Brexit

For my part, suggestions of behind-the-scenes coordination between Brussels and Remain orientated politicians, intended to undermine PM Johnson's 31st October policy.

Some might say the talk this week 'interim (white) female cabinets' (Caroline Lucas) and 'interim PM's' (Jo Swinson) foreshadows a conciliatory shift, at least in tone, from Brussels - who might, lets guess, 'welcome' such a move.

The  idea that Brussels/Troika would even think of trying to manipulate democratic processes of member states would likely elicit a wry smile from Athens to Dublin and Tallinn to Lisbon.

In politics, as well. Can you believe it.

Yes, I can. And we can either decide to keep repeating “stories” and “hints” reported in various papers or we can try to rise above this rhetoric and discuss based on facts rather than opinions. Btw, I would apply this to both sides.

@n1david  Someone asked for a contextual explanation for the use of 'collaboration'.

Well, brace yourself. It's going to get a lot worse than this before Halloween.

The logical answer is someone outside of the power centres in the major parties (I include Conservative, Lib Dem, Labour, Nationalist parties and DUP). Someone who has, literally, no future as PM, someone who commands respect across remain supporters. Someone who will commit to not stand again at a future general election and who will put forward no agenda apart from what would be necessary to maintain the country through a referendum and subsequent parliament.

Only one majority Labour government has needed Scottish Labour MP's

Even on current ‘honeymoon’ period polling there would be an even more profoundly hung parliament. Given that any election would be a proxy referendum (with alliances, maybe even a coupon election) just have a referendum. 

This. Voted remain but would vote leave if there was a next time.

Oh and I still feel the need to say that the Referendum was not legal as the leave side broke the law, spending too much money, which changed the outcome. Still being investigated by police...how can people STILL use the result of this vote to justify action?

And “no deal” was not put forward by leave at the time...we know as a scientific fact as you can track the number of “google searches” for a phrase and the numbers searching about it did not spike until far later (probably when May started waffling on about “No Deal is Better than a Bad deal” Such tosh.

And even if result was 52/48 the referendum has NEVER answered (even now) why people voted to leave and what they meant by it....May’s biggest failing is that she never actually bothered to find out what the vote meant. Revoke and People’s assemblies and then address the issues raised in them is still the most creative solution. Gives people a voice, says we wont ignore what you feel but we will be grown up about it and recognise that perhaps those feelings have not been caused by EU memebership.

But things have moved on since then. There was a distinct age bias in the voting: since then referendum more leave than remain voters have died and people who can now vote who couldn't then are more in favour of the EU. Many people have come to realise just how many of the Leave arguments were outright lies, and that you only lead a campaign with lies when the truth would go against you. There's not going to be an extra £350m a week, not for the NHS or for anything else. Britain's relatively high population isn't because of EU migrants, but a result of a four-fold population increase in the 19th century.

What's the problem with another referendum? If it would give the same result, where's the harm? If it wouldn't, why should the majority of people be forced into something they don't want? And let's not forget that the Leavers were all in favour of referendum after referendum until they got what they wanted, so they can hardly turn round now and say there shouldn't be another one.

A bit Commie. To the left of Corbyn that?