Handy website for tracking the status of all the trade deals.
Thank you - a friendly edit was how it was meant. 
OB
That’s never been suggested. Brexit is about trade with the rest of the world, control of immigration, fisheries (big issue locally), and many other things. It was, however, hoped that Cameron would negotiate a better deal with the EU when he went to Brussels.
D’oh. You are quite correct.
Given that they don’t know on what basis to negotiate thanks to the lack of a decision, this is understandable.
Really? Are you sure you haven’t been reading what others say that I think? It’s very simple: I value democracy over the UK’s membership of the EU. As I have said ab initio, Brexit is a decision I respect more than like. It’s that simple.
So tell me: what exactly about my perspective do you not understand? Back this up with quotes.
Once outside the EU, the UK will be desperate for trade deals, any trade deals. That will certainly give a lot of leverage in negotiations. So it will be easy to get better terms than the EU has ever been able to obtain.
And do you have a cite for that claim? Did the Brexit camp ever claim that?
BTW I am fucking furious with Cameron, May, the government, the Tories, and Parliament for completely fucking everything up. And I am deeply disappointed that so many Dopers seem so willing to discard democracy for a democratic decision they don’t like.
Why do you think the government should follow the result of an advisory referendum when the advice is patently stupid? That’s not democracy, it#s national suicide because no-one will take responsibility.
And democracy is less important than the survival of the nation. We should not respect a stupid vote. Democracy is a means to functional government, not an end in itself.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the UK already have piles of exceptions in their favor in the current EU relationship, exceptions that will go away if Brexit happens? Ergo, if the UK wants to rejoin the EU later, they’ll get a worse deal than they have now? I doubt they could stay out of the Eurozone a second time.
The bit I do not understand is when you state that the referedum result, for Brexit, means something specific and deliverable. I think that the referendum result for Brexit encompasses a huge number of different and often contradictory options, from No Deal to the Norway Model to the Canada Model to the charming Unicorn-in-Every-Pot Model, and as such, did NOT actually produce a result of the Will of the People™ other than that there is discontent with, and limited understanding of, the UK’s role in the EU.
Post #21 from February if you need a cite, but many others.
We’ve gone round the houses about this already, so there’s no need to do it again; it’s just a source of puzzlement for me. When my country makes a colossally bad decision (Bush, Trump, etc.) I try not to think “well, Democracy Has Spoken. Sorry, Iraq.” Instead, I muse upon the difficult balance of direct democracy vs informed decision-makers, and hope that while Parliament will ascertain the will of the people, it will not merely be its slave but will takes its duties seriously and act in the best interests of the country. I assume that the average MP has more information, and more time to devote to politics, than the average voter. That’s why we elect them.
Sweden has been studiously avoiding joining the Eurozone since 1994, despite essentially committing themselves to join. The UK and Denmark negotiated explicit opt-outs back then, and I doubt it would be an insurmountable obstacle to rejoining. It’s certainly something that could be finessed. The negotiated rebate on contributions the UK has, on the other hand, would be gone - but that’s only money.
Yes. It’s why simply rejoining if Brexit goes badly is not really an option. Though with reference to the Eurozone in particular, countries must meet certain criteria in order to join, and can simply avoid meeting them if they don’t want to. IMO having the UK in the Eurozone would be dangerously stupid, but I wouldn’t put it past the EU to push for it anyway.
As Baron Greenback said, we’d lose the rebate for sure, and there is also the issue of the Schengen zone. If there were no passport checks at the border it would be much easier for illegal migrants to cross from Calais, which would be unpopular, to say the least.
The ballot paper was quite clear and specific: leave the EU or remain in the EU. How are you having a problem with that?
Here’s the Wikimedia image of the ballot paper.
The UK decided to leave the EU. No ifs, no buts. No complications.
And of course Brexit is deliverable. Just as the UK’s entry to the Common Market (as it was then) was the work of men and women, so is the UK’s exit. That I might not like the form of delivery is not relevant. People who tell you Brexit is not deliverable are wrong and are telling you that to pursue their Remain agenda.
Did the UK vote to leave the EEA too, given the strict wording on the ballot paper you are so fond of? How about Euratom?
No, because parties advocating a second referendums secured more votes than parties advocating a no-deal Brexit.
The thinking here is that (in the UK constitutional system) Parliament is sovereign, and it has the power to decide whether there is to be a referendum and, if so, what the question/option should be. And with that sovereign power comes responsiblity; not to put forward an option which in fact you consider so disastrous for the well-being of the country as to be unconscionable. Parliamen’s ultimate responsibility is to serve the common good, not to give people whatever they want.
If you’re going to have a binary refernedum, you have to exclude all but two options. In that scenario you cannot allow people to vote as they wish, because different voters may wish for more than two different things. And if Parliament has to exclude all but two options, its hard to make a case for including one option they consider to be ruinous.
You solve this problem, or at least ameliorate it, by allowing multiple options on the ballot paper, but you thereby create a different problem. If you only allow people to tick one box, as is the British tradition, the extreme likelihood is that the option which receives the most votes will still be one that a majority of the people have voted against. What kind of a democratic mandate would that give?
You solve that problem by allowing voters to express preferences - their favourite option, their next favourite, and so forth. Then you count the votes by eliminating the least popular option, transferring those votes to the next preference expressed by the voters concerned, and so on until one option has more than 50% of the votes, or untili all but one option has been excluded. That show shows you the option that commands the broadest assent.
I personally would avour this system and, in this system, would not object to “no deal” appearing on the ballot paper. The problem is that the UK electorate roundly rejected this system for parlamentary elections some years ago, so it’s unlikely that it would command popular confidence as a method for conducting referendums.
As I see it, if you insist that the people must be allowed to make this choice unfiltered by the views of parliament as to what choice should be made, you can’t also insist that the people must make this choice through an absurdly reductive process which renders the choice a simplistic binary one. This (a) is wrong in principle, (b) is practically certain to lead to poor decisions that do not work out well and (c) still leaves Parliament prevailing over the people in the decisions it makes about which options not to put on the ballot.
False. The referendum was advisory, and decided nothing, and for that matter the only reason the result hasn’t been overturned is because it’s not binding. An honest parliament would recognise both that it was won under false pretences, and that following the advice would be stupid even if the win was valid.
Leaving the EU will devaste the country, and you have given absolutelu no rebuttal to that, just claimed that the result of the referendum should be respected. It shouldn’t.
I was mostly with you on the first paragraph. Then came those very unfortunate last couple sentences. :smack:
I don’t accept your interpretation of the figures. Advocating for a second referendum is not the same as wanting to remain and very few of the other parties were as single-issue and clear as the Brexit party and UKIP meaning that come a referendum you cannot guarantee, at all, that the voters all line up in the way you think they will. For some parties it will, for some it will not.
By that logic it would be impossible for any country to have a binary referendum vote to join the E.U. surely the option not to join would be too ruinous?
I’m not sure how they fully serve the common good by holding another referendum on a matter that was already decided and in doing so ignore one of the most popular expressed options. I see that as sowing nothing but further discontent. The message from that is clear. Parliament does not mean what it says and I think that is more damaging than risking existing as a country outside of the EU.
I’m all for spelling out potentially what each option means, that includes the likely implications of rescinding article 50 as well as a no deal Brexit. Have multiple options, I trust the British public to be able to make sense of it. They were able to make sense of it in 1975 when voting for continued membership of the EEC, I fail to see why their judgement would be any more or less flawed now.
The only reason you think any of that is because your side lost. You certainly don’t think that the 1975 referendum was won under false pretences do you?
I voted to remain but at least have the ability to accept that we didn’t win. The whining and moaning of the losing side is the most objectionable part of this whole charade to me.
The scaremongering about devastation is precisely that. Handed to you by the same people who blithely predicted economic nirvana right up until 2008 happened. How were those predictions? And what happens if we reverse course? We will be punished harshly by the EU. You’d better be willing to explain to the people of the UK how things will change if we now don’t leave the EU. And if you don’t think things will change then you haven’t been paying attention for the last 44 years.
The ballot references neither.
We were told the result would be implemented.
Says you. It’s obviously stupid and wrong scaremongering like that which helped Leave win. I’ve posted a letter from one businessman who says he’ll have no problems. Businessmen hereabouts with whom I’ve spoken aren’t worried. As I’ve said before, those to whom I spoke who were pro-Brexit said that they thought that there would be issues in the short term but that the UK would benefit in the longer term. Brexit will cause change and that scares a lot of people.