[Politics] Brexit

[Diablo]

well, I think to be clear we don't want to overturn the referendum result undemocratically, we want to do it with a fully democratic vote

so ...a lot didn`t like the referendum result so lets vote again. (until we get a remain result?).....

 

[Baldseagull]

Wow, we're Mr Grumpy all of a sudden. I've asked you a very simple question about where in current legislation is says these instruments HAVE to be in place or we don't leave. You've spectacularly failed to provide that - instead you get all huffy.

So you're suggesting the BBC, amoungst others, is wrong ? That if we get to 29th March without these instruments being in place, and without an agreement in place, we won't actually leave ?

You don't HAVE to put petrol in your car, there is no legal requirement to refuel your vehicle, but you won't get far without it. We will have "left" if we don't have the legislation in place, but we won't be going anywhere, and like the driver who runs out of petrol on the motorway, we will be looking stupid, in a dangerous position and the passengers are going to get hungry and pissed off.

 

[neilbard]

A Brexit Coalition with one representative from each of the political parties currently represented in Parliment is now required to discuss and discuss with the EU to find a way forward to ensure its decision is representative of all the transferral voting system or similar needs to be used.

The government needs to urgently seek to extend Article 50 or failing that to rescind it

Once the Brexit coalition has a plan they then need to present this to Parliment to accept amend and then take forward to the EU

Conservative Party
Co-operative Party
Democratic Unionist Party
Green Party
Labour Party
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish National Party
Sinn Féin

Best of luck with that idea.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I'm a right thicko so I'm happy to be shot down but isn't a key benefit of democracy to have your say/opinion but also to then have a chance to change it at a later point?

I.e, we vote in a new government. 4 years later or whatever we can change it if we are not happy with what we've seen.

Is Brexit different? We voted that we advised the government we'd like to leave. Why would it be so bad to assess (vote) a few years later on whether we are happy with what leaving would now be....now that we have some actual evidence. Surely it would be idiotic to be stuck with something which isn't as hoped. Again, you get a chance to change your government if you don't like it.

Happy to say I voted remain but I am in no way a 'remainer'. If leaving is best for us then go ahead.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

so ...a lot didn`t like the referendum result so lets vote again. (until we get a remain result?).....

If the people haven't changed their minds then Remain won't win. If they have changed their minds then it would be undemocratic to continue down the current path.

Anyway I never got the chance to vote on Northern Ireland backstops, so certainly this vote would be substantively different to the last

 

[Baldseagull]

You asked what I wanted. I replied.

My personal business issues, which will benefit significantly, are that. Personal.

I asked what issues it solved for you, because you had attacked a list of reasons that another poster gave as issues that many leave voters may have thought would be resolved by leaving.
I think your imagined benefits are just that. Imagined.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

so ...a lot didn`t like the referendum result so lets vote again. (until we get a remain result?).....

But isn't the logic of not wanting the referendum a 'fear' of it now being remain?

At which point I'd ask, if that's the case, why would we want to go ahead with something which, potentially, the majority of people now don't want to go through with (having had time to learn about Brexit)

Isn't a well-timed, informed referendum a better barometer than an old, un-informed referendum?

 

[Is it PotG?]

If the people haven't changed their minds then Remain won't win. If they have changed their minds then it would be undemocratic to continue down the current path.

Anyway I never got the chance to vote on Northern Ireland backstops, so certainly this vote would be substantively different to the last

I'm sure some may falter since helpful souls have told them that no medicines will be available and we'll all die of starvation if we leave.

 

[¡Cereal Killer!]

Democracy advised the government. The Referendum Act 2015 said the referendum was advisory, no matter what the pamphlets or politicians said.

This with bells on! May needs to be strong and call a government vote to retract Article 50 if all other options are diminished. If she thinks that a no deal Brexit will be a national disaster then take the risk, she has nothing else to lose. It could be political suicide, she will be a hero in many people's eyes and a hate figure in many other people's eyes but she needs to do what she and the government is best for our country.
Yes it will piss a lot of people off but this is our government who we have elected to make this a better country and if they think that a no deal Brexit or any other deal for that matter will make this country worse off then it needs to be done.

 

[Bold Seagull]

so ...a lot didn`t like the referendum result so lets vote again. (until we get a remain result?).....

Is this that simplifying the impasse we are at?

We had a binary referendum with 1 answer being the status quo, the other having hypothetical multi-option scenarios. The hypothetical multi-option scenario won, but which scenario? Our Parliament cannot decide, therefore do we not need the power to tell them what to do, because they don't know, I don't know, do you? Do you know that 52% of voters wanted to leave without a deal, or a hard Brexit or a soft one?

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I'm sure some may falter since helpful souls have told them that no medicines will be available and we'll all die of starvation if we leave.

Well those people are idiots. Why did does the whole discussion have to be about all the negatives of leaving. At no time have we ad any debate about the many positives of remaining. Abdication of responsibility

 

[Is it PotG?]

I asked what issues it solved for you, because you had attacked a list of reasons that another poster gave as issues that many leave voters may have thought would be resolved by leaving.
I think your imagined benefits are just that. Imagined.

Very insightful. Just like the poster who knew the reasons people voted as they did.

Still, I bow to your knowledge.

 

[Mtoto]

In the meantime we work our butts off to prepare for no deal and if that happens for a few months so what, if we show we are coping with no deal we will have strengthened our position incredibly and then the EU will be much more on the back foot. Like others I am in no way scared by a no deal because it will inevitably lead to a better deal being offered eventually. We shouldn't worry about any short pain because it will be to achieve long term gain.

If we show we are coping ... interesting to know what "coping" means. Only a few hundred dead diabetics rather than thousands?

And ...er ... what if we don't? What if it is the catastrophe for us that anyone who knows anything about trade, transport and economics predicts, and therefore it is the EU position that is "strengthened incredibly" (ie. in addition to being at least six times bigger in economic terms when we sit down to talk trade, however things turn out). As an experienced negotiator you have surely considered all the possible outcomes, so how would you negotiate your way out of that?

 

[Surf's Up]

Yes we will leave because a further referendum is becoming inevitable. There will be 3 options on the referendum paper

1. Mays intransigence stubborness and stupidity means she will merely trot out a mildly revised version of her already failed deal
2. No deal, or
3. Remain

Items 1 and 2 will split the Brexiteers vote leaving a home run for No. 3 - Remain .....Hooray!!!

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Currently 52/48 lol

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

One group has made a mistake though. For one set it is too Brexity, for the others it is not Brexity enough, they cannot both be accommodated and so one group is going to be more disappointed with what comes next. Unless one group is only pretending that it is not Brexity enough for them, and actually want a softer Brexit, because a hard one will show them up for the charlatans they are.
The Remainers/soft Brexiters didn't like the end game aims, the ERG loons didn't like the Withdrawal agreement backstop, presumably because they don't really believe that Magic Border technology can fix it all, and they were just saying that when it suited them.

It is pretty clear that Parliament is not going to allow a slide into No Deal, and I don't believe the PM would go for that either. What will pass is something akin to Norway proposed as the end point, this will still require the same/similar withdrawal agreement that Rees-Mogg and Johnson are so upset with, including the backstop for if negotiations are not complete in time, but will have the backing of the more rational Tory MP's and the opposition.
The only chance of a harder Brexit I believe, is now via a referendum, and a rescinding of A50 to give us more time in which to prepare for it, if the ERG can get that on the ballot. Then I am pretty sure we will see hard Leavers suddenly finding a second referendum more appealing and less of an affront to democracy than they have been saying. The rest of the House won't allow one without Remain being an option though.

My reckoning is May will survive todays challenge, a cross party chat will give us something that looks Norwayish as the end point, Rees-Mogg and the ERG will call it Vassalage, Farage will call it a sell out, despite having advocated just that for years, and Dan Hannan will call it a sensible compromise, because it is what he has wanted all along, but it will be put to us in a referendum as this Brexit or Remain, and I have no idea which would win. But it would be interesting to see which side Johnson and Rees-Mogg backed and their reasoning.

Hard to disagree with that.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

If you considered the pros and cons and came up with that assessment of the EU, I don't think you have given it fair mind.

You think Brexit is going to help? You think maybe the collapse of the EU is going to help? Bailing out on Italy, Greece and Spain is what many leavers tell me they want out for, to avoid being asked to help in any way, either financially or with easing the migrant issues.

In sentiment I would concur with your first statement. People (myself included) have tended to stiffen in their attitude as time had gone on. Much of what I said is born through frustration and yes, was said purely for effect.

 

[lawros left foot]

G

so ...a lot didn`t like the referendum result so lets vote again. (until we get a remain result?).....

Or until we get a result that can be implemented without destroying the economy.

 

[darkwolf666]

This with bells on! May needs to be strong and call a government vote to retract Article 50 if all other options are diminished. If she thinks that a no deal Brexit will be a national disaster then take the risk, she has nothing else to lose. It could be political suicide, she will be a hero in many people's eyes and a hate figure in many other people's eyes but she needs to do what she and the government is best for our country.
Yes it will piss a lot of people off but this is our government who we have elected to make this a better country and if they think that a no deal Brexit or any other deal for that matter will make this country worse off then it needs to be done.

So what you are suggesting is we send a remainer to deal with Europe, who then comes back with a crap deal and says “that’s the best deal we could get”, then because of their ineptitude/inability to get a better deal we say we’ll stay after all...

You couldn’t make it up!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I have asked the Greeks as I posted yesterday. They were in deep deep trouble of their own making. They wanted to join the euro but had to start getting their economy in order. The EU told them the way to get their economy back on track which was very harsh but the only way.
The Greeks then had a general election in 2012, and elected a pro EU government accepting the rules.

It was very similar to the 70s when Britain had rampant inflation and were printing money to try to keep up. We went cap in hand to the IMF, the only organisation who were willing to lend us money at the time. We had to stick to their rules.
Who elects the International Monetary Fund?

The Italians and Spanish are also in the eurozone so have to get their economy in order too.
Britain vetoed the euro so the EU cannot have a say in our economy.

That is simply untrue about the Greeks joining the Euro. Years before they joined the Euro, they failed the stability pact's rules. Those rules were a set of strict financial regulations designed to stop the kind of problem that the Greeks ended up with. Purely in the interests of political expediency, the powers that be in the EU allowed a fudge to occur and they along with others were allowed to join the Euro. To give credit to the EU for solving the problem they created is, well, creative.