If there is a second referendum ...

BLB53

because not many (if any) knew the FULL details of what EXACTLY was being voted on

...whereas now it's all crystal clear...

lisyloo

BLB53 wrote: »

...whereas now it's all crystal clear...

585 pages more than we had before so not caste iron but considerably clearer

How much more time, money, pages, distraction and uncertainty do you think is required?

MobileSaver

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

AFAIK we do not have to pay the 39 billion. ...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.

We could of course refuse to pay the 39 billion but pretty much everyone accepts that legally and morally we have to pay it. As you say it wouldn't do us any favours with the EU but further than that why would any country trust us in the future if we reneged so easily and arbitrarily on previously agreed terms?

AndyPix wrote: »

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

You are just twisting "democracy" into what you want it to be rather than anything that would stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

There's no time limit on when the people can exercise power by voting. In a democracy the people should be able to have their say whether it is 1 week, 1 year or 2.5 years after a previous vote. All your name calling and ranting doesn't change that fact.

AndyPix wrote: »

We should have left the day after the referrendum ... We leavers arent stupid

Those two statements are as contradictory as they come! :rotfl:

AndyPix wrote: »

in a word - tough. That is the nature of democracy

The nature of democracy is that the people get to vote on important decisions, something that you are obviously desperate to avoid... it doesn't take a genius to work out why!

MobileSaver

BLB53 wrote: »

This is not my understanding. It only becomes legally payable when/if we agree the withdrawal agreement.

I don't see how that could be the case for the vast majority of the 39 billion; it's money we're already liable for due to commitments we made when we were a fully active member. I accept there may be some horse trading over future liabilities but I suspect this is a fairly small percentage of the 39 billion.

OldMusicGuy

MobileSaver wrote: »

We could of course refuse to pay the 39 billion but pretty much everyone accepts that legally and morally we have to pay it.

No they don't. That's the problem with making these over-generalisations, it just weakens your argument. Some Brexiteers think we should use the threat of not paying to "get tough" with the EU, for example https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1057433/Brexit-news-no-deal-UK-EU-withdrawal-bill-Crispin-Blunt-Theresa-May-vote-latest. I'm sure there are plenty more.

The legal case is not clear cut either. From the Institute of Government site:

"Could we walk away without paying?
The financial deal is an integral part of the withdrawal settlement that also includes the agreement on transition, so reneging on the financial deal would mean leaving the EU with no transition arrangements in place. Future UK compliance will be overseen by the governance arrangements agreed as part of the withdrawal treaty.

If negotiations broke down later this year, and the UK refused to pay, the EU might seek redress through the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict."

MobileSaver wrote: »

As you say it wouldn't do us any favours with the EU but further than that why would any country trust us in the future if we reneged so easily and arbitrarily on previously agreed terms?

IMO it's unlikely to have a big impact on other countries. This is about leaving an existing deal, not striking a deal with someone. Also, we are only talking about trade deals in future which are much less restrictive than joining something like the EU.

We would probably go up in Trump's estimation if we did something like this :rotfl:

chucknorris

BLB53 wrote: »

...whereas now it's all crystal clear...

No, but is much more clearer than it was back in June 2016!

Thrugelmir

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.

Business though is a two way relationship. Having agreed to the other parties demands. Then something should be forthcoming in return. Vague promises don't offer reassurance for the future. After all like a business. The EU is made up of people. People change. Those you negotiate with in good faith could be gone tomorrow. Different people, different views, different interpretations.

ukcarper

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

Not so sure about that polls are still very close and nobody I know who voted leave has changed their mind.

BLB53

585 pages more than we had before so not caste iron but considerably clearer

Good luck in explaining that to the nation in the fanciful 'people's vote'.

These things are decided in the end on gut feel rather than legal documents and fwiw, I do not get a sense there has been much change on either camp since 2016.

So what if 'remain' secured a narrow majority of the votes next time - does that settle the issue...no chance.

It would cause more delay and uncertainty and achieve nothing after yet a further year of wrangling.

Respect the original vote.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

Exactly. The wording of the referendum was so vague as to be functionally meaningless.

Oh, I dunno. Most people with an IQ in double figures understand the difference between leave and remain. It really isn't that difficult.