If there is a second referendum ...

buglawton

mayonnaise wrote: »

A Customs Union does not mean accepting all 'strictures' of the Single Market.
A Customs Union does not mean Free Movement.
A Customs Union does not mean ECJ oversight.

In the event of a new referendum, I'd suggest you base your decision on facts.

Correct, customers unions around the world don't mean that. But...

A Customs Union between UK and the EU will probably mean accepting many 'strictures' of the Single Market.
A Customs Union between UK and the EU will probably mean some form of Free Movement.
A Customs Union between UK and the EU will probably mean some form of ECJ oversight.

because that's the EU's current negotiating stance, based on it's perception of it's bargaining power.

Thrugelmir

mayonnaise wrote: »

A Customs Union does not mean accepting all 'strictures' of the Single Market.
A Customs Union does not mean Free Movement.
A Customs Union does not mean ECJ oversight.

Didn't realise that the EU have offered a Customs Union on those terms. Must have missed the announcement.

.string.

mayonnaise wrote: »

A Customs Union does not mean accepting all 'strictures' of the Single Market.
A Customs Union does not mean Free Movement.
A Customs Union does not mean ECJ oversight.

In the event of a new referendum, I'd suggest you base your decision on facts.

My guess is that you have not been paying enough attention to what the EU have been saying during the negotiation. Remember the "Four Freedoms".

I did and do pay attention to facts, possibly more than most, but I do acknowledge that human beings make decisions influenced by how they feel.

And so they should.

movilogo

A Customs Union does not mean Free Movement.

CU is a "customized" version of something. There is no automatic inclusion or exclusion of anything - all depends on what agreement is made between UK & EU.


So, CU post Brexit may or may not include FOM.

Arklight

.string. wrote: »

The idea of having a second referendum was brought up, to put it bluntly, by those that wanted to reverse the decision.

They still do.

Paradoxically, the idea that the UK should enter a Customs Union with the EU should require a new Referendum. Having a Custom Union is the unrefined policy of the Labour Party who make claims that it will be something other than a supine UK accepting all of the strictures of the Holy Market. No deals with other countries, Free Movement, European Court suoremacy and so on.

The latter is very clearly incompatible with the Brexit Referendum of which the major argument was about "bringing back control".

In that situation, as I wrote, Paradoxically, Parliament would have reversed[/] the decision of the Referendum. In that event I think the approval of the people is necessary; hence a new Referendum.

I voted Remain, but by now support Leave due to all that has happened; in the event of a new Referendum I would have to think carefully on which way I would vote the next time around.

Yes sure you did. Because everyone who voted Remain assumed that if Leave won it wouldn't matter because the EU would let us carry on having all the advantages of staying with none of the things Leave didn't like.

"Everything that's happened." The Tories have spent two years doing absolutely nothing other than staring at their own navels wondering whether to ask to be in a customs union or not.

And they still don't know.

adindas

movilogo wrote: »

CU is a "customized" version of something. There is no automatic inclusion or exclusion of anything - all depends on what agreement is made between UK & EU.


So, CU post Brexit may or may not include FOM.

Keep in mind. Canada, a small country could get a deal quite similar to single market with EU without paying a single penny, no freedom of movement. EU is using Ireland as a pawn. In response UK should use the EU citizen in the UK as bargaining chips since day one, remoaners and labour prevent this to happen. It should also threaten to use other power e.g. money, security, intelligence and military threat since day one.

UK got such a bad deal because of Tereza May, and remoaners who tied up the negotiators one hand. The fact that two of the Brexit negotiators quit tell a lot of story. Juncker and Barnier never believe how lucky they are to get this woman negotiating on behalf of the UK.

She should be walking away in the first day of negotiation when the EU made condition the order of negotiation leaving the country a lot of time to prepare for a no deal.

No deal is a bad deal, Walk away from negotiation now what she has been doing. Did she really believe what she said or just a blatant lie ??

Thrugelmir

adindas wrote: »

Keep in mind. Canada, a small country could get a deal quite similar to single market with EU without paying a single penny, no freedom of movement.

You do know where Canada is along with it's geography. Nor is Canada an existing member of the EU.

Switzerland is an example of the pressure that can be applied by the EU.

buglawton

Have a little sympathy. The UK leaving is percieved by top EU mandarins as an existential threat.

That's why Canada that is more of a trade poster boy than a threat, can get a better deal than the UK.

Except the fat lady hasn't sung yet. Once the EU gets past Denial and moves onto New Reality, good deals are there to be done.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

No no!

Not "second referendum".
5
It's a "people's vote".

The slur is obviously intentional. This time it is "the people" who get to decide...the right sort, presumably.

It's a branding which a marketeer like Cameron would be proud of. Package it up into something with a cuddly title, and sell it to the masses.

People's vote as in by the public and not parliament. What would you call it?

Herzlos

adindas wrote: »

Generally accepted referendum is the highest order in a democratic nation.

In some countries like Australia the national referendum is even the highest order in the constitution.

UK is leaving the EU is the result of referendum. Before the result is delivered there should not be another referendum.

I'm not saying a referendum isn't the highest order in a democratic nation, I just don't get this concept that democracy requires a decision to be acted upon before asking if it was a good idea. Particularly one with irreversible consequences.

Nothing I've read on democracy mentions it. Can you cite anything?