OK, since most of us seem to have a problem understanding your position, would you please tell us clearly and in some details
1 - how Brexit is deliverable
2 - which type of Brexit you favour
3 - why your favourite type of Bexit is better than the 653,123.5 other possibilities
No soundbites or one-word answers, please. Real arguments.
More people voted for a manifesto containing “new referendum” than for a manifesto containing “no-deal Brexit”; this is undeniable.
An option not to join is not an option to have no deals with the EU, still less an option to end the deal you have without replacing it with any other deal.
Of course, hypothetically a country could be in a situation where not joiing the EU would be every bit as ruinous for them as a no-deal Brexit would be for the EU, in which case the parliament/government of that country, if constitutionally empowered to make this decision and not required to have a referendum, might well decide to join, rather than risk ruin through an ill-judged and unnecessary referendum. Even absent such circumstances, auite a number of countries did join the EU without a referendum (the UK, of course, being one).
Anything the UK does now will sow discontent; there is no option that avoids that. Parliament may feel that its prime duty to the country is not to avoid sowing discontent, but to target the more attainable aim of not crippling the country economically and politically by doing what it can to avoid a no-deal brexit.
I take it as a given that, if there is a referendum, the options put to the people should be fully worked out and their implications should be fully explained. We don’t want a repeat of the 2016 train-wreck. I’ve alsomo made it clear that I favour multiple options, although you seem to think that the 1975 referendum offered multiple options. It did not; it was a binary referendum. I don’t the the UK has ever had a multiple option referendum and, but for the corner into which the UK has painted itself in this instance, in general I can see why people might think there are not a great idea.
One businessman says he’ll have no problems. Whoopedeedoo.
I’ll continue to listen to other businesses and experts who are being proven right, thanks.
Difficult to say that anyone is being proven right as the UK has not left and any issues at the moment spring from being in a position of uncertainty (which everyone agrees is what business hates the most)
One of my most recent projects was to facilitate a Brexit contingency group for a major pharma company. It was looking how we continue to operate and supply in various scenarios.
Was it difficult? yes. Impossible? no. Disastrous? certainly not. We were ready for the end of March whatever happened which is why I know that talk of medicines shortages and clinical trial issues was bollocks. What is proving far more problematic than a no-deal is the period of not knowing.
I’ve said it before but, seen from the Continent, this is precisely one of the most infuriating aspects of the Brexit debacle.
No to the Eurozone. No to Schengen. A substantial rebate.
And poor UK is oppressed by the evil, undemocratic EU ? Give me break.
But “new referendum” does not reliably translate a referendum vote for either “remain”
or “leave with a deal”.
No. I have laid out my position. Your failure to understand it is your problem, not mine. I do not have answers.
So in your opinion we could leave the EU, but remain in the single market, keep the ECHR, stay part of Eurotom etc and still satisfy the referendum result?
I doubt you’d find much agreement to that amongst leavers. As we’ve discussed before, we’ve gone from pre-ref discussion of a Norway-style deal, to the current position of no-deal brexit, and leaving everything Europe-related (Eurotom, ECHR etc). You can’t base international relations on one vaguely worded question. This is the main problem, everyone interpreted it as their own vision of Brexit, many of which are incompatible with each other, hence the deadlock we have now.
There is no majority for any particular style of brexit, and many leavers would prefer to remain if their particular choice isn’t possible (e.g. Reese-Mogg, Hard-brexiteer, who has said that he’d rather vote remain than soft-brexit, and many other leavers in parliament who have voted against no-deal).
The only solution I see is a second referendum (binding if necessary) with a clear choice between No-deal (disastrous as it may be), whatever deal the government has negotiated, and remain\revoke. It would take some work to make it fair i.e. some sort of preference voting to avoid splitting the vote unfairly, but also not assume all soft-brexit voters would also accept hard brexit, and vice versa.
I’m sure you recall that Parliament felt that the referendum should be respected and they chose to enact it into law, and that is most certainly binding.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...acted/data.htm
If you’d like to read the numerous promises made by Government and both the Conservative and Labour parties, please see post #121.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=871033&page=3
Apart from ECHR, absolutely. ECHR would mean submission to EU courts (and thus the EU). Besides, ECHR has been integrated into UK law so the issue is moot.
Stop right there. The question was precisely, not vaguely, worded, and was itself of much debate.
Actually no. The deadlock is on the remainers’ side.
And what if that still gives the wrong result? Will there be a third referendum? A fourth? No, the UK decided and it’s up to the politicians to implement it. As we’re seeing with the SNP’s new demands for another referendum, there is no downside for demanding another vote.
This just isn’t true though, is it.
The March 2019 vote on May’s deal lost by 286 votes to 344 against. 34 of these votes were from Tory Brexiters who felt the deal was too soft. If they had backed the deal it would have passed 320 to 310. We would now have left the EU had they done so. Brexit would be done and dusted. But because Tory Brexiters voted against Brexit, it’s not.
I know you believe that the vote to Leave is clear and simple. But it turns out that among people who want to Leave it’s surprisingly difficult to get agreement on what Leave means, and whether May’s deal (which will see us out of the Customs Union and out of the Single Market and ends Freedom of Movement) sufficiently counts as Leaving.
This is not a problem of Remainers throwing up roadblocks. This is Leavers who don’t know what Leave means.
In other words, a cop-out.
I’m not surprised.
I think that most UK citizens, whether Leavers or Remainers, believed in 2016 that Parliament would actually do its job after the referendum and put the interests of the country above party/faction politics. I don’t dispute that Leavers were voting for a broad principle rather than a detailed plan. But I believe that Leavers trusted that Parliament would be able to craft a plan they could agree upon. That effort would have included creating a consensus and being willing to compromise. Theresa May was an utter failure because she refused to do so. She wanted a Conservative Brexit, which ended up, according to her, being the Withdrawal Agreement she passed with the EU. Corbyn wasn’t much better. Although, to be honest, I still don’t know what he wanted from Brexit other than a general election and maybe the continuation of the Customs Union.
I think the only three options for leaving/staying are No Deal, the current Withdrawal Agreement, or revocation of Article 50. I think a second referendum would have to include all three options, but not unfairly split the Leave vote. That means either preference voting, or two votes: Leave/ Remain and, if Leave, No Deal or Withdrawal Agreement.
I haven’t been alive for 44 years, let alone paying attention for all of it. So please could you explain how things will change if we now don’t leave the EU.
Which bit of valuing democracy over EU membership do you fail to understand?
As the UK are a particularly disruptive member of the EU, having them tacitly admit that they are now unable to leave under any circumstances will give impetus to greater integration, reduction of the rebate and the closing-off of any technical possibilities of other countries leaving.
In short, we will be punished and we will already have admitted that we aren’t willing to do a thing about it. Anything we then say will be taken (correctly) as an empty threat.
Do you really mean that there was zero additional risk vs business as usual of any delays to the supply of medicine? I’m genuinely amazed by that, because my memory of the talk of medicine shortages is that the people doing the talking were the NHS, the government and the pharma industry itself - not just Remain blowhards. I assume there were at least some fairly hefty contingency costs in terms of e.g. stockpiling and warehousing?
The part where you’ve failed to show that there’s a democratic mandate for any specific thing, due to the fact that firstly the referendum was advisory, and secondly that it did not advise a specific, workable course of action.
We elect representatives to act in our interest. If they do the opposite of that, and force us to leave the EU even if that’s what people want, democracy has failed. The point of democracy is to allow good government, not to allow people to get whatever stupid thing they want. If our government leaves the EU, they will have wilfully damaged the country, acted against the interest of the country, and democracy will have failed.
I’ve no idea whether that first referendum was won under false pretences, and I don’t care. I do know that there have been several court cases that have proved that leave lied, and there are more pending. I also know that the lead up to Brexit has significantly harmed the country, and I also know that the vast majority of experts agree that actually leaving will devastate it. To believe otherwise is like believing that the climate is not changing.
We were told the referendum was non-binding. Do you know what the words “non-binding” and “advisory” mean?
Yes, we all know that some businessmen will be able to use the chaos of Brexit to profit. That’s why so many Tories want a hard Brexit. We also know that the vast majority of experts say that it will devastate the country, at least a 10% cut to the economy for decades.
Your “a few businessmen say all will be fine” is akin to saying “what global warming? It’s snowing”.