Brexit negotiations thread

[Massimo Giovanni]

And what if remain wins? Will leave voters be entitled to campaign for an immediate further vote? If multiple votes and instant disregard of referendum results is de rigeur where does that leave Scottish independence? Just perhaps that is why they are so keen on a second referendum on Brexit because it will justify another vote on independence? But what if they got a second vote on that too? If they won, would we need to honour it? Perhaps people didnt know what they were voting for? Perhaps a general election after all then. Oh, but wait - that involves voting too! What shall we do? It's so confusing. Perhaps we should just vote once and then get on with things. Now, there's a thought.

Scots voted by a much larger margin than the rest of the UK to remain, if they did that again, & then got and won a further Independence vote then the rest (of the UK/Leavers) would, rightly, feel very angry.

 

[Ricky Otto]

a poll conducted by YouGov of more than 1,000 voters on Wednesday found 56% would now vote to stay in the EU, against 44% who want to leave.

Exactly the same proportion of voters said they wanted a second EU referendum – three points higher than recorded in a similar poll before Christmas. Backing for a so-called people’s vote among Labour supporters stood at 78%.

The remain lead was extended further when respondents were asked to compare it to May’s withdrawal agreement or the option of leaving the EU without a deal.

Against the prime minister’s deal, remain led by 65% to 35%, while against no-deal was 59% to 41% in favour of staying in the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ring-of-resignations-if-he-backs-peoples-vote


That's fairly clear I think.

And yougov had remain 2 points ahead on the eve of the 2016 referendum https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/22/final-eve-poll-poll

And 4 points ahead on the 17th May 2016

It's not reliable

 

[Bielzibubz]

How is more democracy less democratic?

Well, let's have a third and be even more democratic then!.....I can see you're logic there

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It never was on the table though. As I mentioned in my previous post, When Cameron announced the referendum, it was designed to be a definitive. No second chances on the decision, what the people voted for, is what the people would get.

Putting it on the table now, whitewashes the first vote & renders it undemocratic.

I think phrases that begin 'When Cameron....referendum...' are inadvertently highlighting the point that he quit because he realised that what he had promised could not be adequately delivered.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

And what if remain wins? Will leave voters be entitled to campaign for an immediate further vote? If multiple votes and instant disregard of referendum results is de rigeur where does that leave Scottish independence? Just perhaps that is why they are so keen on a second referendum on Brexit because it will justify another vote on independence? But what if they got a second vote on that too? If they won, would we need to honour it? Perhaps people didnt know what they were voting for? Perhaps a general election after all then. Oh, but wait - that involves voting too! What shall we do? It's so confusing. Perhaps we should just vote once and then get on with things. Now, there's a thought.

Yes. If Remain won a new referendum there is nothing to stop Leave requesting another. We will have had 3 years between these two so that sounds like a sensible timescale for another - enough time to see how the last one panned out.

 

[GBJ]

I think phrases that begin 'When Cameron....referendum...' are inadvertently highlighting the point that he quit because he realised that what he had promised could not be adequately delivered.

Totally irrelevant to my point, but ok.

 

[GBJ]

The only second referendum options I can see that would actually still represent democracy, would be to ask people to vote for either

A) Some form of deal with the EU - which has been negotiated by a cross-party section of parliament.

B) No deal

We’ve talked at length about using ‘no deal’ as a bargaining chip against the EU. Why can’t it be used against our own politicians, who are obviously against leaving without a deal?

It would stop the childish tit-for-tat, point scoring & effectively force them to co-operate & work together to get the best deal possible.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It never was on the table though. As I mentioned in my previous post, When Cameron announced the referendum, it was designed to be a definitive. No second chances on the decision, what the people voted for, is what the people would get.

Putting it on the table now, whitewashes the first vote & renders it undemocratic.

That,of course,is precisely what voters were told in 1975.

 

[GBJ]

That,of course,is precisely what voters were told in 1975.

Maybe so, but I fail to see how that helps with the current situation we’re in, and subsequently moving forward?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The only second referendum options I can see that would actually still represent democracy, would be to ask people to vote for either

A) Some form of deal with the EU - which has been negotiated by a cross-party section of parliament.

B) No deal

We’ve talked at length about using ‘no deal’ as a bargaining chip against the EU. Why can’t it be used against our own politicians, who are obviously against leaving without a deal?

It would stop the childish tit-for-tat, point scoring & effectively force them to co-operate & work together to get the best deal possible.

C) Remain

 

[dcblue]

That,of course,is precisely what voters were told in 1975.

Yes and if it was still the EEC and not a political union, I would suggest there would not have been a referendum in 2016.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

I think I'm nearly at the end of all this. I've spent so much time in front of my computer screen, carrying on futile conversations to individuals who are as deaf to my opinions as I probably am to theirs.
The french government published details yesterday concerning british citizens and their position following a hard Brexit. As I've been here for over five years, I'll have a year of grace, during which time I'll have to apply for a 'carte de séjour,' presumably much like the one I was obliged to have when I arrived back in '89. For me the downsides and disturbance seem relatively small. I could find my pensions from the UK frozen............more serious, if I was likely to be around for another 20 years or more! I could also find that travel will be a little more problematic with my British passport. I don't have any intention to return to the UK apart from visits to see the family and take in a game or two. I do sincerely believe my hardships will be a lot less than my UK compatriots, if indeed you decide to cast off into the unknown on March the 29th.
For those poor tormented souls who believe that March 29 will somehow be the end of the matter............ it's only the end of the beginning! Negotiating a trade deal with the EU, in the circumstances with which you have left, will I believe be long, hard and very difficult. I don't suppose you'd expect it any other way.

 

[GBJ]

C) Remain

No, for two reasons.

1) undemocratic

2) we’ve already had that option, and the majority of people didn’t want it.

 

[Ricky Otto]

No, for two reasons.

1) undemocratic

2) we’ve already had that option, and the majority of people didn’t want it.

But remainers don't think that it is democratic to proceed with a result that was so narrow when so many lies were told to misrepresent what brexit really was/is. I wouldn't cause civil unrest because I'm not a complete **** but I would be ****ed off

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

No, for two reasons.

1) undemocratic

2) we’ve already had that option, and the majority of people didn’t want it.

230 arguments that the Tories have made Brexit unworkable so a new referendum should also ask if the public would like to react to that news by deciding not to bother or to push on with it.
If the government that the public chose had got on with delivering on the offer it made then we wouldn't have this issue. As someone who didn't vote Leave and didn't vote for this shambolic government I would say that I deserve my tax and my MP to work on other policies if this one that has dominated for 3 years is still not realised.

 

[GBJ]

But remainers don't think that it is democratic to proceed with a result that was so narrow when so many lies were told to misrepresent what brexit really was/is. I wouldn't cause civil unrest because I'm not a complete **** but I would be ****ed off

Whilst I’d agree that a percentage of Brexiteers were convinced to vote that way due to lies, I’d suggest that of course not all of them did.

So, how do you quantify it? It’d be presumptuous for me to suggest that a large majority didn’t fall for the lies, just as it is for any remainer to claim that a large majority were conned.

I could also retort back with, how many people voted remain, due to project fear? I’d assume that there were a few. I couldn’t be accurate, just as nobody can be accurate with how many people were convinced by lies.

Point is, although it may be a bit rough around the edges, the vote we had was ultimately a democratic one. Again I must stress this point, it may well turn out to be a mistake, but the correct course of action, would be to follow it out as the majority of people wanted.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Yes and if it was still the EEC and not a political union, I would suggest there would not have been a referendum in 2016.

I'm sure you would have preferred a referendum after the treaty of Lisbon was agreed (if not immediately after Maastricht),

 

[GBJ]

230 arguments that the Tories have made Brexit unworkable so a new referendum should also ask if the public would like to react to that news by deciding not to bother or to push on with it.

I agree a referendum should be held, but not yet. May’s deal was (rightly) destroyed. The onus is now on her to work with the rest of her government & counterparts to achieve an improved deal. Or in other words, one that will get through Parliament. That deal should then be put to the people, against leaving with no deal.

 

[dcblue]

I'm sure you would have preferred a referendum after the treaty of Lisbon was agreed (if not immediately after Maastricht),

I hate to say it but I wasn't really interested in politics or the EU at that time. However knowing what I know now the answer is most definitely.

 

[Billy Bests boot laces]

Whilst I’d agree that a percentage of Brexiteers were convinced to vote that way due to lies, I’d suggest that of course not all of them did.

.

I voted to leave, not at all swayed by any of the statistics which were quoted. For other reasons that i'm not interested in having a debate about, it was my decision & final.
If there was another referendum, i'd still vote to leave, my choice, my option.
If we stay in, so be it. All Politicians lie through their teeth promising us this & that, but then claim their hands are tied afterwards.
Life go's on, very few of us have been able to better ourselves in recent years, but we 'duck & dive' & survive.