Will Brexit happen?

oldernonethewiser

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The eu refused to negotiate before Article 50 was triggered.

True.



If only the parliament had some idea of what they wanted and could agree on then that might have been a useful starting point for negotiations.

kingstreet

RyanEzio wrote: »

I really hope these remain fanatics are held to account, preferably in some sort of court of law.

Happy to be in the dock with these "fanatics" on trial day, sunshine.

If you accept all the downside from this spectacular clusterf*ck, I'll gladly waive all right to any upside. Deal?

lvader

So much project fear about leaving without a deal that no one sees the real damage that has been caused by 3 years of uncertainty and inaction. Death by a million cuts. I voted to remain but have since changed to leave, preferably without a deal.

phillw

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

You could equally include those that didn't/couldn't vote within those that voted leave.

No, you can't. Those who didn't vote expressed their view, it wasn't one that supported leaving the EU. Those who couldn't vote are people like EU citizens, who are excluded from voting because it was feared they would vote to remain.

If you want them to express it then hold another referendum, otherwise what we have is a minority of the population destroying the country for their own prejudice. It's just a fractionally larger minority than the one that wants to remain.

lvader wrote: »

So much project fear about leaving without a deal that no one sees the real damage that has been caused by 3 years of uncertainty and inaction. Death by a million cuts. I voted to remain but have since changed to leave, preferably without a deal.

The extra impact of the last 3 years is quite small, the major disruption is going to happen if we leave without a deal. You haven't seen anything yet (and I'm not sure I believe you).

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

AG47, you really do not need to persuade the majority of sensible people against a Corbyn government, we already know he would wreck the country.

JC isn't my first choice, but if he ruins the country he will do it with policies that benefit the people. BJ will definitely ruin the country, for the benefit of his rich mates.

If you don't know BJ personally then you're not in for a good ride.

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

The eu refused to negotiate before Article 50 was triggered.

Exactly, the EU gave us control of when negotiations would start and we threw that away. If only it had been democratically decided how we would leave the EU, rather than a non binding referendum result throwing the government into a panic so it tried to undemocratically invoke henry 8th rules.

It took Gina Miller taking the government to court to restore democracy & the government are now trying to take democracy away again.

Boris Johnsons Gas Lighting would be a criminal offense if any of us were in a relationship with him

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

It took Gina Miller taking the government to court to restore democracy

Money rules. Backed by her mate at Pimlico plumbers who is a self made millionaire thanks to the poorly employed immigrants who worked for him. Of course there's people who don't want change as it doesn't suit their agenda.

Conina

phillw, you can try as hard as you want but suggesting that people who for whatever reason when given the opportunity and yet still not taking that opportunity to vote "expressed their view, it wasn't one that supported leaving the EU" is delusional in the extreme but hardly surprising considering the same train of thought refuses to acknowledge a legitimate win in a democratic vote.

The only expression of democracy that counts is to use your vote.

lvader

phillw wrote: »

The extra impact of the last 3 years is quite small, the major disruption is going to happen if we leave without a deal. You haven't seen anything yet (and I'm not sure I believe you).

My wife has also switched from remain to the no deal side. I can’t see a way of getting out of this mess that doesn’t drag for many years other than no deal. Better to just rip off the plaster. Besides the alternative is a neo marxist government which would be far worse for the economy.

Conina

oldernonethewiser wrote: »

True.



If only the parliament had some idea of what they wanted and could agree on then that might have been a useful starting point for negotiations.

They did, they knew the people wanted to leave and that's why they implemented Article 50 but the mistake came in thinking that the EU would negotiate in good faith when their leaders had already told us that they would do all they could to make us suffer for daring to ask to leave.

Herzlos

The EU has been negotiating in good faith and has given us lots of leeway, extensions, handy charts, letting us borrow pens, and so on.
The problem is that the EU won't violate the core foundations of the EU for us; they've given us a series of options but none that is cake and eat it, and we can't decide what we actually want to do. That's being spun as EU intransigence in order to shift blame away from the UK negotiators.

It's remarkably hard negotiating with someone who doesn't know what they want, who'll agree something and then argue against it. The backstop was our idea.

lvader wrote: »

So much project fear about leaving without a deal that no one sees the real damage that has been caused by 3 years of uncertainty and inaction. Death by a million cuts.

Leavers have been very vocal about the 3 years of uncertainty and inaction, and the fact there's still no semplance of a plan.

I voted to remain but have since changed to leave, preferably without a deal.

Can you explain why? I've never heard of anyone making such a shift though I concede it's possible.


Bizarrely, I have to admit to having made the same shift, but purely because I think actually leaving on WTO terms is the easiest way to kill off the Brexit movement. Anything else will just cause a vocal minority to scream about betrayal for another 30 years.
The only way to get everyone on board with the EU is for the doubters to go "actually, this is pretty crap after all, maybe the EU wasn't so bad".

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Money rules. Backed by her mate at Pimlico plumbers who is a self made millionaire thanks to the poorly employed immigrants who worked for him. Of course there's people who don't want change as it doesn't suit their agenda.

Did she or did she not restore Parliamentary sovereignty?
Do you or do you not approve of Parliamentary sovereignty?


I understand you voted leave to upset the establishment (who are making a fortune from leaving), but many people voted leave to improve Parliamentary sovereignty.