If there is a second referendum ...

Herzlos

LHW99 wrote: »

See p.8
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf

All of that seems accurate, but it doesn't actually say what Leaving means, just that concessions will be made to secure single market access.

sevenhills

Lungboy wrote: »

Indeed, Javid was supposed to lay out the government's plan for post-Brexit immigration today but he bottled it , so the vote next week will be taken with no idea on what the policy will be. That's insane for something that was such a huge part of the reason so many voted to leave.

We know Mays deal will end 'free' movement, but how much will it cost?

Filo25

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Still leaves the UK with the 4 freedoms. Interesting that immigration isn't being discussed any longer just trade. Yet the shortage of houses, nurses, police and teachers (as examples) grows ever longer. Money alone isn't the answer either. Requires long term planning. Speed of growth of population is unmanageable.

As someone more focussed on Economics than other factors, yes I would probably say SM+CU is the "Best" form of Brexit. however it is politically unsellable it basically leaves us with most EU obligations but no actual say on the EU itself, it is like staying in the EU but giving away sovereignty (as opposed to sharing it within the EU).

As I said it may honour the legal definition of leaving the EU, but I wouldn't imagine more than a small minority of Leave voters would accept it as a valid implementation of the referendum result.

That said I know from following a few on Twitter who were quite vocal Leavers that if it was a choice between Remain or No Deal, they would vote Remain, as they view the UK as being completely unprepared for a No Deal Brexit, leading to it being hugely economically damaging.

It is a myth that there is a deliverable form of Brexit, that all of "the 52%" want, so it gets boring reading that May's deal is a betrayal, it isn't a betrayal, it certainly isn't a great deal for the UK but no Brexit deal was ever likely to be.

Equally the delay in the publication of the white paper on immigration is a fair indication that some aren't going to be too happy with the contents....

Keep_pedalling

If May cannot get her own party and the wack jobs that are the DUP to go along with her deal, then there are going to be very few options. There is no Tory who can take over and unite the party, and certainly none of the leading brexiteers have a realistic blan B, C or D, so that leaves going to the country either in a GE (which could very well leave us with a new government still pulling in differing directions) or a second referendum.

This mess is down to those who led the Brexit campaign having no plan of how they were going to excheive the divorce. They had no plan at the time of referendum and they still don’t. For the main part their campaign was a mixture of lies and wishful thinking.

Theophile

THE_Terry_Urr wrote: »

Here we go again with "cliff edge". Please give it a rest, it's really getting more than a bit silly now.

The country will not collapse if we leave without a deal - and as a bonus we'll be £39 billion PLUS better off.

Here we go again with that same old delusion that a no deal brexit means not having to pay the divorce settlement.

The divorce settlement is to cover liabilities, pensions, commitments we already signed up to, etc...

The divorce settlement is not a payment to buy as any kind of deal with the EU.

I hope that's clear now.

Theophile

Filo25 wrote: »

Parliament could decide to enact "Norway+" tomorrow (leaving us in both SM + CU) and that would still be delivering on the promise to Leave the EU, not that I would expect many Leavers to be happy about it.

Some kind of Norway option would be my preferred choice. Not as good as remaining, but the least damaging option to get us out of this mess the brexiteers got us in.


Making Leavers happy was not on the ballot, so we can safely ignore that.

Enterprise_1701C

Theophile wrote: »

Here we go again with that same old delusion that a no deal brexit means not having to pay the divorce settlement.

The divorce settlement is to cover liabilities, pensions, commitments we already signed up to, etc...

The divorce settlement is not a payment to buy as any kind of deal with the EU.

I hope that's clear now.

It could well be said that the eu should be paying us.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4471334/LEO-McKINSTRY-explains-EU-owes-58bn.html

Their bank apparently plans to keep hold of our money for 35 years, we should turn around and demand payment of all of the above, that would more than settle the divorce bill.

And yes, it's in The Mail, but it doesn't make it any less accurate. If it was not accurate the eu would be asking for a rewrite, then another, then another …………..

Nasqueron

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Ask Nicola Sturgeon for advice. Seems to be the case that the political class now wish to impose their views. Rather than actually represent the electorate. Sad times for UK democracy.

Sorry but no, the whole point of democracy is the right to change your mind - a vote in 5 years to rejoin is democratic, a second vote on deal, no deal, remain or whatever is democratic just as we vote for a new government every 5 years.



Before the vote, Nigel Farage said he would not accept a 52/48 win for remain, it would be "unfinished business" and would campaign for a second vote. The parliamentary petition from before the vote saying a minimum of 75% turnout and x% winning margin was setup by a leave supporter hoping to stop a narrow win for remain deciding the issue forever. Leave is no more or less democratic, we all know leave would never have accepted 52/48 win for remain and would have continued demanding it.

andrewf75

I’ve never liked the idea of a second referendum, but if there is no support for any form of “soft” Brexit that people can get behind, then what’s the alternative? I get that its unfair on leavers because there probably isn’t a majority for hard Brexit – but then if this is the case, how can it be right to proceed?
A second vote would give clarity as long as it is written in stone what happens in the event of a confirmation of the vote to leave..

Herzlos

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

It could well be said that the eu should be paying us.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4471334/LEO-McKINSTRY-explains-EU-owes-58bn.html

Their bank apparently plans to keep hold of our money for 35 years, we should turn around and demand payment of all of the above, that would more than settle the divorce bill.

And yes, it's in The Mail, but it doesn't make it any less accurate. If it was not accurate the eu would be asking for a rewrite, then another, then another …………..

Alas most of that has been debunked many times. We're (likely) not entitled to any of the EU organizational assets, because it's not disbanding and we're not being bought out. Just like if you helped set up a golf club and left, you wouldn't be entitled to a share of the furnishings. Or like how I'm not entitled to any of Westminsters wine collection.


No-one has managed to make a convincing case otherwise, and I'm not aware of any legal claims about it.



We are owed our share of the European Central Bank, which IIRC is due to be returned to us as the money comes back to the bank via payments.