If there is a second referendum ...

OldMusicGuy

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.

Apologies, I wasn't clear. By "not paying into the EU" I meant after we have left. The 39 billion is a one-off payment for a "smooth" transition to leave. Once we have left, we will not pay any more into the EU. AFAIK we do not have to pay the 39 billion. We could leave and pay nothing if we follow the Rees-Mogg model. We would just rely on WTO rules in the interim.

However, if we do not pay the 39 billion, I can't imagine the EU would be well-disposed towards us in future trade deal negotiations. That's why I favour the May approach because I think it's prgamatic and will allow us to negotiate a future trade deal on a better basis than if we "crash out".

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.

We certainly will, so you should be wary about speaking on behalf of all remainers when you make such broad claims in future.

There's no contradiction in my post but maybe the language was too simplistic. What I should have said was "I voted remain but am prepared to accept that the democratic will of the people of the UK was to leave the EU as indicated in the referendum. Parliament should therefore enact the result of that referendum and if it does not, people who voted leave have every right to feel betrayed." That would have taken longer to type though.

Herzlos

THE_Terry_Urr wrote: »

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.

It has been respected; we've spent 2.5 years trying to find a way to make it work and now have a few options with various pros and cons. It'd be a betrayal of democracy to charge on with one and then try to figure out if it was the right move, especially with so much change.

Brexit is going to have consequences, both good or bad, that will be felt for generations, the stakes at enormous. I don't think it's unreasonable to check what people want to do before doing it. That's how itd work in any competent business.

Let's take an analogy about takeaway food. 52% of people asked for Pizza, so pizza it is. There's some debate as to the toppings, some want vegan and some want meat, no-one can agree. Eventually some of them decide they probably don't want pizza after all, and want burgers instead. You're arguing that they should just let someone decide on the pizza topping and buy them before checking if that's what people still want. It just doesn't make any sense.

The government is perfectly entitled to run an analysis/consultation and change it's mind based on the results - it cancels projects when it needs to.

The only real objection to another vote is fear that it'll be lost on the next iteration.

Currently you're going to get whatever deal May can get passed, and with Mogg and the ERG weakened for at least a year due to the leadership contest, there every possibility she'll just cancel it. Brexiteers need the 2nd referendum to force a brexit to happen. It's in literally everyone's interest.

OldMusicGuy

BLB53 wrote: »

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.....

I totally get all of that. The backstop needs to be sorted and it is an issue. But in all the discussion we keep hearing these ridiculous statements of "May's deal is a bad deal" when IMO it's a pragmatic way forward to deliver a hard Brexit. The one big potential flaw is backstop. If the backstop is the real issue, why don't we get a clearer focus on that from all the politicians?

Maybe she will come back with enough to address concerns over that. We'll see........

AndyPix

MobileSaver wrote: »

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

No - the very essence of democracy is adhering to the outcome of the vote.
Once we have left - another vote to see if we wanted to rejoin would be democratic - but having a second vote before acting on the first is exactly the opposite. Perhaps you are too thick to understand this simple concept or perhaps you are just sulking because the outcome is not what you wanted.
Either way i wont waste any more of my time with you here..

Herzlos wrote: »

It has been respected; we've spent 2.5 years trying to find a way to make it work and now have a few options with various pros and cons. It'd be a betrayal of democracy to charge on with one and then try to figure out if it was the right move, especially with so much change.

No no no .. We didnt vote for "a way to make it work" !!
What is "it working" by the way ?? Satying in in all but name ??


No - We should have left the day after the referrendum and titied up afterwards.


We leavers arent stupid - we know there will be consequences and perhaps hard times for a while - I accept that and think that we will be better off in the end.. As obviously do the majority of the brittish public.


I reaslise that you are not one of those who get your desired result - but in a word - tough.
That is the nature of democracy

OldMusicGuy

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't think it's unreasonable to check what people want to do before doing it. That's how itd work in any competent business.

Your analogy doesn't wash. I've worked in mid-sized and large businesses for 40 years, most of which were successful. I've also advised many companies on investment decisions. In none of these were decisions "checked with people" (as in the great unwashed). Many decisions were made at the whim of CEOs and railroaded through the management team, in other cases a small group or team would make recommendations to the management team who decided what to do. In no case were these decisions "checked" with anyone. Once they were made, you just got on and did them (and of course moaned about how stupid the decisions were....)..

John Lewis is one of the few exceptions to this rule, there may be a few others.

A better analogy might be that the management team of UK PLC asked its shareholders to vote on a future direction, the shareholders voted, and UK PLC has chosen to ignore its shareholders. Maybe what's happened is that the CEO is trying to implement the shareholders' decision but her board (Parliament) isn't letting her.

OldMusicGuy

AndyPix wrote: »

No no no .. We didnt vote for "a way to make it work" !!
What is "it working" by the way ?? Satying in in all but name ??

No - We should have left the day after the referrendum and titied up afterwards.

So here's the problem. You voted to "leave the EU". Those are the exact words of the referendum. Norway is not a member of the EU. So if we went for a soft Brexit and a Norway-style model, we would have "left the EU" and fulfilled the direction of the referendum.

You didn't vote to leave the customs union, end FoM etc. Those words were not in the question. Those are all implied by your interpretation of the words "leave the EU". That's the problem with just shouting "leave means leave".

That's also why I wish we had a more informed debate about the different leave options and focused on the advantages/disadvantages of those but I guess I am in a minority here.

Arklight

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

So here's the problem. You voted to "leave the EU". Those are the exact words of the referendum. Norway is not a member of the EU. So if we went for a soft Brexit and a Norway-style model, we would have "left the EU" and fulfilled the direction of the referendum.

You didn't vote to leave the customs union, end FoM etc. Those words were not in the question. Those are all implied by your interpretation of the words "leave the EU". That's the problem with just shouting "leave means leave".

That's also why I wish we had a more informed debate about the different leave options and focused on the advantages/disadvantages of those but I guess I am in a minority here.

Exactly. The wording of the referendum was so vague as to be functionally meaningless. There are countries who aren't "in" who are still far too in for Brexit ultras. Maybe 99% of Leave voters wanted a Norway arrangement with free movement forever and it's just the ranty minority who have a problem with that. Who knows?

The only people who's views we actually understand are the Remain camp. After the utter fiasco yesterday it doesn't even appear like the Brexiteers can even agree on what they want or who they want to to deliver it.

Second referendum please.

BLB53

But in all the discussion we keep hearing these ridiculous statements of "May's deal is a bad deal" when IMO it's a pragmatic way forward to deliver a hard Brexit. The one big potential flaw is backstop. If the backstop is the real issue, why don't we get a clearer focus on that from all the politicians?

Both sides say they do not want to implement the backstop and it's only there as insurance.

It will only be implemented in the absence of a trade deal however the backstop protocol is legally binding but the future trade arrangements are merely warm words. We therefore need more clarity on these future trade arrangements with more linkage to WA so we can allay some of the understandable reservations.

Hopefully this is being worked on at present?

BLB53

We owe the £39bn whether we get a decent deal or not

This is not my understanding. It only becomes legally payable when/if we agree the withdrawal agreement. If we leave in March on WTO and no deal then it is not legally payable although there will be some payment due subject to further negotiations to cover pension liablities etc. Maybe £5bn.

chucknorris

Arklight wrote: »

Exactly. The wording of the referendum was so vague as to be functionally meaningless. There are countries who aren't "in" who are still far too in for Brexit ultras. Maybe 99% of Leave voters wanted a Norway arrangement with free movement forever and it's just the ranty minority who have a problem with that. Who knows?

The only people who's views we actually understand are the Remain camp. After the utter fiasco yesterday it doesn't even appear like the Brexiteers can even agree on what they want or who they want to to deliver it.

Second referendum please.

I reckon remain would win now, if it doesn't I would reluctantly accept the will of the people. But right now I don't feel comfortable accepting the previous vote result, because not many (if any) knew the FULL details of what EXACTLY was being voted on.

Let us not forget the original referendum was 'advisory' only.