I was a big supporter of the people’s vote however I’ve gonna cold on the idea. I think it’ll cause more instability within communities etc. One thing everyone will agree on is that there is no solution that a majority will be happy with. I think the best solution and I predict will happen will be another several months of watering down and chipping away until we get something that will pass through parliament. I think we will get some line in line with the Norway model albeit it’ll take us bloody ages to get there.

Yes, I currently think that Norway+ (EFTA) is the most likely outcome, though it doesn't remove all of the issues. I'm actually coming around to the idea of a new EU referendum but am still worried about the potential for it to be framed by Leave as Westminster saying to the general public ‘You got this wrong, try again’ which could potentially lead to an even higher leave vote.

Some random musings - if Article 50 is delayed by six months, as it could be, then we could be in a position where the UK could end up voting in the EU Parliamentary elections, which are due to take place in May - it was taken as a given that the UK wouldn't vote in this as we would have been outside of the EU by this point, but if the UK does vote, then it could end up being quite interesting indeed. What would also be interesting is whether the deal that will be on the table post-election will be any different - given the populist shift in the past 5 years, the make-up of the Europe-wide Parliament c.2019 will be a very different beast of the c.2014 parliament - it could be possible that this EU, which is likely to be of a more Eurosceptic bent than the current one, could end up offering the UK a deal that is more palatable to Westminster, and could lead to a Brexit-deal in the year.

As I said, just random musings. I'm reluctant to make predictions as I have no idea what's going to happen, but the scenario I've outlined above might not beyond the realms of reality.

The fact that we are barely 2 months away from the exit date and have no deal/plan for what happens next surely makes even the most moronic people realise that Brexit wasn’t a very good idea.

She's lying - again. And it's about time somebody asked her why it would be wrong to overturn the result of an advisory referendum o which the winning side broke the law. There is little point in bothering with electoral law if there are no consequences for breaking it.

Chris can't comprehend the fact that many migrants that come to the UK do make worthy and substantial contributions to society, and instead opts to believe that all migrants must be the root cause of rising pressure on the DWP, NHS, etc. No UK nationals would ever be part of the issue.

The notion that we should remain in the EU merely 'because the exit process would be extremely complicated' holds no weight with me.
Generally speaking, the punishment for doing that is a fine, not overturning the result.

Only if the result is *extremely* close, say within 0.5%, might there be a legitimate reason to challenge the validity of it.
I'm not one of those who claims that most immigrants do not make a contribution, but conversely, I feel that those immigrants who commit crimes should be given no second chances!

I'm not one of those who claims that most immigrants do not make a contribution, but conversely, I feel that those immigrants who commit crimes should be given no second chances!

Can't really do that kind of false equivalency.

Prior to 2015, it was such a comparative non-issue. The ref forced every voter to have an opinion and created this poisonous Leave-Remain divide nearly all by itself. Yes, you had people banging on about the EU (based on what they had read in low quality newspapers about politicians using the EU as a convenient scapegoat) and from polls taken, the highest point Leave reached was 56% in 2012, but because the wider public hadn't been even exposed to the arguments about what leaving the EU would mean, it makes those polls incomparable to ones taken after the referendum was made a certainty and even less comparable to the post-referendum ones. Incidentally, comparing 1975 to 2016 as a Remain-Leave (or EU or not?) divide is similarly an invalid comparison because of how wildly different the questions are and how non-existent those two sides were. I mean what they stand for and the culture around 'belonging' to one side, not the literal positions.

In any case, because of the short memory of the public and their changeable opinions, you're probably just looking for an event in the interim which made the EU look extra bad at the time. Post-2008 with Greece's collapse would be my guess.

The whole Greece thing may have contributed a little bit to the rise of Euroscepticism in the UK, it did make the EU look bad, and many people thought the EU treating Greece too harshly at the time.

Like John's just said, anyone who commits a crime should be punished. But essentially what you're saying is that you think if an immigrant commits a crime they should no longer be allowed to remain the UK and should be sent back to their home country? What about UK citizens that commit crimes? Are you going to have them exiled from the UK, or let them stay because there's an elitist and backward attitude that UK citizens are any better than EU migrants?

We can't get rid of British criminals, alas - but I see no reason we can't deport EU ones.

If someone arrives as a guest but doesn't abide by our laws, we should be entitled to ask them to leave - I can see nothing wrong with that.

Although they will, of course, she moly be replaced by British criminals deported from other countries. Funnily enough, the right-wing press tends to get upset about that as well. Consistency has never been their strongest point.

It's not on the BBC News headlines, and yes it would be a silly move from the Conservatives perspective, there would be more chance of Labour winning (albeit probably with no overall majority) than the Conservatives getting their majority back.