The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (51 Viewers)

[Covstu]

It goes deeper than polling numbers. Last time I looked, a vote tomorrow would yield a 55% win for Remain (note: I don’t take this as gospel). This suggests a couple of things, that the public are not happy with a Brexit process and/or the deal May is bringing back to the country. Public opinion doesn’t tend to shift about 7% to the other side over the course of 2 years. So the government should not sleep walk into Brexit because contexts have changed and the government needs nenewed consent to finalise Brexit.

Do you really think joe public has a clue about the details of this Deal? I doubt it, they are just sick of 2 years of delays

 

---

[clint van damme]

Mays deal is not 'leaving the EU'.

If Mays deal goes through we will become the EU vassal state that brexiteers claim we already are.
The only upside is it will prove that they've been talking shite for years.

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Brexit means Brexit, and this is Brexit.

Well...In the case of May's deal Brexit means Remain.

 

[skybluetony176]

Well...In the case of May's deal Brexit means Remain.

Good news for Dutchman then. It means freedom of movement is staying so he can carry on being a drain on the NHS.

 

[Otis]

Can they have a third vote when they change their mind again?

But we now know exactly what the deal is now. Two and a half years ago we had no idea what the deal would be.

Surely a second vote would on that one, single, final deal. That's what we are told it is by Europe.

It's a nonsense to suggest there would ever be need for a third vote.

I'm sure no-one saw this impasse with just 3 months left when the vote was taken.

This is still democracy if we now have a a second vote, because we now know so much more than we did two and a half years ago.

I think we need to put the deal to the public rather than have another vote on whether we now want to remain.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Did anyone vote for any of the other business that were moved out of the UK with EU grants?

There's two sides as always.

Not even sure how that’s an answer to my question but it’s an answer to something I’m sure. You feel that had we stayed in the Eu Germany would have received a grant to move rolls Royce jobs out of the uk?? Is that the argument?

Or that Eu were responsible for the car plants set up in other countries to the uk as it was cheaper to make cars there?

Could you elaborate?

 

[dutchman]

But we now know exactly what the deal is now. Two and a half years ago we had no idea what the deal would be.

The referendum wasn't about any so-called 'deal', it was about whether Britain remains or leaves and leave won.

It's a nonsense to suggest there would ever be need for a third vote.

It's nonsense to suggest that remainers will accept the result of any vote that goes against their wishes. They never have and they never will.

This is still democracy if we now have a a second vote, because we now know so much more than we did two and a half years ago.

The same is true of every government that has ever been elected, so let's have a general election every two and a half years so we can reverse the vote.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Not even sure how that’s an answer to my question but it’s an answer to something I’m sure. You feel that had we stayed in the Eu Germany would have received a grant to move rolls Royce jobs out of the uk?? Is that the argument?

Or that Eu were responsible for the car plants set up in other countries to the uk as it was cheaper to make cars there?

Could you elaborate?

Mostly the latter, but I was just trying to make the point that this has happened either side of Brexit really.

 

[Astute]

Let’s concentrate on Britain can do. What is the solution the situation the government finds itself in?

If not a general election or referendum, what’s to be done? As far as I can see, the options are May’s deal, which isn’t a proper Brexit, hence the ERG are in open rebellion or a no deal which is in no one’s interest and no one voted for that.

Mays 'deal' isn't even a proper deal.

Like I keep constantly saying leaving the EU isn't necessarily the right thing to do whatever deal we end up with. But what is constantly denied on here is that remaining in the EU isn't necessarily the right thing to do either.

So the two choices you say about? May deal or a no deal.

A no deal should be avoided. It isn't in anyone's best interests.

May deal? Hold it right there. Worse than a no deal under the present wording of it IMHO.

If we go for.the May deal the.EU could keep us in the EU for as long as they like. We could only leave when they say so. They would have us over a barrel. Accept what they say we must accept or we are left in limbo. We would have to continue to pay in countless billions of pounds each year into the EU and not have the slightest say. So yes I am fully against the May deal.

People's vote? Did animals vote last time? Was it the unwashed and uneducated last time?

Would we keep voting until they get the answer they want?

Out of all of them how they stand at the present moment I would like a more detailed vote. For instance

1, Leave without a deal.
2, Accept May 'deal'
3 Vote to remain
4, Forget about party politics. For on one side....leave on the other. Tell us your plans for the future.

Maybe add another one or two. Take it to the polls. Lowest voted for gets removed each time. It only stops when over 50% vote for the same one. Yes a ball ache. Yes would cost money. But then anyone moaning about the result would be out of things to moan or lie about. Any lies given by anyone would mean they are gone and out of the spotlight. We would lose a lot of the MP's from both sides.

There is a lot at stake here. We didn't vote to leave without a deal. We didn't vote to get shafted over a barrel by the EU. But we did vote to leave.

The problem is that so many of them lied to us that was it really a proper vote?

It has been so bad that I am not sure what I want anymore.

Two choices presently. Ignore the vote or ignore the danger. Glad it isn't me having to make the choice.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Walk away, focus their minds, the EU haven't had to concede anything yet ! Time to tell them that they actually have to negotiate or there is no deal and their fragile economy will start to creak.

Cause it will affect us more

 

[clint van damme]

The referendum wasn't about any so-called 'deal', it was about whether Britain remains or leaves and leave won.




It's nonsense to suggest that remainers will accept the result of any vote that goes against their wishes. They never have and they never will.

Who hasn't accepted the result? More generalisations from yourself.
You like to stick labels on everyone due to your inability to think about something as large scale and nuanced as this issue.

Put everyone in a neat little box and repeat ill informed empty rhetoric ad nauseam

 

[Astute]

Well... it is.

Brexit means Brexit, and this is Brexit.

If those who claimed to want us to leave got behind a deal that saw us leave, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

No it isn't.

It is leaving with the permission of the EU. And they don't want us to leave. None of the EU wants us to leave. We pay in too much money and buy too much off them for them to want us to leave. But we also would have lost any say so could never even bring the matter up.

 

[Astute]

But we now know exactly what the deal is now. Two and a half years ago we had no idea what the deal would be.

Surely a second vote would on that one, single, final deal. That's what we are told it is by Europe.

It's a nonsense to suggest there would ever be need for a third vote.

I'm sure no-one saw this impasse with just 3 months left when the vote was taken.

This is still democracy if we now have a a second vote, because we now know so much more than we did two and a half years ago.

I think we need to put the deal to the public rather than have another vote on whether we now want to remain.

We vote leave. Nearly 2m more votes leave to remain.

So we have another vote. It is closer than last time. Should there then be a third vote? And a 4th? And a 5th.........

 

[Astute]

Who hasn't accepted the result? More generalisations from yourself.
You like to stick labels on everyone due to your inability to think about something as large scale and nuanced as this issue.

Put everyone in a neat little box and repeat ill informed empty rhetoric ad nauseam

As you know it is the same on both sides.....

 

[Grendel]

But we now know exactly what the deal is now. Two and a half years ago we had no idea what the deal would be.

Surely a second vote would on that one, single, final deal. That's what we are told it is by Europe.

It's a nonsense to suggest there would ever be need for a third vote.

I'm sure no-one saw this impasse with just 3 months left when the vote was taken.

This is still democracy if we now have a a second vote, because we now know so much more than we did two and a half years ago.

I think we need to put the deal to the public rather than have another vote on whether we now want to remain.

How is it nonsense? You are basing the idea that we know more now than we did then on the latest opinion polls. So the second referendum is based on that poll. If subsequent polls reverse that then you are by your own argument saying another poll would be required. Personally I have learned nothing I did not already know

Putting the deal to the public has to include the premise that the voter wants to leave and also rejects the deal. The argument there are several versions of leave is also pretty absurd. Basically there were 3 criteria and leave voters probably believed in all of them

- Control of own laws (border control being one manifestation of that)
- We stop net contributing
- We rid ourselves of risk of further integration

Its ridiculous to assume that the second referendum would achieve anything. It would alienate large sections of society with in all probability very damaging consequences. The electorate gave 85% of its votes in the 2017 election to two parties committed to leaving. Again ignore the electorate at your peril.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

You really are in complete denial about the reality the country finds itself in.

Britain cannot get this deal through Parliament and the government therefore, needs to break the deadlock by deferring to the public again. Something needs to be done and right now, the EU has said it won’t renegotiate the Brexit deal so something drastic needs to be done. So, a general election won’t change the position we’re in whether or not Corbyn or May, or a new Tory leader is in charge. The Government cannot carry on like this.

May’s Brexit deal isn’t a real Brexit, and no one voted for a no deal. Even Brexiteers want to avoid a no deal Brexit. That isn’t what the people voted for either. If the public knew we’d be in this scenario it’s very unlikely they would’ve voted Leave. You and I both know that. Or, if you do believe that, why are you dead set against another referendum? What’s changed?

The last paragraph of yours exposes why you’re dead set against a referendum. You belief a second referendum would reverse the first decision. You don’t really care about the democratic ‘will of people’, only that your side won. That’s hypocritical in my estimation.

The argument that you’re denying a people’s vote with another people’s vote is just a plain stupid argument.

I'm not in denial, I know the country finds itself in a bad state.

I'm still yet to hear a good argument for another referendum, so far none of them make sense.

For democracy to exist the original vote needs to be implemented. I stand by that and I think denying that vote by saying we need another one is not only people still not accepting the vote, but it's the same form of arrogance that lost remain the vote the first time round.

I've repeatedly said I'm more than happy for another referendum in 10 or so years time when Brexit has been done and we really know now things are. Unlike you I would be prepared to accept the result once we've lived it out and it does indeed lead to the apocolypse. That doesn't mean that it's ok to call it off before it's even been given a chance because people on the other side cannot accept the original democracy.

A hard-core of remainers telling everyone else that leave voters have changed their mind means absolutely nothing.

I was generally very on the fence leading up to the vote but got so much shit for trying to openly discuss a leave possibility. It's pushed me away even further since then too.

I know it comes from both sides though, but the problem is that most people cannot see that. They believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Leave voters were racist, think, uneducated, didn't know what they were voting for... 2 years later they are still not allowed to have their victory because people on the other side are stamping their feet.

Some people can see things from both sides, you can't. To overturn this result would prove to a lot of people that you're not allowed to leave the EU too. It's a disaster.

 

[skybluetony176]

But we now know exactly what the deal is now. Two and a half years ago we had no idea what the deal would be.

Surely a second vote would on that one, single, final deal. That's what we are told it is by Europe.

It's a nonsense to suggest there would ever be need for a third vote.

I'm sure no-one saw this impasse with just 3 months left when the vote was taken.

This is still democracy if we now have a a second vote, because we now know so much more than we did two and a half years ago.

I think we need to put the deal to the public rather than have another vote on whether we now want to remain.

Don’t do it Otis. It’s like that line in the godfather “every time I try to get out they suck me straight back in”.

 

[Otis]

The referendum wasn't about any so-called 'deal', it was about whether Britain remains or leaves and leave won.



It's nonsense to suggest that remainers will accept the result of any vote that goes against their wishes. They never have and they never will.



The same is true of every government that has ever been elected, so let's have a general election every two and a half years so we can reverse the vote.

Why is it a nonsense remainers won't accept the vote? I voted remain and I would accept it.

 

[clint van damme]

I'm not in denial, I know the country finds itself in a bad state.

I'm still yet to hear a good argument for another referendum, so far none of them make sense.

For democracy to exist the original vote needs to be implemented. I stand by that and I think denying that vote by saying we need another one is not only people still not accepting the vote, but it's the same form of arrogance that lost remain the vote the first time round.

I've repeatedly said I'm more than happy for another referendum in 10 or so years time when Brexit has been done and we really know now things are. Unlike you I would be prepared to accept the result once we've lived it out and it does indeed lead to the apocolypse. That doesn't mean that it's ok to call it off before it's even been given a chance because people on the other side cannot accept the original democracy.

A hard-core of remainers telling everyone else that leave voters have changed their mind means absolutely nothing.

I was generally very on the fence leading up to the vote but got so much shit for trying to openly discuss a leave possibility. It's pushed me away even further since then too.

I know it comes from both sides though, but the problem is that most people cannot see that. They believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Leave voters were racist, think, uneducated, didn't know what they were voting for... 2 years later they are still not allowed to have their victory because people on the other side are stamping their feet.

Some people can see things from both sides, you can't. To overturn this result would prove to a lot of people that you're not allowed to leave the EU too. It's a disaster.

Think is it doesn't need to be 10 years.
If things go badly any of the political parties can put it in their manifesto and if the idea is popular that will be reflected in their GE performance though I'd imagine getting back in would have as many variables as getting out.

 

[Otis]

How is it nonsense? You are basing the idea that we know more now than we did then on the latest opinion polls. So the second referendum is based on that poll. If subsequent polls reverse that then you are by your own argument saying another poll would be required. Personally I have learned nothing I did not already know

Putting the deal to the public has to include the premise that the voter wants to leave and also rejects the deal. The argument there are several versions of leave is also pretty absurd. Basically there were 3 criteria and leave voters probably believed in all of them

- Control of own laws (border control being one manifestation of that)
- We stop net contributing
- We rid ourselves of risk of further integration

Its ridiculous to assume that the second referendum would achieve anything. It would alienate large sections of society with in all probability very damaging consequences. The electorate gave 85% of its votes in the 2017 election to two parties committed to leaving. Again ignore the electorate at your peril.

So what do you advocate? Leave with no deal?

So many politicians and political experts have said that would be disastrous.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Mostly the latter, but I was just trying to make the point that this has happened either side of Brexit really.

Ah ok. That’s a useful answer. I agree but what makes you think that the conservatives would choose to invest in this way as they haven’t in the past. I say conservatives because they are in the main the no deal leaders. There is of course a workers unite against the ruling class reason for leaving the Eu too but although on the same side to leave the uk would look very different of they were in political control

 

[Grendel]

So what do you advoctae? Leave with no deal?

So many politicians and political experts have said that would be disastrous.

You negotiate further and secure a better deal - even if that means an extension of the date. Or offer the public the alternatives

Leave with this deal
Leave with a Norway style deal
Leave with no deal

 

[Otis]

You negotiate further and secure a better deal - even if that means an extension of the date. Or offer the public the alternatives

Leave with this deal
Leave with a Norway style deal
Leave with no deal

You really think the EU will budge then?

 

[Grendel]

You really think the EU will budge then?

Of course they would budge. Its the same as the May comment "no deal is better than a bad deal" its all posturing

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

How is it nonsense? You are basing the idea that we know more now than we did then on the latest opinion polls. So the second referendum is based on that poll. If subsequent polls reverse that then you are by your own argument saying another poll would be required. Personally I have learned nothing I did not already know

Putting the deal to the public has to include the premise that the voter wants to leave and also rejects the deal. The argument there are several versions of leave is also pretty absurd. Basically there were 3 criteria and leave voters probably believed in all of them

- Control of own laws (border control being one manifestation of that)
- We stop net contributing
- We rid ourselves of risk of further integration

Its ridiculous to assume that the second referendum would achieve anything. It would alienate large sections of society with in all probability very damaging consequences. The electorate gave 85% of its votes in the 2017 election to two parties committed to leaving. Again ignore the electorate at your peril.

I agree with most of your contention but none of those are possible without huge complications and cost to us as a country unless we agree how it will work with our 27 partners.

So if those were the reasons someone should have pointed this out

 

[Astute]

You really think the EU will budge then?

I think the wording will change. So they can claim that nothing more has been offered or given but it will end up being a different offer.

Or because they know of the turmoil we are in they will ramp up the pressure hoping we end up staying in the EU.

 

[Grendel]

I agree with most of your contention but none of those are possible without huge complications and cost to us as a country unless we agree how it will work with our 27 partners.

So if those were the reasons someone should have pointed this out

The 27 "partners" are actually one

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

The 27 "partners" are actually one

Not when it comes to the impact on their individual economies and what about voting for something that’s not possible and only deciding it’s not possible after the vote and then once we know it’s not possible saying we can’t run the vote again

 

[martcov]

You negotiate further and secure a better deal - even if that means an extension of the date. Or offer the public the alternatives

Leave with this deal
Leave with a Norway style deal
Leave with no deal

You forget that there is a majority now that want to remain. Don’t they get a vote?

 

[martcov]

Not when it comes to the impact on their individual economies and what about voting for something that’s not possible and only deciding it’s not possible after the vote and then once we know it’s not possible saying we can’t run the vote again

Seems to be a lot of leavers who blame May for not fulfilling the impossible and are scared that people will now be asked how, in view of the fact that leave is looking like a bad option and the wishes of many leavers will not be realised, we should proceed. If we do have a referendum without cheating, with the lies exposed and people like Banks‘ exposed, and based on known quantities, how will anyone be able to ask for another referendum? I cannot see remainers asking for another referendum ( unless fraud is exposed on a massive scale).

 

[martcov]

I'm not in denial, I know the country finds itself in a bad state.

I'm still yet to hear a good argument for another referendum, so far none of them make sense.

For democracy to exist the original vote needs to be implemented. I stand by that and I think denying that vote by saying we need another one is not only people still not accepting the vote, but it's the same form of arrogance that lost remain the vote the first time round.

I've repeatedly said I'm more than happy for another referendum in 10 or so years time when Brexit has been done and we really know now things are. Unlike you I would be prepared to accept the result once we've lived it out and it does indeed lead to the apocolypse. That doesn't mean that it's ok to call it off before it's even been given a chance because people on the other side cannot accept the original democracy.

A hard-core of remainers telling everyone else that leave voters have changed their mind means absolutely nothing.

I was generally very on the fence leading up to the vote but got so much shit for trying to openly discuss a leave possibility. It's pushed me away even further since then too.

I know it comes from both sides though, but the problem is that most people cannot see that. They believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

Leave voters were racist, think, uneducated, didn't know what they were voting for... 2 years later they are still not allowed to have their victory because people on the other side are stamping their feet.

Some people can see things from both sides, you can't. To overturn this result would prove to a lot of people that you're not allowed to leave the EU too. It's a disaster.

We can leave. Off we go. No one is stopping us.

The only people who can overturn the result are the people who vote in a second referendum.

Before we take the plunge, let’s ask if the majority of people are still for it having seen the complications and the possible damage it could cause.

No one is taking it out of the hands of the voters.

If people think like yourself, there is absolutely nothing to fear.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It is leaving

= Brexit.

Brexit means Brexit.

May's deal involves no longer being part of the EU.

= Brexit.

Those who want Brexit should be grateful she has got a deal to enable us to leave. For those self same people who claim they want us to leave to fight against us leaving is disingenuous.

If Brexit does not happen, it'll be the fault of Brexiteers within the Conservative Party. Let's hope the electorate recognise that.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Think is it doesn't need to be 10 years.
If things go badly any of the political parties can put it in their manifesto and if the idea is popular that will be reflected in their GE performance though I'd imagine getting back in would have as many variables as getting out.

Exactly Clint, and I've said the other day I would have no issue with another referendum if it was in a political manifesto and that party then won power.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Ah ok. That’s a useful answer. I agree but what makes you think that the conservatives would choose to invest in this way as they haven’t in the past. I say conservatives because they are in the main the no deal leaders. There is of course a workers unite against the ruling class reason for leaving the Eu too but although on the same side to leave the uk would look very different of they were in political control

Oh don't get me wrong, I have zero faith in the conservatives, as I do with literally every other political party.

I just don't think it's a reasonable reason not to leave the EU. In fact I think it's being given as an excuse and it wouldn't surprise me if May was slightly part of it. At least the 'let's do a shit deal part anyway.

 

[dutchman]

Why is it a nonsense remainers won't accept the vote? I voted remain and I would accept it.

You haven't accpted the result of the first vote so there's no reason to believe you would accept the result of a second vote. Or a third or a fourth and so on.