If we vote for Brexit what happens

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

Or in other words, half the people who voted remain are now not opposed to Brexit.

I'm not sure you can draw that inference from this poll. The question is nothing to do with how people might vote if the referendum was repeated.

The poll, commissioned by online campaign group Avaaz, found 33 per cent of voters support Brexit unconditionally, while 23 per cent oppose it unconditionally.

32 per cent of voters said it would depend on the terms of the deal, and 12 per cent remain undecided.

The concern is only 32% of those polled would consider the outcome of the negotiations to be a factor in determining support (or not) for Brexit.

System

wotsthat wrote: »

The concern is only 32% of those polled would consider the outcome of the negotiations to be a factor in determining support (or not) for Brexit.

Do I understand this right?

It means that most of those people don't care what Brexit means as long as we're "out"?

Doesn't matter about immigration or sovereignty or trade, we just have to be out?

Why?

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

And that is the point you are missing.

You're disappointed.
Others are not.

So the govt tell you a bit more and you're now happy.
Others are still not.

So the govt tell a bit more and a few more are happy.
Others are still not.

And on and on and on until everybody has to be told everything and the speedy process that you seem to be demanding from this 'inept' govt has disappeared up in smoke thanks to all those continual delays and demands from people who have no interest in anything other than causing delays and adding demands.

Giving an extreme example of an unreasonable expectation doesn't mean my expectation is unreasonable. It would be unreasonable for me to expect a daily 'phone call from Theresa May with a summary of the day's brexit events but I'm not suggesting that.

I'm only after 10 - 15 bullet points which set out the government's initial wish list. Quite a different expectation and one which I don't consider unreasonable. If they're not in a position to do this yet they should just say so.

ruggedtoast

Brexit thugs target Gina Miller.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/it-isnt-safe-for-me-to-go-outside-gina-miller-reveals-safety-fears-amid-anger-at-brexit-ruling-a3394076.html%3famp

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not sure you can draw that inference from this poll. The question is nothing to do with how people might vote if the referendum was repeated.

Of course you can infer that.

48% of people voted to remain. Therefore they do not accept brexit.
Now only 23% of people would not accept brexit.
Therefore half of the 48% are not opposed to brexit.

The poll is stupid. It can be spun any way depending on the bias of the author.

The concern is only 32% of those polled would consider the outcome of the negotiations to be a factor in determining support (or not) for Brexit.

Why is that a concern?

Of the remaining non-committed 44%, the govt only needs to persuade 17% in order to get majority support. Sounds like a reasonable position for the govt to be in to me.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

Giving an extreme example of an unreasonable expectation doesn't mean my expectation is unreasonable. It would be unreasonable for me to expect a daily 'phone call from Theresa May with a summary of the day's brexit events but I'm not suggesting that.

I'm only after 10 - 15 bullet points which set out the government's initial wish list. Quite a different expectation and one which I don't consider unreasonable. If they're not in a position to do this yet they should just say so.

And would your reasonable requirement also satisfy the demands of the SNP or Tim Farron?

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

Of course you can infer that.

48% of people voted to remain. Therefore they do not accept brexit.
Now only 23% of people would not accept brexit.
Therefore half of the 48% are not opposed to brexit.

The poll is stupid. It can be spun any way depending on the bias of the author.

You're conflating this poll with the referendum result and haven't spotted this isn't a poll about voting intention.

mrginge wrote: »

Why is that a concern?

Of the remaining non-committed 44%, the govt only needs to persuade 17% in order to get majority support. Sounds like a reasonable position for the govt to be in to me.

You're surely missing the point. Who unconditionally supports anything other than maybe a football club.

For 56% of those polled the deal is irrelevant as they've already decided. They unconditionally support (or not) Brexit no matter what. Blind, unflinching faith.

I'm not surprised most of that group are brexiters but I do have a bias to confirm.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

And would your reasonable requirement also satisfy the demands of the SNP or Tim Farron?

I'm after a 10 - 15 bullet point wish list/ statement of intent in the very near future.

I don't think it's unreasonable and I don't care if Sturgeon or Farron agree or not.

I really don't need to debate whether or not you can keep 100% of people happy 100% of the time because I already know the answer to that one.

wotsthat

Thrugelmir wrote: »

To maintain a cordial relationship with the member states of the EU after the UK's exit.

If Latvia objects to FOM not being included as a compromise for agreeing to a special trade deal. Then there's little to negotiate. As trade is neither here nor there to them. The ability of their populace to work in the UK and remit money home bears far more importance. The variables are endless when you permute 27 different points of view. .

AIUI the article 50 negotiations are subject to a qualified majority vote in the council. Of course with 27 interested parties there will be a lot of horse trading going on as the EU Council would prefer consensus.

Might be wrong but I don't think Latvia could veto proceedings in the way you suggest.

The Council decides to conclude the agreement with a 'super qualified majority', without the participation of the state concerned. The qualified majority is defined in this case as at least 72% of the members of the Council, comprising at least 65% of the population of the Member States (without the withdrawing state) (Article 238(3)b TFEU).

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577971/EPRS_BRI(2016)577971_EN.pdf

antrobus

wotsthat wrote: »

... A court has ruled parliament should debate and vote a motion to trigger article 50. The government are appealing because they don't want my MP to know what progress they are making.

The case of R (Miller) -v- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 was essentially an argument about the conflict between Parliamentary sovereignty and Crown prerogative.


The court ruled that "the Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50". Largely, it seems because the referendum was advisory.


At least, that's what I think it says. The judgement does run to 32 pages.(Although there is a summary.)


https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/



I am however fairly certain that the court did not rule that Parliament had to "debate" the motion, or that there is any requirement for any "progress" to be reported to MPs. If only because a court can't interfere with Parliamentary sovereignty.