If there is a second referendum ...

chucknorris

wunferall wrote: »

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.

Premier league teams carefully plan their strategy, which involves delving into the detail, whereas Sunday pub league teams tend to just want to kick the ball.

BobQ

BLB53 wrote: »

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.

Bit that is the problem some said this others said we could have a relationship with the EU like Norway or Switzerland or Canada.

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

.

Did/do you understand the implications of WTO terms?

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.

You are right that the deal takes in the remainers viewpoint but in a 48:52 situation is that not reasonable.

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.

That is what they have tried to do and it has not worked. Why do you think WTO is a good solution?

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

Presumably you would have said the same if the referendum vote had been held in 1990.

The idea that the EU has finished changing is not supported by the recent decades of EU history, and not supported by the visions of the EUrocrats, which they openly express in publications on their own website.

Let's at least be honest about where we fit within an evolving EU. It can't stay as it is. It has too many pressures to change.

I would. All I am saying is REMAIN means no change but needs no explanation. I agree the EU will evolve whether we are in or out but the REMAIN vote was to influence from within and that was quite clear

BobQ

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.

Which is why if we are to have a further referendum the outcome needs to define what Leave means.

BobQ

BLB53 wrote: »

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. .

Nothing was ever clear:

"It should be won-win for us and it will be if we vote to leave and we can]maintain free trade, stop sending money and also have control of our borders"

That was MIchael Gove in May 2016. Does the current deal or no deal deliver that?

ukcarper

BobQ wrote: »

Nothing was ever clear:



That was MIchael Gove in May 2016. Does the current deal or no deal deliver that?

What's your thoughts on Mays deal should Labour get behind it.

Tromking

badmemory wrote: »

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.

Most Scots realise, save the odd rabid Nationalist, that London (the UK Treasury) helps them way more than most other U.K. citizens and to vote to detach themselves from the U.K. would be such act of economic self harm as to be almost laughable. Like most English people I’m broadly speaking relaxed about the future of the Union, as a construct it’s a fairly new thing and ironically without the considerable cost of Scotland and NI, England would be a substantially wealthier country.

Moe_The_Bartender

Should we push Ireland into reunification?

No we shouldn't. That's something for the inhabitants of the island to decide. The GFA provides for a referendum on the issue if there appears to be a likely majority for it and that could well be determined by demographics. If you exclude those who don't identify themselves as Catholic or Protestant, the numbers are roughly equal now and soon the higher birth rate in the Catholic community will ensure that they are soon in the majority.

I suspect that Ireland may gradually reunite in a different way. If you look at how people voted in recent elections, you will see that Sinn Fein won every constituency bordering the RoI and that the Unionist MPs are all in the north east. Give those in Sinn Fein held constituencies the choice and I suspect that they would all vote to join the Republic. Unfortunately, the GFA does not give them that choice at present.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

Most Scots realise, save the odd rabid Nationalist, that London (the UK Treasury) helps them way more than most other U.K. citizens and to vote to detach themselves from the U.K. would be such act of economic self harm as to be almost laughable. Like most English people I’m broadly speaking relaxed about the future of the Union, as a construct it’s a fairly new thing and ironically without the considerable cost of Scotland and NI, England would be a substantially wealthier country.

A bit like brexit, then?

I find it a rather bizarre argument. The economic self harm from brexit is fine to gain some pretend sovereignty, but the same doesn't apply to Scotland who'd never endure economic self harm to gain some sovereignty? Westminster makes rules for Scotland (sometimes unilaterally) for the stuff that isn't devolved (which may wants to unwind). Scotland is largely held in contempt by the Tories as as far as I can tell they are largely ignored at downing street and Westminster.
Scotland in the EU would at least have a real seat at the table.

I'm also not sure the funding gap is as bad as it sounds, since I think there are some accounting tricks that count some Scottish produce as British. Particularly oil. The Tories aren't so keen on keeping us because they like subsidizing us, after all. But that's all for the other thread

We voted 65/45 to stay last time, with the promise that we'd get extra powers (lie) and that it as the o my way to stay in the EU (lie), couple that with the way Westminster is running and austerity I'm not sure we won't get a leave result next time. And the way things are going we're going to have a next time. It'll take some legendary politicians or bribery to keep the UK united if we leave and the economy suffers.

cogito

Whether the UK will suffer financial harm from Brexit is debateable. That Scotland would suffer financial harm from independence is indisputable. The country is already propped up by English taxpayers but that's an accepted fact of being in a fiscal union. How's fiscal union working out in the EU?

It is simply not true that Scotland is held in contempt by the Tories. What a ridiculous think to say. If it were true, why would the Scots elect 13 of them at the last election? On the other hand, the Tories' view of the clowns in the ScotNats isn’t exactly positive and you may be confusing two different things.