If there is a second referendum ...

andrewf75

movilogo wrote: »

All these 2nd referendum thing coming because Remainers didn't like (and didn't expect either) Leave winning.

This may be the case for some people, but a second vote will only happen if parliament cannot agree a deal to leave. And both remainers and leavers in parliament are rebelling against the only deal on offer so are equally responsible if a 2nd vote is forced.

It wouldn’t be a re-run of the vote, it would be a new vote based on the reality of the options actually on the table.

The way to leave the EU is May’s deal. Anyone opposing that (on either side) needs to accept the consequences – which are either no deal or another vote. A big gamble for both sides!

BikingBud

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Many people drop out and fail to complete their training. Who covers the cost of this?

There could be many reasons for non-completion of the course and therefore non-completion of the second part of the deal, employment as a skilled worker in that profession or industry. Some quite legitimate others potentially as simple as they could not be bothered or because they were not suited to the course.

This happens already and no recovery takes place so the taxpayer covers it. Empirical data and modelling should be able to tell us how many.

The possibility of tie in clauses to force the repayment should be possible the how and when would take some consideration but the offer of a 35>85>100+ k per year job after 3-5 yrs training and 5 years commitment would entice, i suggest, the majority to stick with it.

Any way that's another discussion for another topic.

MobileSaver

movilogo wrote: »

But asking again without implementing 2016 referendum result is undemocratic because Remainers did not like the 2016 outcome.

Sorry but no; asking again is the very essence of democracy. I totally understand why Brexiteers are desperate for another referendum not to happen but to claim it is undemocratic is irrefutably false.

movilogo wrote: »

If you say let's have EU referendum every 5 years then it is democratic. Are the remainers happy to offer that? I guess not.

On the contrary, I believe in democracy so would be perfectly happy with a referendum every 5 years if that's what the people wanted.

movilogo wrote: »

Compare this with a general election. You want party A to win but public make party B winner. You have to live with party B for next 5 years. Can you ask for a vote because you didn't like party B?

Um, yes you can actually. The public's representatives, i.e. Members of Parliament, can trigger a vote of no confidence and if successful hold another General Election. This has happened several times over the years; the last time being in 1979 when Labour were kicked out before their 5 years were up and replaced by the Conservatives

Moby

movilogo wrote: »

If UK leaves EU as per 2016 and then after few years people are asked again whether to join EU then it is democratic decision.

But asking again without implementing 2016 referendum result is undemocratic because Remainers did not like the 2016 outcome. If you say let's have EU referendum every 5 years then it is democratic. Are the remainers happy to offer that? I guess not. Remainers just want Remain to win and then forget the whole thing for next 20 years by saying "hey, don't dare ignore public vote".

Compare this with a general election. You want party A to win but public make party B winner. You have to live with party B for next 5 years. Can you ask for a vote because you didn't like party B?

All these 2nd referendum thing coming because Remainers didn't like (and didn't expect either) Leave winning.

Your post ignores the simple fact that there is no agreement as to how to implement the referendum vote. There is no majority for any of the options either in parliament or the country. In those circumstances the only logical option is to take it back to the people. I suspect a lot of hard brexiters are chicken because they know they would lose now that we actually have more facts!

andrewf75

MobileSaver wrote: »

On the contrary, I believe in democracy so would be perfectly happy with a referendum every 5 years if that's what the people wanted.

But something like leaving the EU (or joining it) is a long term decision which will take many years to implement and many years after that to restructure the economy. It can’t really be more than a once in a generation decision. The reason it may be forced is not because its OK to just have another vote, its because parliament cannot implement the decision, without knowingly screwing the country up very badly.

lisyloo

On the contrary, I believe in democracy so would be perfectly happy with a referendum every 5 years if that's what the people wanted.

Theorectically I have no objection, but I do have an objection to the waste of time, money, the distraction and the uncertaintly in practice.
Businesses are crying out to stop the uncertainty.


It's the same if you have a disease.
People can find ways to deal with even the very worse case, it's uncertainty that causes a lot of issues.

movilogo

Your post ignores the simple fact that there is no agreement as to how to implement the referendum vote.

Leaving EU means living SM/CU. Just because Cameron didn't expect Leave to win, he didn't make any planning on how to implement Brexit.

Since majority of parliament (in fact 75:25 as per stats published in 2016) are pro-EU they tried their best (especially TM) to fudge a deal which is effectively staying in EU.

What we say as no agreement on how to leave EU is effectively a manifestation of no agreement on how to stay in EU via backdoor.

Moby

movilogo wrote: »

Leaving EU means living SM/CU. Just because Cameron didn't expect Leave to win, he didn't make any planning on how to implement Brexit.

Since majority of parliament (in fact 75:25 as per stats published in 2016) are pro-EU they tried their best (especially TM) to fudge a deal which is effectively staying in EU.

What we say as no agreement on how to leave EU is effectively a manifestation of no agreement on how to stay in EU via backdoor.

Movilogo...I accept this is your opinion but I'm afraid many people disagree with you and not just in Parliament. There was no agreement prior to the vote regarding what leaving the EU would look like or how it would be achieved. Look at the cabinet, see how they disagree. Boris resigned but Gove is still there. Which of them has the right approach or is May's form of leaving the right one? I know brexiters who hate May's deal more than remaining in the EU. They say at least by remaining in the EU we have a say and are no worse off than any other member. May's deal will mean we will be subject to the EU's rules and will be paying for access to the EU with no say. Surely that is a greater surrender of sovereignty than remaining in the EU? ....and where was asking people if they were happy to become poorer on the ballot paper? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/04/brexit-anxiety-dragging-uk-economy-almost-to-standstill

andrewf75

movilogo wrote: »

Leaving EU means living SM/CU. .

and therein lies the precise problem, which may well force another vote!

you're applying *your* interpretation to a vote which only asked about leaving the EU. If we're redefining what leave means now, then that's a good argument for a 2nd vote....

movilogo

you're applying *your* interpretation to a vote which only asked about leaving the EU. If we're redefining what leave means now, then that's a good argument for a 2nd vote....

It is not my interpretation. You can simply ask EU what is meant by leaving EU.

EU rules are defined by EU. So, there is no point in arguing on UK's interpretation of what leave means.


Cameron said he'd pull UK out of SM if leave wins (which he didn't expect to happen though).

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

Being in SM means obeying EU 4 freedoms. CU doesn't require that though (e.g. Turkey).