If there is a second referendum ...

movilogo

Offer NI a referendum whether they want to stay in UK.

If they say yes, implement hard border.
If they say no, then border issue is no longer there.

Problem solved.

OldMusicGuy

giocoforzauno wrote: »

In the last referendum campain politicians prepared voters for the Hard Brexit possibility (no deal with Europe)?

The "no deal" part is a bit misleading IMO, and that's part of the problem. A hard Brexit is a full withdrawal from the customs union, no FoM, no paying money to the EU, no rule taking, no ECJ jurisidiction in the UK. A soft Brexit is more like the EFTA/EEA approach, where we are still in the customs union and have a closer relationship with Europe and most likely pay into the EU and may have to accept FoM.

Maybe I'm missing something (and it wouldn't be the first time), but the only major difference I can see between the May approach and the Rees-Mogg approach is how we leave. May's approach is a 2 year transition plus a 39 billion payment to the EU (plus the issue of the backstop), while the Rees-Mogg et al approach is an immediate break using WTO rules while we negotiate new trade deals with the EU and others.

May's is a phased approach with us spending 2 years (and maybe more) negotiating a trade deal with the EU. We are both in and out during that period (and pay for the privilege). Once that's done, we are fully out and can negotiate trade deals with other countries. The Rees-Mogg approach sees us leave immediately and we then start negotiating with everyone.

Ultimately I think we could make either approach work. I do think a very rapid exit will create more short-term disruption and could damage some industries compared to the phased transition, which is why I personally prefer the May approach. Also, the EU may be better disposed to negotiating with us with the May approach rather than the hardball straight out approach (but we don't really know).

I would class both May and Rees-Mogg as hard Brexit, it's just that one takes longer than the other. There are plusses and minuses of each approach and that's what we should be debating/discussing in more depth rather than just shouting "get on with it" or "we want another referendum".

A soft Brexit is probably something that could be possible but no-one is proposing that at present (Labour has a kind of "softer" hard Brexit which doesn;t really seem feasible to me).

Thrugelmir

movilogo wrote: »

Offer NI a referendum whether they want to stay in UK.

That's a matter for Stormont . Which hasn't sat since January 2017.

MobileSaver

BLB53 wrote: »

there can be no greater betrayal of democracy than a failure to deliver on the 2016 vote.

That's complete nonsense; democracy is about letting the people vote. It can never be a betrayal of democracy if the people are being asked to vote again.

BLB53 wrote: »

Whichever way remainers want to slice and dice their proposal, to have a second ref before the first one has been implemented is just plain wrong.

No it's not. The first referendum was two and a half years ago, lots has changed since then and people are much more aware now of what leaving entails.

The real reason you and others are so against a second referendum is that you are afraid of what the second result might be.

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

I'd be happy if there was an option in a second referendum to stay but I do think that would be a betrayal of the first referendum.

The only betrayal would be to the 14 million UK citizens who voted to remain if REMAIN was not an option on the 2019 referendum.

OldMusicGuy

MobileSaver wrote: »

The only betrayal would be to the 14 million UK citizens who voted to remain if REMAIN was not an option on the 2019 referendum.

I voted remain and wouldn't see this as a betrayal. I have accepted we voted to leave.

MobileSaver

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

A hard Brexit is a full withdrawal from the customs union, no FoM, no paying money to the EU, no rule taking, no ECJ jurisidiction in the UK.

We have to pay the 39 billion or whatever the figure ends up being regardless of how we leave; that's what we owe and have committed to regardless of whether we are in the EU or not.

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

I voted remain and wouldn't see this as a betrayal. I have accepted we voted to leave.

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion your post contradicts itself, you and I and 14 million others didn't vote to leave so there's no "we." It would clearly be decidedly un-democratic to disregard the views of 14 million of the population.

THE_Terry_Urr

Herzlos wrote: »

I just can't follow this logic. An additional ballot option can't impact democracy; either the will of the people doesn't want it and it gets ignored, or the will of the people does actually want it and it gets votes. Both are democratic and would show the current will of the people which is all that actually matters.

I just can't follow that logic.

We had a vote where we knew the process would take 2 years then we leave and leave was voted for.
Now all of a sudden some - presumably those that didn't get the answer they really wanted - want another vote just to check that what you voted for first time round is what you really, really wanted. Never mind that it hasn't been done yet, let's have another vote. Hey, we could even have one monthly weekly until there's an overwhelming majority either way; that'll show 'em what democracy is!

That's farcical, not democratic.


We had a vote. We were told it would be respected. Now respect it and take us out of the EU because not doing so is not democratic.
What you're hoping for is like "buyers remorse" but there is no real evidence that a mood-swing has happened in the British public despite all the pro-EU propaganda. On the contrary more remainers are saying that Brexit should go ahead as was voted for.

BLB53

May's is a phased approach with us spending 2 years (and maybe more) negotiating a trade deal with the EU. We are both in and out during that period (and pay for the privilege). Once that's done, we are fully out and can negotiate trade deals with other countries.

The problem being that if no agreement is reached we automatically end up in the backstop with no way out so it could persist indefinitely. Whilst we are free to negotiate deal with non-EU countries, we could not implement them until released from the backstop.

Meantime we have paid £39bn to EU to end of 2020 and probably a further 30bn for a two year extension without any guarantee of getting a decent deal. This seems a nonsensical way for UK to do business.

During any trade negotiations the 27 EU countries can get exactly whatever terms they want simply by dragging out the negotiations until the backstop automatically is triggered and we are trapped.

This is my understanding of why the majority of MPs could not support the withdrawal agreement as it was presented.

I have to wonder about the PMs judgment in thinking she could steamroller it through the Commons.

MobileSaver

AndyPix wrote: »

holding another because the losing side didn't like the result is absolutely "decidedly un-democratic"

LOL. Holding another vote is the very essence of democracy whether you like it or not. :rotfl:

THE_Terry_Urr wrote: »

we could even have one monthly weekly until there's an overwhelming majority either way; that'll show 'em what democracy is!

Yes, we could and yes that would absolutely be democracy in action. Should people see sense and vote Remain then I'd have no problem with another vote in a few year's time if that's what people wanted.

THE_Terry_Urr wrote: »

there is no real evidence that a mood-swing has happened in the British public despite all the pro-EU propaganda. On the contrary more remainers are saying that Brexit should go ahead as was voted for.

If that's the case then it does make you wonder why you, AndyPix and others are so against the idea, what exactly are you so afraid of?

MobileSaver

BLB53 wrote: »

Meantime we have paid £39bn to EU to end of 2020 ... without any guarantee of getting a decent deal. This seems a nonsensical way for UK to do business.

We owe the £39bn whether we get a decent deal or not, it's what we agreed to while we were an active and committed member of the EU club. Honouring financial liabilities previously agreed to is a perfectly normal and sensible way of doing business.