If there is a second referendum ...

Herzlos

The EU will keep evolving like the UK or this forum will. It's not a good comparison between a status quo that evolves (as is healthy) and a leap into the unknown. We've got a clear picture of the EU now, and proposals for the next financial cycle, then we've got as much of an idea about where it goes after that as anything else, except it's a lumbering behemoth that takes years to do anything.

Leave on the other hand, still could mean anything.

ukcarper wrote: »

But as our position would be weakened and many EU states do not want us to have them how long will be able to hold on to them.

With the ECJ ruling on our side? Forever. Or do you mean that the EU may change over time and we may give them up or lose them that way?

We could always wait for that to happen and then decide if we want to leave.

movilogo

What if leave wins again in 2nd ref? What do parliament will do then? Why they can't do the same now?


A better approach is to honour the 1st ref and leave EU then after few years have 2nd ref to see if people want to rejoin EU.

ukcarper

ukcarper wrote: »

I think to a certain extent that is an excuse put forward by some remainers who don't want to accept the results, you don't here leave voters claiming that.

BobQ wrote: »

But the situation was different. REMAIN meant keep the status quo.

LEAVE meant LEAVE but those supporting it have never agreed what this future meant. Most of the ERG equate leave to a no-deal situation. Many others who voted leave say some form of bespoke FTA is needed (ie goods and services), others talk of Canada+ (ie goods only) specifically and others say EFTA. All mean LEAVE. They do not need to worry about the result, but they are are still disputing what LEAVE meant.

The EU call us nebulous for a reason. We do not know what we want. For not resolving that issue early on, May should be criticized. For focusing on papering over the cracks in her own party and doing deals with the DUP and not considering a consensus position she should be ashamed of herself.

Although I voted remain I believe a leave supporter should be in control of negotiations, I also don't think there would be a consensus in Parliament for any of your suggestions not because they wouldn't find support with leave supporters but because remain supporting MPs would not support them.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

The EU will keep evolving like the UK or this forum will. It's not a good comparison between a status quo that evolves (as is healthy) and a leap into the unknown. We've got a clear picture of the EU now, and proposals for the next financial cycle, then we've got as much of an idea about where it goes after that as anything else, except it's a lumbering behemoth that takes years to do anything.

Leave on the other hand, still could mean anything.



With the ECJ ruling on our side? Forever. Or do you mean that the EU may change over time and we may give them up or lose them that way?

We could always wait for that to happen and then decide if we want to leave.

I mean they could start moves to see us lose them as soon we withdraw article 50, I don't think we would get the chance to leave again MPs are not going to make same mistake again.

Arklight

movilogo wrote: »

What if leave wins again in 2nd ref? What do parliament will do then? Why they can't do the same now?


A better approach is to honour the 1st ref and leave EU then after few years have 2nd ref to see if people want to rejoin EU.

At a hugely reduced position of influence, without our vetoes, the enormous rebates we get, being allowed to opt out of the euro and set our own interest rates.

This isn't opting out of a catalogue book club, this is peoples' jobs, their livelihoods, their mortgages. Leaving the EU is absolute insanity because there is nothing whatsoever to replace it with other than pipe dreams and hot air.

Herzlos

movilogo wrote: »

What if leave wins again in 2nd ref? What do parliament will do then? Why they can't do the same now?

If leave wins again remain will largely shut up and parliament will know what kind of leave we want. A 2nd referendum is in everyone's interests.

badmemory

Perhaps part of any second referendum should be the questions:-


Do you want to break up the UK & do you want to hand Gibraltar to Spain against their (obviously not the spaniards) wishes?


Should we push Ireland into reunification? How many months will it take until Scotland realises that the have to be independent because London won't help them any more than they will the North of England. With all the initiatives in the north that have funded by the EU all over them I find it difficult to believe that anybody was that short sighted that they voted to leave. Even job centre stuff that isn't directly connected to "jump through these hoops & we may give you some money" comes with the EU funded bit all over it.


The whole vote was a response to Cameron loud & often blaming the EU for things that were all the tories fault. How stupid was he to believe that everyone would vote remain after that? Or was it just in his financial interests to have a leave vote? This is the problem with having millionaires in charge - it is virtually impossible to discover their priorities. But they don't get to become & stay millionaires by considering the lives of those of us below average wage - which folks is half of us at least!

LHW99

If leave wins again remain will largely shut up

I wish

and parliament will know what kind of leave we want.

Only if the questions are very carefully chosen, as it seems preferred that referendum questions should be answerable by a simple yes / no option.

BLB53

The problem is that the 2016 instruction was rather like a man getting to a taxi and saying "take me to the station" did be mean train station, bus station, police station? Unfortunately our driver never asked which one we meant. No wonder so many of us are disappointed

Nice analogy but on my ballot the question was simple, leave or remain. In the run up I was told that leaving would involve taking back control of our borders and an end to free movement of people from the EU. It would mean leaving the single market. We would no longer pay large sums to the EU and we would no longer be subject to EU laws as our courts would make all our laws.

I understood efforts would be made to secure a good future trading relationship but failing agreement we had the option to trade on WTO rules.

These issues were fairly clear I think to most people in 2016 when they voted to leave. What has most disappointed me is the failure of our politicians to deliver on this simple direction.

Why they have failed is a bigger question - they have tried too much to please remainers which has resulted in the current half in/ half out deal which nobody wants. They should have maintained a twin approach - leave with a sensible trade agreement but also prepare from day 1 to leave on WTO as a sensible backstop arrangement.

wunferall

Some remainers would have you believe that if they are asked whether or not they'd like to join in a kickabout with a football they want to know the name of the team, what colour their kit is, who the ref. is and whether or not there will be (free, mind) refreshments at half time as well as a million and one other things. . . . and then grumble loudly that by the time they've thought about it all the other players have played their game and gone home.
Most Brexiters can see the obvious and so they just want to kick the ball.