If there is a second referendum ...

BLB53

I think that's right, but I also think the consequences of no deal are so severe that it would be averted somehow

Time is tight, less than 3 months, but all the more reason to seriously step up the no deal preparations cos it really does look like the PMs deal is dead in the water.

I'm sure the EU would agree to some sort of transition arrangement and a managed no deal to avoid harsh consequences all round.

Of course, the more effort we put in to the no deal preparations, the more likely we are to get some movement from the EU to make a deal more acceptable.

In any event we should grasp the nettle and leave with or without a deal 29th March otherwise the politicians get into very messy territory.

badgerhead

So, I'm just going to say this because the wars were brought up previously.

I don't like it when Brexit is compared to the wars. As if UK is once again standing alone fighting for our survival like we did in 1940. You have probably seen posts on social media along the lines of a Nazi flag covered continent with the tag " We've paid our bill already" or words to that effect.

Patriotism is an incredibly emotive motivator, you can see how people could infer from that that it is our solemn duty to "repel the invading EU" or "stand up for Britain". "they died for nothing" that sort of thing, basically comparing a threat to our existence with the EU. Parliament is sovereign, being in the EU doesn't change that, so citing the millions lives of lost in the wars (not aimed at anyone here) to stir the emotions to "take back control" is distasteful.

kabayiri

badgerhead wrote: »

...
Therefore Leave will want to avoid at all cost. That said there would have to be a significant swing to Remain in the result for closure on the subject.

I could list out a stack of reasons as to why closure would be replaced by a messy and fractious public view on the subject.

But, primarily, if you accept that people voted for change, then a Remain outcome would be no personal-level change at all. Instead, it would be a wasted 3 years where there are still more people chasing fewer properties and chewing up resources.

It's hard to see how a GE would not follow in short order.

Watch Corby and pals get in, then we will really see the wealthy move their money out of this place.

BobQ

andrewf75 wrote: »

until May's deal is voted down I agree. But if May's deal is voted down it becomes a real possibility because parliament won't allow leaving with no deal.

Just look at the bookies odds. Not much more than evens for a second vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/20/polls-stay-eu-yougov-brexit-peoples-vote

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

I did use the words ‘most former colonies’ advisedly, not surprisingly you chose two countries that chose to engage in military fisticuffs to force their independence from Britain. Again the desperation to portray Britain in an unabashedly negative light in order to make broadly irrelevant point about Brexit does for you.

I'd say it refutes your claim pretty well though. Can you name any former colonies we gave back out of the goodness of our hearts, without the locals having some sort of uprising first?

badgerhead

What I meant by closure was that it would need to be a lot more that 52/48 the other way for there to be any degree of acceptance. For instance if the 2016 vote had been 80/20 to leave then i dont think a 2nd vote would be a talking point now. It would be leave or a descision from parliamnent to not implement it if that was their view on our best interests after the negotiations.

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd say it refutes your claim pretty well though. Can you name any former colonies we gave back out of the goodness of our hearts, without the locals having some sort of uprising first?

Most of them?
You surely can’t be denying the British post war policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonial possessions?
The only thing that’s been refuted in this discussion is your erroneous contention that Britain was “kicked out of most of its former colonies”.

kabayiri

Arklight wrote: »

I just thought in 2019 we could all agree that invading other countries, plundering their wealth, killing people who try and resist, and forcing the ones that are left to accept your monarch and rule, is generally a bad thing.

Apparently not.

You must have missed the wave of economic colonialism pursued by China over the last couple of decades then.

The desire doesn't fade; it's just the names of those who pursue it.

Herzlos

badgerhead wrote: »

What I meant by closure was that it would need to be a lot more that 52/48 the other way for there to be any degree of acceptance. For instance if the 2016 vote had been 80/20 to leave then i dont think a 2nd vote would be a talking point now. It would be leave or a descision from parliamnent to not implement it if that was their view on our best interests after the negotiations.

I don't think we're going to get closure on this for a very long time. Probably 2+ generations.


The most likely we are going to come to closure on Brexit is to go hard WTO, realise what it actually means and then re-join. That'll kill off all the complaints about subverting democracy and what-if's, and if we get back in quickly enough we can make a good start on recovering the damage caused.

LHW99

I don't think we're going to get closure on this for a very long time. Probably 2+ generations.

We are close on 2 generations since we joined (the EEC), the continuing arguments are the reason we ever had the referendum.