No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

Moe_The_Bartender

phillw wrote: »

Seems an easy solution though as it's not legally binding and parliament is sovereign

So you keep saying but it became legally binding when Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act.

kinger101

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

So you keep saying but it became legally binding when Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act.

It's not legally binding, in that any act of parliament, and article 50 itself, can be revoked.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

It's about "trust".

I don't see a lot of that about right now. Rarely has the political class seem more detached.

So how does doing the thing before checking if people want the thing instill trust? I'd trust someone more if they said "Hey, this might be a bad idea, are you sure?"

LHW99 wrote: »

Once a referendum is given however, the whole point is that you are asking for the People's input before any decision is made (not after it!).

Exactly, you ask for input and then use that input to make an informed decision. You don't take that input and enact it blindly.

LHW99

Exactly, you ask for input and then use that input to make an informed decision.

Whether informed or not, the decision was to enact Article 50 and negotiate withdrawal. Now they have cold feet and some at least hope that a second referendum will get them out of a situation they regret getting into. IMO it won't.

Takedap

LHW99 wrote: »

Whether informed or not, the decision was to enact Article 50 and negotiate withdrawal. Now they have cold feet and some at least hope that a second referendum will get them out of a situation they regret getting into. IMO it won't.

The information from the side that won (ie, convinced most people to vote for them) was that we would get a deal that was at least as good as the one we have now.


The "vendors" have sold you an item which is not as described & is not fit for purpose.


It should be returned and a full refund demanded. At least, that would be the law under other circumstances.


It seems we have more protection over the sale of a tin of beans than we have over the future of our country.

Thrugelmir

Takedap wrote: »

The information from the side that won (ie, convinced most people to vote for them) was that we would get a deal that was at least as good as the one we have now.

Given the cold shoulder given to Cameron. The importance of the project to Brussels. Many people will have been prepared for the wall of protectionism and intransigence.

Being a net contributor at the current tiime means any deal will be better in the longer term.

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Given the cold shoulder given to Cameron. The importance of the project to Brussels. Many people will have been prepared for the wall of protectionism and intransigence.

Being a net contributor at the current tiime means any deal will be better in the longer term.

I don't believe I ever saw mention of a wall of protectionism and intransigence in any of the campaigning. I'm sure it was all "easiest deal in human history" and "better deal than we have now".


We voted (by a tiny margin) to leave, Parliament triggered A50 and has spent 3 years trying to make it work, it looks like none of the promises can be withheld. Is the democratic thing to do, to drop out with the associated damage, or to at least ask if it's still what we want?
Bear in mind that even the Brexiteers were talking about a confirmatory referendum at the time.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

So how does doing the thing before checking if people want the thing instill trust? I'd trust someone more if they said "Hey, this might be a bad idea, are you sure?"
...

They have had ample opportunity to assess things. They delayed triggering A50, presumably to perform some level of due diligence.

They even had a GE, another opportunity for the opposition parties to have clear lines on Brexit.

How many more occasions do they need to inspire trust?

Herzlos

They've never actually gone back to the public with any plan.


We've had 2 proxy referendums which haven't cleared much up (beyond the Tories losing their majority), because for some reason we're terrified of just having a referendum.


They aren't inspiring trust because they don't seem to know what they are doing and are just politicking whilst shouting meaningless phrases.

Takedap

kabayiri wrote: »

They have had ample opportunity to assess things. They delayed triggering A50, presumably to perform some level of due diligence.

How do you suggest that due diligence can be done on a deal that does not exist?


Isn't that like signing a blank cheque & trusting the receiver to enter the correct amount?