We NEED regulatory alignment even more if we do start to do our own trade deals. We have spent 40 years getting our regulatory systems lined up and it would be beyond stupid to not continue and try to strike out on our own. The only other system that is recognised around the world is that from the USA and it would take years and a huge investment to switch to it. In my own industry I had experience of both and the EU one is, in my opinion, vastly superior, easier to understand, centred on science and not commercial interests and trusted.

Staying aligned ought not to impact any trade deals, other than with the USA and I quite honestly would prefer not to get involved with the USA until Trump and any lingering Trump shadow has become a distant memory.

Making the EU the villains might be comforting for the ultra Brexiteer but it isn't really accurate. We were the ones who decided to leave. They don't want us to and know it will cost them if and when it does. What would you do in their position? Just agree to everything asked of them?

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (16 Oct 2019 9.26pm)

How amateurish did May's negotiating look now!!

Ignoring the wonderful Orwellian display of double-think going on in this (and I am truly in awe) why do you think we should be angry or disappointed?

I don't think you should be. I think many people are. Yourself included from the way you describe your attitude.

Surely the entire thrust of your argument has been that when we voted on June 23rd 2016 we should have done so with nothing other than grateful acceptance that our betters in Parliament not only had the right, but also a duty, to adjudge 17.4 million votes to have been cast in complete ignorance?

That's a ridiculous assertion. I have never suggested that our MPs are our "betters" or that those who voted "leave" did so in "complete" ignorance. What I have argued is that the referendum was carried out at a time, and in a way, when no-one knew nearly as much as they do now, and that it was also compromised by foreign interference, which was exploited by the leave campaign and as a result some of those who voted to leave did so on very shaky grounds. Our MPs have done their duty, which is to try to respect the commitments given by both major parties in 2017 and have triggered Article 50. Since then the issue has not been about leaving, or remaining. It's about HOW we leave without causing unnecessary harm.

Why should we, if we accept all of your arguments about the sovereignty of Parliament, be in any way mildly miffed? Surely we should be celebrating this wondrous display? Over-joyed that we have such wise people as MP's who certainly have no reason to be anything other than extremely proud of how they have acted?

You must ask yourself that question. In my opinion it's often the case that people who don't get their own way react like that. You see it in every walk of life. You don't like it being pointed out to you that PMs cannot make firm promises. No politician can ever make a promise to do anything concrete. All they can ever promise is to try. You don't like it being pointed out to you that what existed in 2016 doesn't exist today. Things move on and we have to deal with the now and not the then. This has all proved much more complicated than anyone ever imagined possible. At the base of it lies not just our future inside, or outside the EU. It's very much bigger than that. This impacts the future of the United Kingdom itself. We can easily see a united Ireland resulting from this, followed in fairly short measure by an independent Scotland. Wales next? Where would that leave the little Englanders? Happy or sad?

You must ask yourself that question. In my opinion it's often the case that people who don't get their own way react like that

Depends how you define 'getting their own way'. The way elections usually work is that people get to cast their votes based on the options presented to them and the option with the most votes wins and is then acted upon. And if that is 'getting your own way', then guilty as charged. Or do I have no grounds in the slightest for being more than a little miffed that my vote, amongst 17.4 million others, has not been honoured?

It was a referendum. Not a GE. Even in a GE we elect Parliaments to use their brains and not just act as sheep. If they see problems then they must deal with those problems. That's their job. Not to process things like a machine would.

Or have I missed something crucial here? Some nuance to the electoral process that has passed me by? Perhaps other UK elections I have voted in have not worked on that principle? Perhaps you can point me in the direction of other examples of public votes in which the winning option was not acted upon?

The only public votes that we regularly participate in are to choose who represents us, and not to decide specific policies. The one who gets the most votes wins. After that your involvement is nil. The referendum on joining the EEC didn't need much further decision making by Parliament. The decision on rejecting PR was easy. We chose the status quo so nothing needed to be done.