I have a growing feeling that Britain will NOT leave the EU

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What arrogance?

The body language and attitude of Davis in responding to the debate over the court decision.

The fact that they both failed to condemn the nasty comments made by people about the litigants in the case and about the judges in making their decision.

The way they have treated Parliament since the vote, refusing to engage in any constructive debate about what Brexit means and instead have sought to deal with the problem behind closed doors.

I can accept that once negotiations start they are limited in what they can say but engaging with Parliament on the subject of what Brexit means and what factors MPs think should be considered is very appropriate. MPs should at least be consulted in a meaningful way and not marginalised.

prosaver

Moto2 wrote: »

Did he?

Or did he say

"If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger Article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away."

same thing as he has to go to brussles to do it.

sorry I listen to the bbc ..

During the campaign, Prime Minister David Cameron said he would go to Brussels immediately after the referendum to trigger Article 50, although he has since decided to resign.
ref : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36703799

maybe you should contact the BBC and ask where did they get this from?

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why should they. The UK has no right to special dispensations.

You ignore the fact however that the potential loss of the UK to the EU is a catastrophic failure by the political class on mainland Europe. Given the chance to redeem themselves and welcome the UK back to the fold, I`m expecting major concessions second time round or at least concessions enough to end the threat of Brexit for a generation.

BobQ

Zxcv_Bnm wrote: »

If there is an attempt to subvert democracy by staging a second referendum whose result would be binding if it's Remain but would presumably only be "advisory" if it's Leave again, I would consider that to be a coup d'etat against the people. I didn't vote last time but I would vote Leave if that happened. I think Leave would win bigger in fact.

The EU has decided it would sooner shatter than reform. I'd vote Leave to get that process started.

This is a rather puerile response. Referendums in the UK are rare but they are only advisory unless the Act establishing them says otherwise. The issue is much the same as the court case. Parliament is Sovereign unless it chooses otherwise through an Act of Parliament. It would be a brave decision for Parliament to reject the vote, maybe if it there had been less than say 50,000 in it, but the vote was close but decisive.

I do not think there should be another referendum unless a Government is elected that promises one (which is unlikely).

I also think that someone who could not be bothered with voting in a referendum with such ramifications cannot be taken seriously on the subject.

kabayiri

Cutting a special deal for the UK would not mean that the EU has to apply that elsewhere, IMO.

We have always been on the periphery. We didn't adopt the Euro. We are not part of Schengen.

I think the Leaving Terms will be carefully described so that both sides can walk away and proclaim a "win".

Longer term it matters nought. If the EU does survive it will progress on a potentially divergent path to ours.

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

The body language and attitude of Davis in responding to the debate over the court decision.

The fact that they both failed to condemn the nasty comments made by people about the litigants in the case and about the judges in making their decision.

The way they have treated Parliament since the vote, refusing to engage in any constructive debate about what Brexit means and instead have sought to deal with the problem behind closed doors.

I can accept that once negotiations start they are limited in what they can say but engaging with Parliament on the subject of what Brexit means and what factors MPs think should be considered is very appropriate. MPs should at least be consulted in a meaningful way and not marginalised.

If that's your definition of arrogance. Then you'll need to toughen up. As the heat is going to go up a lot higher yet I suspect.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

You ignore the fact however that the potential loss of the UK to the EU is a catastrophic failure by the political class on mainland Europe. Given the chance to redeem themselves and welcome the UK back to the fold, I`m expecting major concessions second time round or at least concessions enough to end the threat of Brexit for a generation.

What political class in Europe are you referring too. May all change in the coming months and years.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

If that's your definition of arrogance. Then you'll need to toughen up. As the heat is going to go up a lot higher yet I suspect.

I agree.

I don't actually see the benefit of laying out the UK negotiating strategy before our European colleagues.

Someone like Juncker would always seek to hide as much behind closed doors as possible.

In fact, I think a good approach is to identify the weakest links in the European Union and make sure you target those.

AFF8879

The whole referendum question was fundamentally flawed. Putting aside the outright lies, scaremongering etc on both sides of the campaign, we were asked "should the UK remain a member of the EU" (not exact wording, but you get my drift).

Let's say, after all the analysis and negotiations, the government comes up with a deal whereby we keep single market membership / financial services passporting but must accept "uncontrolled immigration" as its been referred to and EU laws/regulations...i.e the status quo.

Do you think the majority of people who voted leave would be happy with this outcome? Well unfortunately it wouldn't make a slight bit of difference as the government would still have fufilled their instruction to leave the EU.

Thats why I agree in principle with a second referendum on the terms of the exit; not that that option isn't fraught with difficulties. I.e we are in a bit of a mess with no easy solution.

CLAPTON

AFF8879 wrote: »

Thats why I agree in principle with a second referendum on the terms of the exit; not that that option isn't fraught with difficulties. I.e we are in a bit of a mess with no easy solution.

what terms would these be

the ones that had been agreed beween the negotiators and had been agreed by all the 27 EU governments and been agreed by the European parliament and been agreed by the UK parliament?