Non - Brexit

[dutchcherry]

It’s a mess, which is an understatement.

Tomorrow they vote on no deal
If that’s voted down they vote on Thursday on extending article 50, if that gets voted down we leave on the 29th with no deal, if it gets voted for May has to convince the EU 27 that we need an extension to article 50 but sky news interviewing a MEP tonight saying that the 27 wouldn’t allow an extension as the UK would then take part in European elections and be able to vote on aspects of the EU.

This is why certain people were pressing the PM to trigger Art50 when she did. They knew that the timings 2 years later would back us and the EU further into a corner.

Vote to leave with a deal or leave without the withdrawal deal and as a result no 2 year transition deal, or kick the can down the road so that the above becomes the legal default when nothing can be agreed in the H of C. They could then blame the EU for us having no withdrawal deal to fall back on, or use any extension given (if UK take part in elections it would surely have to be a couple of years imo) as evidence of the EU plotting for UK never to leave.

Its very very clever what they have engineered in my opinion. The leave side have certainly been looking a lot further down the road than the remain side in my opinion.

 

[TCherry]

It is also extremely patronising that people didn't know what they were voting for because they had a different view to you.

SDD, With respect, did anybody really know the IMPACT of voting to leave?

They said after the vote that the £350M to the NHS was bullshit and won't happen.

Certainly, jobs are being lost and companies are moving away from the UK.

One of the things people voted to leave was to stop immigration, I can understand that. I fully agree. I'm not sure though that any agreement with the EU will help to reduce immigration.

As I said earlier, if there was another vote I have no idea what I'd vote for.

Seriously believe that the younger people of this country should have a greater say in the future as us old duffers (I include myself most definitely!) will be gone soon.

Cheers.

 

[TCherry]

I've given written posts answering your question countless times in this thread, most recently as yesterday FFS.
Why should I bother as you don't read them / aren't interested.
It's actually a perfect microcosm of the whole debate.

NSM, that reply was very good, accurate and to me very funny.

 

[wallmth]

No, we’re entering a period where people have a lot more facts at their disposal. It is perfectly reasonable to say that now you truly know the situation, you can make a much more informed decision. I understand the fear of the leavers as to how the vote would go but to deny it at this stage would be an affront to democracy.

There are not “a lot more facts at our disposal “because we have never left .You have no idea how this countries going to look after we’ve left the EU for a year or so anymore than I do .If you truly need another vote crack on but to demand another when the first hasn’t even been implemented is nothing but sour grapes .

 

[kirsikka]

If it had been 52%-48% the other way would all the people that wanted to leave have stopped talking about it? No. They would have carried on agitating saying it wasn't a comprehensive victory. UKIP, Farage et al would have carried on pushing to leave and we'd likely have had the debate ongoing just the same, only without the same deadline. Any pretence they would have all just have accepted that result and moved on would be disingenuous. The end result would have been the same at some point in the future, another vote. In the same way the SNP will eventually push for another vote to leave the UK. So I don't get those harnaging people that wanted to stay for asking for another vote. It's exactly what would have happened in reverse.

If I'm honest, unless there was a massive swing one way or another then I'm not sure what good another vote would do. If it's equally close then you just confirm that the country is completely split on this and would cause even more chaos, especially if the result reversed with an equally small margin of victory. Since a large swing seems unlikely the only conclusion is it's a mess.

Meanwhile, those claiming that British people asked for a hard Brexit with their vote are talking nonsense. They know it but are trying to leverage the situation to further their own agenda.

In all, I think a second referendum would make sense if it would give a clear victory one way or the other but I doubt that would happen. Meanwhile, those at the extremes are digging in to try and push the agenda of a minority in a small majority which is making a mess an even bigger mess.

It doesn't feel all that democratic but then with the UK's FPTP system of government, that's what most MPs are used to.

 

[wallmth]

SDD, With respect, did anybody really know the IMPACT of voting to leave?

They said after the vote that the £350M to the NHS was bullshit and won't happen.

Certainly, jobs are being lost and companies are moving away from the UK.

One of the things people voted to leave was to stop immigration, I can understand that. I fully agree. I'm not sure though that any agreement with the EU will help to reduce immigration.

As I said earlier, if there was another vote I have no idea what I'd vote for.

Seriously believe that the younger people of this country should have a greater say in the future as us old duffers (I include myself most definitely!) will be gone soon.

Cheers.

How do you know the IMPACT of leave ,we havnt left yet . All you know is what the usual suspects ( who have been wrong time and time again ) have told you .

 

[SlowDownDerek]

SDD, With respect, did anybody really know the IMPACT of voting to leave?

They said after the vote that the £350M to the NHS was bullshit and won't happen.

Certainly, jobs are being lost and companies are moving away from the UK.

One of the things people voted to leave was to stop immigration, I can understand that. I fully agree. I'm not sure though that any agreement with the EU will help to reduce immigration.

As I said earlier, if there was another vote I have no idea what I'd vote for.

Seriously believe that the younger people of this country should have a greater say in the future as us old duffers (I include myself most definitely!) will be gone soon.

Cheers.

I don't agree with any of your points at all.

I've said many times the bus made a legit point about who controls our expenditure and whether the EU gives value for money - not bullshit. Jobs being lost? The evidence doesn't really support this so far. I don't understand your point on immigration, of course the government could restrict immigration from the EU.

I voted remain before and wouldn't vote in another one - the people are being railroaded.

 

[northstandmark]

If it had been 52%-48% the other way would all the people that wanted to leave have stopped talking about it? No. They would have carried on agitating saying it wasn't a comprehensive victory. UKIP, Farage et al would have carried on pushing to leave and we'd likely have had the debate ongoing just the same, only without the same deadline. Any pretence they would have all just have accepted that result and moved on would be disingenuous. The end result would have been the same at some point in the future, another vote. In the same way the SNP will eventually push for another vote to leave the UK. So I don't get those harnaging people that wanted to stay for asking for another vote. It's exactly what would have happened in reverse.

If I'm honest, unless there was a massive swing one way or another then I'm not sure what good another vote would do. If it's equally close then you just confirm that the country is completely split on this and would cause even more chaos, especially if the result reversed with an equally small margin of victory. Since a large swing seems unlikely the only conclusion is it's a mess.

Meanwhile, those claiming that British people asked for a hard Brexit with their vote are talking nonsense. They know it but are trying to leverage the situation to further their own agenda.

In all, I think a second referendum would make sense if it would give a clear victory one way or the other but I doubt that would happen. Meanwhile, those at the extremes are digging in to try and push the agenda of a minority in a small majority which is making a mess an even bigger mess.

It doesn't feel all that democratic but then with the UK's FPTP system of government, that's what most MPs are used to.

It's true to say a minority on the leave side, the likes of Farage and JRM, would have continued their fight. After all it's about the only thing they've built their political viewpoint and careers on.

But they would have been a fringe, extreme viewpoint given little or no oxygen by the media.
The rest of the media and political establishment would have shut the issue down for a generation. And most of those who've wanted a referendum for 20+ years would have had to just swallow the pill and move on. Leaving it perhaps for a future generation to take up the argument depending on how the EU evolves over the coming years.

You're not telling me we'd still be debating it every day had Remain won with 52%?

I largely agree with everything else you say here TBF

 

[wallmth]

If it had been 52%-48% the other way would all the people that wanted to leave have stopped talking about it? No. They would have carried on agitating saying it wasn't a comprehensive victory. UKIP, Farage et al would have carried on pushing to leave and we'd likely have had the debate ongoing just the same, only without the same deadline. Any pretence they would have all just have accepted that result and moved on would be disingenuous. The end result would have been the same at some point in the future, another vote. In the same way the SNP will eventually push for another vote to leave the UK. So I don't get those harnaging people that wanted to stay for asking for another vote. It's exactly what would have happened in reverse.

If I'm honest, unless there was a massive swing one way or another then I'm not sure what good another vote would do. If it's equally close then you just confirm that the country is completely split on this and would cause even more chaos, especially if the result reversed with an equally small margin of victory. Since a large swing seems unlikely the only conclusion is it's a mess.

Meanwhile, those claiming that British people asked for a hard Brexit with their vote are talking nonsense. They know it but are trying to leverage the situation to further their own agenda.

In all, I think a second referendum would make sense if it would give a clear victory one way or the other but I doubt that would happen. Meanwhile, those at the extremes are digging in to try and push the agenda of a minority in a small majority which is making a mess an even bigger mess.

It doesn't feel all that democratic but then with the UK's FPTP system of government, that's what most MPs are used to.

I’ll agree ,nobody voted for a “ hard” Brexit .That term wasn’t even invented till a couple of weeks after the referendum when the vote went the wrong way .
People did vote to “leave” the EU with all that it would entail though,but somehow that narrative has been altered to apparently only reflect the views of the ultra loony Brexiteers .
Any mention on this message board of a hard or soft Brexit or anywhere else for that matter before the referendum result ..no I didn’t think so .

 

[TCherry]

How do you know the IMPACT of leave ,we havnt left yet . All you know is what the usual suspects ( who have been wrong time and time again ) have told you .

Correct me if I'm wrong but companies are moving out by moving their headquarters or certain departments out of the country. Perhaps the numbers are small at the moment.
I've read articles that they are.
Surely you agree that there have been benefits of being a member of the EU for the last 40 years (otherwise we'd have left many years ago).

 

[redharry]

so today 'no deal' will be taken off the table. The EU will vote down our application to extend Article 50 and that'll be the end of that.

The status quo continues. We were never going to leave The Hotel California – not in the script.

Just on a point of law, the vote today on leaving without a deal will not change the law that was passed that enshrined a leaving date of 29 march. A further piece of legislation would have to be introduced to Parliament and passed by both houses to overturn that date. The clock is ticking.

 

[kirsikka]

It's true to say a minority on the leave side, the likes of Farage and JRM, would have continued their fight. After all it's about the only thing they've built their political viewpoint and careers on.

But they would have been a fringe, extreme viewpoint given little or no oxygen by the media.
The rest of the media and political establishment would have shut the issue down for a generation. And most of those who've wanted a referendum for 20+ years would have had to just swallow the pill and move on. Leaving it perhaps for a future generation to take up the argument depending on how the EU evolves over the coming years.

You're not telling me we'd still be debating it every day had Remain won with 52%?

I largely agree with everything else you say here TBF

Farage gave too good copy not to carry on getting media exposure.

I agree if it had been perhaps around 60-40 then it would have bee dropped for a generation. The reaction then would have been this isn't closed as a lot of people want to leave but enough wanted to stay that we'll put it to one side for now. However, if it had been 52-48 the other way I don't think that many would have dropped it and definitely not the media. Especially the Brexit supporting parts of the media, which is a significant part, in the same way the remain supporting media are now constantly calling for the new referendum.

 

[TCherry]

Disgraced MP Fiona Onasanya voted against Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement – while believed to be wearing an electronic tag around her ankle.

Good to know a snout-in-the-trough MP, has a vote. Why isn't she still in gaol?

RGB, yes I agree she did wrong, did time and will eventually lose her job. On a human level she's been diagnosed with MS, so I do feel sorry for her.

 

[JIMNNINA]

nobody voted for a “ hard” Brexit .That term wasn’t even invented till a couple of weeks after the referendum when the vote went the wrong way .
People did vote to “leave” the EU with all that it would entail

So hard Brexit has no popular mandate but leaving with all that it would entail is democratic.

Bit of a mixed message.

 

[wallmth]

Correct me if I'm wrong but companies are moving out by moving their headquarters or certain departments out of the country. Perhaps the numbers are small at the moment.
I've read articles that they are.
Surely you agree that there have been benefits of being a member of the EU for the last 40 years (otherwise we'd have left many years ago).

And companies are moving in . There is going to be realignments in business for sure ,leavers believe that in the long term it’s going to work out better for us .
Yes there were for sure benefits to being part of a trading block ,which is what people voted for many years ago .
Voters were lied to then ,the Union has morphed into something completely different that many people in this country want nothing to do with .

 

[wallmth]

nobody voted for a “ hard” Brexit .That term wasn’t even invented till a couple of weeks after the referendum when the vote went the wrong way .
People did vote to “leave” the EU with all that it would entail

So hard Brexit has no popular mandate but leaving with all that it would entail is democratic.

Bit of a mixed message.

Would you like to point me in the direction of the phrase hard Brexit being used before the ref ..it’s a narrative that was invented after the thick voters ticked the wrong box ,before that we were told we would be leaving the customs union etc etc . Now apparently all the leave voters wanted was nothing more than the right to give the EU sh*t loads of money for a trade deficit.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

Farage gave too good copy not to carry on getting media exposure.

I agree if it had been perhaps around 60-40 then it would have bee dropped for a generation. The reaction then would have been this isn't closed as a lot of people want to leave but enough wanted to stay that we'll put it to one side for now. However, if it had been 52-48 the other way I don't think that many would have dropped it and definitely not the media. Especially the Brexit supporting parts of the media, which is a significant part, in the same way the remain supporting media are now constantly calling for the new referendum.

Agree with this. It would have been the same as Scotland, which flared up again as soon as something came up which emphasises the differences between Scotland and rUK (in this case Brexit). Probably worse than Scotland given that 52%-48% is closer. Clearly it wouldn't be long until something that emphasises the differences between the EU and UK came up - real or manufacturered.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

Yes there were for sure benefits to being part of a trading block ,which is what people voted for many years ago .
Voters were lied to then ,the Union has morphed into something completely different that many people in this country want nothing to do with .

This is true. It also makes the argument that a leave vote meant de facto a vote to leave CU, SM or any other combination difficult. It was clear that part of the campaign was along the lines of "if they'd stayed as a trading block as we voted for initially it would be ok" clearly some people voted leave to go back to the previous scenario.

 

[dutchcherry]

There are not “a lot more facts at our disposal “because we have never left .You have no idea how this countries going to look after we’ve left the EU for a year or so anymore than I do .If you truly need another vote crack on but to demand another when the first hasn’t even been implemented is nothing but sour grapes .

This is the dilemma. Its a fair point that how can something be a failure unless you have tried it. Problem is, and maybe why it has so many people exercised, is if it went wrong, we could not go back and have the membership deal we gave up.

Our current deal with the EU could not be replicated or agreed by the other members if we wanted to join again. We would have to adopt the Euro (as per any new joiner under the Lisbon Treaty - a fact Nadine Dorries failed to differentiate publicly on twitter the other day). This would be a worse deal than what we have now. Schengen we can get round as we are an island, but the Euro would be a big negative for me and I'm sure many people both sides of the debate.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

This is the dilemma. Its a fair point that how can something be a failure unless you have tried it. Problem is, and maybe why it has so many people exercised, is if it went wrong, we could not go back and have the membership deal we gave up.

Our current deal with the EU could not be replicated or agreed by the other members if we wanted to join again. We would have to adopt the Euro (as per any new joiner under the Lisbon Treaty - a fact Nadine Dorries failed to differentiate publicly on twitter the other day). This would be a worse deal than what we have now. Schengen we can get round as we are an island, but the Euro would be a big negative for me and I'm sure many people both sides of the debate.

I don't think this is true, the EU change their rules all the time and the UK comes with a massive bag of very persuasive cash. The rebate is in itself ridiculous, but there it is. Amazing what happens when hard cash is involved.