The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (60 Viewers)

[Sky Blue Pete]

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.

Maybe but I think that’s a little paranoid too. Before I look for an ulterior motive or deliberate fraud I always look at ochums razor. Not how you spell it. The most likely answer is most likely to be correct. It’s hugely complicated and will take years to extracage ourselves from one of the largest free trade areas on the planet. There’s no deliberate move by May she’s just not good enough to do it and too many mistakes have been made.

It’s needs clear heads and cross party action

 

---

[Grendel]

= 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.

It doesn’t mean we have left the Eu at all the deal could tie the country in for eternity it’s a charade

 

[Sick Boy]

Why don't you just say what was wrong with my post instead of saying that it was having a go at remainers? Because when I pointed out what I had said and what your reply was you tried to say I was putting words in your mouth. But you are yet to explain why.

I come on this thread for a debate. But all I get lately is stupid petty remarks off certain people. What is the use?

I have already shown you the post.

 

[clint van damme]

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.

Why hasn't he accepted it?
Debating whether it's a bad decision or not isn't the same as not accepting it.
By that logic if we get beat 5-0 tomorrow none of us should be posting our opinion on team selection of tactics.

 

[dutchman]

Why hasn't he accepted it?

Anyone calling for a new vote has not accepted the result of the original vote.

 

[Astute]

= 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.

It isn't a deal that enables us to leave. It is a deal that enables us to leave once shafted even more by the EU. That is whyhardly anyone likes it....either remainers or leavers.

 

[Astute]

I have already shown you the post.

Yes you showed me your post that had a go at my post. But you are yet to explain you contradicting yourself.

 

[Astute]

Now it is going to cost us €7 every 3 years to travel to the EU. I hope we do the same for them.

UK travellers to pay €7 to visit EU after Brexit

And it is about time we started charging them full wack road tax for lorries driving on our roads. About time we stopped being too nice. Let's start with a level playing field.

 

[martcov]

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.

We can leave at the end of March. Who told you we couldn't? We don't need permission. We can leave without a deal and make the UK and the EU poorer. We would be stupid if we did.

 

[martcov]

Now it is going to cost us €7 every 3 years to travel to the EU. I hope we do the same for them.

UK travellers to pay €7 to visit EU after Brexit

And it is about time we started charging them full wack road tax for lorries driving on our roads. About time we stopped being too nice. Let's start with a level playing field.

Great idea..... then they charge us more for our lorries and the freight charges get passed on to the customers of the goods anyway. You.

 

[clint van damme]

It isn't a deal that enables us to leave.

Now it is going to cost us €7 every 3 years to travel to the EU. I hope we do the same for them.

UK travellers to pay €7 to visit EU after Brexit

And it is about time we started charging them full wack road tax for lorries driving on our roads. About time we stopped being too nice. Let's start with a level playing field.

Are you seriously saying that you didn't realise ending freedom of movement wouldn't be free?

 

[skybluetony176]

Now it is going to cost us €7 every 3 years to travel to the EU. I hope we do the same for them.

UK travellers to pay €7 to visit EU after Brexit

And it is about time we started charging them full wack road tax for lorries driving on our roads. About time we stopped being too nice. Let's start with a level playing field.

Not me. Enter the EU on my newly acquired Irish passport, re-enter the U.K. on my U.K. passport. Screw you brexit. Wife and kids have dual citizenship with an EU country also. Ha ha.

 

[skybluetony176]

Let's start with a level playing field.

Yeah. We should have something like the EU. Errr...

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

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

How would these alternatives be offered to the public? A referendum? So you are in favour of another referendum. If so, it's hypocritical to offer the public alternatives on what kind of Brexit they want, but not if they wish to reconsider Brexit. That's rather hypocritical. You know full well that the public didn't vote on what kind of Brexit they wanted.

This Brexit deal isn't up for renegotiation, the offer that's on the table is the Government's best attempt at delivering Brexit. Now, if it is a bad deal, there's nothing wrong in giving the public an opportunity to accept or reject that deal. It is entirely possible the public would vote to carry on this course of Brexit, so a second referendum does not mean reversing Brexit at all.

May's deal is pretty close to Norway style deal. The price for access to the single market is adherence to most EU rules and regulations, and Norway is tied to the EU but with zero representation, it's not that great and certainly not worth emulating.

 

[Bova]

Why hasn't he accepted it?
Debating whether it's a bad decision or not isn't the same as not accepting it.
By that logic if we get beat 5-0 tomorrow none of us should be posting our opinion on team selection of tactics.

You’re welcome to post your opinion if we lost tomorrow but you couldn’t ask for the match to replayed could you? That’s what a second vote would be in my eyes.

 

[SBAndy]

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.

Rewind three years. Instead of running an electoral campaign around a proposal of a Brexit referendum, Cameron decides to put to the people a referendum of “are you happy with the EU in its current guise?” (Or whatever. I know it’s a leading question but some re-hash of that idea). I’d imagine the results would have been much more heavily weighted towards “No”. This would have given the clear sentiment of the country and he could have displayed that as a much more tangible threat to EU leaders when meeting with them. It would have also given an indication of whether he may have to address the option in the short term for the good of the public, not just the cronies in his party. More importantly, it would have given time to make the necessary plans before jumping into such a binary situation on the country’s future.

I can’t help but think it’s been played woefully from the very start.

 

[clint van damme]

Anyone calling for a new vote has not accepted the result of the original vote.

You’re welcome to post your opinion if we lost tomorrow but you couldn’t ask for the match to replayed could you? That’s what a second vote would be in my eyes.

Isn't he calling for a vote on the proposed withdrawal agreement rather than another referendum?
That's the way I read it anyway.
Too late now for me, this should have been a n option in the initial referendum.

 

[Grendel]

How would these alternatives be offered to the public? A referendum? So you are in favour of another referendum. If so, it's hypocritical to offer the public alternatives on what kind of Brexit they want, but not if they wish to reconsider Brexit. That's rather hypocritical. You know full well that the public didn't vote on what kind of Brexit they wanted.

This Brexit deal isn't up for renegotiation, the offer that's on the table is the Government's best attempt at delivering Brexit. Now, if it is a bad deal, there's nothing wrong in giving the public an opportunity to accept or reject that deal. It is entirely possible the public would vote to carry on this course of Brexit, so a second referendum does not mean reversing Brexit at all.

May's deal is pretty close to Norway style deal. The price for access to the single market is adherence to most EU rules and regulations, and Norway is tied to the EU but with zero representation, it's not that great and certainly not worth emulating.

No I am not really suggesting I want a referendum but if there was one it would have to be one that acknowledged we are leaving. You cannot just decide referendums based on a few You Gov polls. It can only be done at a General Election if a party (as did the humiliated Lib Dems) go with it in their manifesto and they can command a majority in parliament. It cannot be done at a whim.

The Norway deal is a valid option as does restrict future laws impacting the UK and can mean lower payments. The zero representation argument is redundant as we have clearly seen throughout this process we are alienated from the main EU decision makers and always will be unless we join the common currency (which would be a disaster)

The agreement would also allow a party then the option of further moves away if it wished by including in a manifesto and winning a majority

 

[Sick Boy]

Yes you showed me your post that had a go at my post. But you are yet to explain you contradicting yourself.

No I didn’t it clearly quoted your post

 

[Sick Boy]

Now it is going to cost us €7 every 3 years to travel to the EU. I hope we do the same for them.

UK travellers to pay €7 to visit EU after Brexit

And it is about time we started charging them full wack road tax for lorries driving on our roads. About time we stopped being too nice. Let's start with a level playing field.

Yeah and let’s make sure that the British tourists start paying road tax on their holidays abroad

 

[Sick Boy]

Not me. Enter the EU on my newly acquired Irish passport, re-enter the U.K. on my U.K. passport. Screw you brexit. Wife and kids have dual citizenship with an EU country also. Ha ha.

No need to, you can use your Irish passport to get back in thanks to the Common Travel Area. You’re going to have more rights in the UK than those with only UK passports

 

[dutchman]

Isn't he calling for a vote on the proposed withdrawal agreement rather than another referendum?

It amounts to the same thing in my view.

Too late now for me, this should have been a n option in the initial referendum.

There was HUGE debate at the time over what the exact wording of the referendum question should be and *I think* even a court case? The final wording was eventually accepted by both sides. It was never going to be possible to please everyone.

 

[Otis]

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.

What you talking about? I HAVE accepted the result of the first vote.

 

[Otis]

Anyone calling for a new vote has not accepted the result of the original vote.

That's an absolute absurd assumption.

 

[Grendel]

What you talking about? I HAVE accepted the result of the first vote.

You clearly haven't

 

[Otis]

You clearly haven't

I clearly have.

Clear as day.

I have accepted the vote from day one and have never called for another referendum.

Only thing I have now said is because of the turmoil all things should be considered.

I am not for another referendum. We voted leave and I have accepted it.

The whole thing is now a bloody mess though and we have to keep all options open.

 

[Otis]

And yet you want it changing by holding a second vote!

I don't. Never ever said I want another vote, dutchman.

Read back through my posts. Never ever called for another referendum.

 

[Grendel]

I don't. Never ever said I want another vote, dutchman.

Read back through my posts. Never ever called for another referendum.

Good then we should never have one that offers an option to remain

 

[dutchman]

I don't. Never ever said I want another vote, dutchman.

Read back through my posts. Never ever called for another referendum.

Fair enough Otis but you did suggest a vote on the so-called 'deal' which many also consider to be a vote to remain.

 

[Otis]

I need to read up more on the Norway model, as I don't know enough about it at present.

No deal sounds like it may well be disastrous.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

No I am not really suggesting I want a referendum but if there was one it would have to be one that acknowledged we are leaving. You cannot just decide referendums based on a few You Gov polls. It can only be done at a General Election if a party (as did the humiliated Lib Dems) go with it in their manifesto and they can command a majority in parliament. It cannot be done at a whim.

The Norway deal is a valid option as does restrict future laws impacting the UK and can mean lower payments. The zero representation argument is redundant as we have clearly seen throughout this process we are alienated from the main EU decision makers and always will be unless we join the common currency (which would be a disaster)

The agreement would also allow a party then the option of further moves away if it wished by including in a manifesto and winning a majority

It’s pretty clear even from this thread that people are split on this, from rejecting May’s deal, to wanting to renegotiate or just go out with no deal.

My arguments for a second referendum are centered around the Government not being able to pass its Brexit deal. No one is seriously basing an argument for a second referendum based on YouGov polls alone. For me, it’s a minor factor because it suggests public support for Brexit is waning.

Here’s the context: The Government is in a position where it cannot get its agreement through Parliament, the EU has said it won’t renegotiate the deal. So the choice of Brexit seems to be May’s deal, or no deal. May’s deal pleases no one, both Remainers and Leavers, and no one voted for a no deal. Therefore, it is not only a sensible thing to offer a second referendum, but it’s the right thing to do.

The country is divided whichever way this goes. If you’re not alienating Leavers you’re alienating at least 48% of voters who voted Remain if we crash out of the EU with no deal. With May’s deal, you alienate the Leavers who don’t see it as a real Brexit. Changing government will not change this reality, there isn’t the time for a new government to renegotiate this deal. If a general election can’t do this, it’s a decision that needs to be deferred to the public.

When the deal is most likely defeated in the Commons on January 21st, a referendum and possibly also a general election becomes a necessity to break the deadlock.

 

[Otis]

Fair enough Otis but you did suggest a vote on the so-called 'deal' which many also consider to be a vote to remain.

I am just saying all options should be considered.

And not if it was worded correctly.

As Grendel has said, it could be

1. Do you accept the deal on the table?

2. Do you prefer the Norway or Canada model?

Or

3. No deal?

 

[Otis]

It’s pretty clear even from this thread that people are split on this, from rejecting May’s deal, to wanting to renegotiate or just go out with no deal.

My arguments for a second referendum are centered around the Government not being able to pass its Brexit deal. No one is seriously basing an argument for a second referendum based on YouGov polls alone. For me, it’s a minor factor because it suggests public support for Brexit is waning.

Here’s the context: The Government is in a position where it cannot get its agreement through Parliament, the EU has said it won’t renegotiate the deal. So the choice of Brexit seems to be May’s deal, or no deal. May’s deal pleases no one, both Remainers and Leavers, and no one voted for a no deal. Therefore, it is not only a sensible thing to offer a second referendum, but it’s the right thing to do.

The country is divided whichever way this goes. If you’re not alienating Leavers you’re alienating at least 48% of voters who voted Remain if we crash out of the EU with no deal. With May’s deal, you alienate the Leavers who don’t see it as a real Brexit. Changing government will not change this reality, there isn’t the time for a new government to renegotiate this deal. If a general election can’t do this, it’s a decision that needs to be deferred to the public.

When the deal is most likely defeated in the Commons on January 21st, a referendum and possibly also a general election becomes a necessity to break the deadlock.

And if the Tories get back in? Then what?

Might we not be back at square one again?

 

[Sick Boy]

I need to read up more on the Norway model, as I don't know enough about it at present.

No deal sounds like it may well be disastrous.

I think it would be a fair compromise between both sides.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Now it is going to cost us €7 every 3 years to travel to the EU. I hope we do the same for them.

UK travellers to pay €7 to visit EU after Brexit

And it is about time we started charging them full wack road tax for lorries driving on our roads. About time we stopped being too nice. Let's start with a level playing field.

Mate you understand about trade tariffs and barriers and tit for tat charges don’t you? No one wins it’s why a free trade area is such a good idea