A not entirely accurate map Credit - Wik

Reuters reports that British lawmakers, celebrities call for ‘people’s vote’ on Brexit:

Lawmakers, celebrities and business leaders launched a campaign on Sunday to call for a vote on any final Brexit deal, stepping up a campaign to try to stop what they describe as Britain’s damaging departure from the European Union.

Ah, so it is not that the voters in the original Brexit referendum were not ‘people’ and it is desired to have a do-over that is a ‘people’s vote,’ as opposed to a manservants’ vote or pets’ vote. What the celebrities actually want is a different result. The damaging departure is prospective, as Brexit has not yet happened and no damage has been done, though moves are being made every month that suggest that damage would be done by reneging on the Brexit vote.

Perhaps the ‘people’ want the privilege of Parliamentarians, to be on record voting for rosy intentions but voting later against their implementation on the grounds that the details were not pretty.

Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard of Star Trek) is a spokesman for the ‘people’:

(We) will be able to boldly go again to areas that perhaps we have neglected … friendly wonderful places where we can renew old friendships, rebuild relationships and develop fantastic new free trade deals.

So the do-over is to be conducted on the assumption that the UK and EU after Brexit will be alone and lonely, unable to travel, befriend, or do business — No, wait, negotiating “fantastic new free trade deals” assumes Britain is free to negotiate them, rather than being a thrall of the EU and having Germans negotiate them in its stead.

Let’s go. I call, “tails”! If Bremain loses that one as well, our strategy will be, “Best three of five!”

Support Continental Telegraph Donate


  1. Was it not the former position of this bunch that British voters were too stupid to decide on something so complex as EU membership, but now apparently they are smart enough to decide on the pros and cons of a complex withdrawal agreement and Treaty?

    What changed?

  2. Let’s suppose that the UK and EU have reached agreement on the terms for Brexit (no doubt running to hundreds, if not thousands, of clauses). We now hold a referendum on these terms and they are rejected. Great, now what? Are we supposed to go back to the EU and say “sorry, guys, the people didn’t like that one, can we start again?” And referendums can only be carried out on binary decisions, such as Leave/Remain. Any second referendum could provide no information on why the terms had been rejected. The most likely result of a refusal to accept the agreed terms would be the dreaded ‘hard’ Brexit on WTO terms, which would be welcomed by our host (and probably many on here), but probably isn’t what Capt Picard is looking for.

    Truly, a second referendum is the most cretinous idea ever to emerge from the LimpDumbs. And that’s really saying something.

  3. 2015 – The ‘people’ elect a majority Conservative government with a manifesto stating that we will get an in/out vote on EU membership and also be a stronger player in the Single Market
    2015 – Parliament votes to have an in/out vote on EU membership
    2016 – The ‘people’ vote to leave EU membership, nothing more for that was the question on the ballot
    2016 – The highest court in the land votes to tell Parliament they get a vote on whether A50 is triggered
    2017 – Parliament votes to trigger Article 50
    2017 – The ‘people’ overwhelmingly elect the parties pledged to deliver an end to EU membership

    But one thing is missing apparently – we are to be told that we the people have not had a vote and we need to have one, and this time to take it seriously.