This is not true. The options on the ballot paper were crystal clear: remain or leave. The UK made its choice, and the politicians are struggling to not implement it.
Jolly good, then.
We’ve been over this in other threads, but what, exactly, does “leave the EU” mean? Does it mean abandoning the shared borders but keeping the trade union? Does it mean leaving the trade union but keeping shared borders? “Leave” is not well-defined. “Remain” is - it just means “don’t do anything”. But the reason politicians are struggling to implement it is that, as it turns out, it’s not clear what the hell people wanted! It certainly doesn’t seem to be the no-deal brexit. And it clearly isn’t the Theresa May deal either. So what the hell do they want?
That is very funny…
It is the same as saying “We made the crystal clear voting choice to build the bridge between the Ireland and the UK for 100 USD and the politicians are struggling not to implement it” with the completely magical unrealistic pay no attention at all to the physical and the financial realities…
I voted for my 100 dollar bridge, dammit - now DO it! 
whatever, the worst case scenario is - that’s what will happen. I’ve long given up hope in people/politicians.
sleep walk into no deal, probably.
Indeed, it is such the great surprise that in fact the unwinding of 40 years of trade integration including the high intensive degree of the physical infrastructure built on the lack of any trade borders is very much more complicated than the slogans…
The complexities, which are on the order of a complex combination of the physical logistics infrastructure, the legal infrastructure, the legal agreements, the data and the technical agreements, are not things just waived away in the real world outside of the fantasies.
It means exactly that. No more and no less. A deal between the independent UK and the independent UK is just that, a deal. Just like a deal between the independent UK and the independent USA.
So it’s your opinion that the UK voted to unilaterally abandon all EU treaties and deals? In other words, a hard brexit?
The UK voted to leave the EU. It’s as simple as that. What treaties an independent UK chooses to negotiate are up to the UK and its treaty partners; I hope the UK negotiates a good deal with the EU.
But that’s the UK-sized point you’re missing: the subjects on which the deals are to be negotiated are exactly the subjects which didn’t need to be negotiated when the UK belonged to the EU. And the point of softening Brexit is to have as much of the negotiation done before March 29 as possible.
But no, let’s sail on our own (never mind half the hull is missing) and, once we’re drowning, then we’ll get back to the table. Point. By. Point.
If Brexit ends up leading to an independent, EU-member Scotland and to Gibraltar español I’ll laugh so hard I may need a hospital stay.
I don’t really feel like you answered my question. Did the British people vote to unilaterally abandon all EU treaties and trade deals?
You keep saying “The UK voted to leave the EU”. In your head, what concrete policy does that equate to? Can you explain that?
Yes. It’s as simple as that.
It equates to leaving the EU. It’s that simple. All this talk about a hard Brexit or soft Brexit or whatever is all a red herring.
As I have also repeatedly said, Brexit is a decision I respect more than like. Do you believe in democracy? If you do, you must respect votes which do not go your way. Or are you a wannabe dictator?
Then you should have absolutely no trouble explaining what this means in concrete terms. Or just answering “yes” to my question. Did the British people vote to unilaterally abandon all EU treaties and trade deals? Yes or no?
There is no good reason why it should be this hard to get a straight answer out of you to this question. For all I know, “Leave the EU” means “push the british islands towards Canada”.
You’re obfuscating. The UK voted to leave the EU. It’s that simple. I’m sorry you cannot understand that simple fact.
Does this mean blowing up the Chunnel?
Bit of a Freudian slip there? Part of the present problem is that there wasn’t even a clear “deal between the independent UK and the independent UK” before the referendum or before Article 50 was triggered, with the result that everything has been clogged up while we argue among ourselves: what should the deal be aimed at achieving, in concrete, operationable, legislated and justiciable terms?
Heh: independent UK and independent EU.
Beyond that, I have made my position clear.
Brexit means Brexit, Patrick.
No, I believe that halfway intelligent people often reconsider previously held views when confronted with new information. And presumably the citizens of the UK have at least a somewhat better idea now of what Brexit might possibly mean than they did at the time of the referendum.
Now one could say, “So what if we know more now? We should lock ourselves into the decision we made when we were ignorant! If we believe in democracy, we must respect the decision we made then!”
Or one could say, “Now that we have a better understanding of what ‘leave’ might really mean, why don’t we check to see if that’s still what we want to do?”
Not to mention: was the original referendum supposed to be binding? If not, it hardly seems like an abridgment of democracy to reconsider it.
You really haven’t.
Brexit ranges from hard exit, breaking treaties, pulling up the drawbridge, to Norway plus plus.
Your inability/unwillingness to engage on the complexity if the issue and insist it’s all quite simple makes you part of the problem, Quartz.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk