't sit around the campfire singing "Kumbaya my Lord", they argue until they reach a consensus on the legislation and if they can';t do that there is zero reason why no deal becomes the default when a second referendum can be held on the options. If people are unhappy with the member they elected they can change them at the next GE, the answer is more democracy not less. So again, how can a second vote and more democracy divide the country?

With all due respect, you're just repeating the same platitudes and factoids and not addressing the fact that the referendum was not pre-legislative so always contingent on the details. How can asking the question a second time split the country further?

Sorry mate, there's many ways to leave the EU and leave with no trade deal is only one of them. I can use Matt's argument more implicitly. If it was a binary vote to leave or stay why was the referendum advisory and not pre-legislative? The mechanism to leave the EU was well known > trigger article 50 > two year negotiation > leave, absolutely no reason it couldn't have been pre-legislative. The only possible reason you won't agree a second referendum offers a solution is that you are worried a more informed electorate will overturn your preferred decision.

le sigh.

Yeah that would be one interpretation

This pretty much sums up the quality of the debate

he's referring to "Types of Referendum" in section 5 of this document which is a Briefing Paper for the Referendum Bill http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf

You cherry picked a legal position from a Briefing Paper to answer half a question while ignoring the stated intent of the government who called the referendum. Its pretty obvious to me that the government of the time strategically chose a question of such a binary nature because they thought the doubt about post Brexit relationship would encourage fence sitters to vote remain and there's a good argument it did. The fact that back fired spectacularly doesn't then mean Leavers should take the most favorable definition of that binary vote because a majority of people were happy to trade some economic prosperity for a sense of more national control.

Yes, because you have no intention of engaging in an honest dialectic as I originally pointed out. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-highest-form-of-disagreement/531597/

Again, that is a legal position. Leavers would rightly insist it doesn't address the ethical situation of ignoring a popular vote. It is entirely possible that the deal could have been negotiated beforehand and then had a binding referendum on whether to accept taken place, but lets face it that would not have worked.

From the BN you linked, not advisory and would have been implemented without further legislation. "In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change."

Also, if you can provide a precedent where an "advisory" referendum was not implemented that would also bolster your argument.

Yes but that's a constitutional position precluded on the details of the exit being unknown and unknowable at that time, so can also be used to argue the other way. Also that is a briefing paper written by a civil servant that has likely never been read by an elected member, not a Hansard record. "Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?"

You're doing what he does and selectively responding to the part of the argument that helps your position. The second part "as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum" is the critical part of his argument. Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?

Not sure if you remember but Cameron was a remainer, he wasn't the one saying we will leave the EU and have all the same trade benefits.

Only until if/when Hillary Benn's bill has passed and then the GE is on, only voted down until no deal is off the table. In a GE (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Labour's position will be a second referendum What will the Tories position be? No deal and a deeply unholy alliance with the Brexit party seems to be their own chance and ipso facto a referendum on those two positions.

For the love of god, it's not spin it's a good faith argument. There is a good faith argument both ways which is why a second referendum is the only way of getting a final decision and some closure. Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.

Yep, you can't really rely on one of these without accepting the other. So really the only solution is another referendum with the following question: The parliament has been unable to negotiate a withdrawal agreement that can command a majority in the house of commons, should the United Kingdom: Leave the EU with no deal Remain in the EU A GE with Brexit not decided will be a disaster.

What time will we know if Hillary Benn's bill gets passed?