• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems to me we have 3 main choices

1. Hard brexit
2. Soft brexit
3. remain

We should negotiate the first 2 options with the EU to agree the detail then have another vote (single transferable vote). That will allow the public to make a proper choice. In contrast to one where the leave side, as ceptimus rightly says, was full of lies and promises that they didn't have to be keep because it was not the official Government. It was a ramshackle group of Russian stooges, right wing extremists, ambitious psychopaths, self interested industrialists and racists. No wonder they now struggle to work out what they want.
 
Lothian said:
We voted to leave the EU. What should parliament deliver on the single market, customs union, border in Ireland, membership of Interpol, Euratom, Erasmus, Galileo satellite system.

What did we vote for on those issues?
Click to expand...
I already explained that remaining in the single market and customs union is NOT leaving the EU. It has all the drawbacks of remaining completely in the EU and none of the advantages and therefore no one would ever have voted for that option.


Perhaps you can explain what possible benefits there would be of giving up our political representation within the EU, but remaining bound by its rules and costs? I don't think you can, and if I'm right then it's insulting of you to suggest that outcome is what a majority voted for.
 
Lothian said:
Seems to me we have 3 main choices

1. Hard brexit
2. Soft brexit
3. remain

We should negotiate the first 2 options with the EU to agree the detail then have another vote (single transferable vote). That will allow the public to make a proper choice.
Click to expand...


Well tried and tested EU method of subverting democracy. Keep holding extra votes till you get the result you want - and then never hold another vote after that one.
 
ceptimus said:
I already explained that remaining in the single market and customs union is NOT leaving the EU. It has all the drawbacks of remaining completely in the EU and none of the advantages and therefore no one would ever have voted for that option.


Perhaps you can explain what possible benefits there would be of giving up our political representation within the EU, but remaining bound by its rules and costs? I don't think you can, and if I'm right then it's insulting of you to suggest that outcome is what a majority voted for.
Click to expand...

He didn't suggest that. He asked a question.

And for the record, access to the single market was something the leave campaign promised.
 
ceptimus said:
Well tried and tested EU method of subverting democracy. Keep holding extra votes till you get the result you want - and then never hold another vote after that one.
Click to expand...

I thought you were in favor of holding more votes. Did democracy stop at the Brexit vote?
 
ceptimus said:
I already explained that remaining in the single market and customs union is NOT leaving the EU. It has all the drawbacks of remaining completely in the EU and none of the advantages and therefore no one would ever have voted for that option.
Click to expand...

......and yet that is exactly the version of Brexit that BoJo was promoting at one stage. It's not leaving the EU in your opinion but it is (one of the versions of) Brexit from the referendum's perspective


ceptimus said:
Perhaps you can explain what possible benefits there would be of giving up our political representation within the EU, but remaining bound by its rules and costs? I don't think you can, and if I'm right then it's insulting of you to suggest that outcome is what a majority voted for.
Click to expand...

It's not as good as being in the EU, but it very well might be the least worst version of being out of the EU.

One of my analogies is that the Leave vote was like voting to move house without any idea where we might be moving to.

The version of Brexit you outline above is like selling your house, moving next door and renting at a higher price than your current mortgage. That sounds like a terrible deal but if the alternatives are living in a tiny flat or sleeping rough then maybe it's the least worst alternative if you're absolutely determined to move.
 
ceptimus said:
Because it's manifestly stupid. It has all the drawbacks of remaining completely in the EU but removes our existing small element of democracy. We'll have no representation at the EU's democratic institutions but we'll still have to abide by all its rules, and we'll still be paying for access to the single market. We won't be able to negotiate our own independent trade deals so compared to the status quo it has no merit whatsoever.

No one in their right mind would ever have voted for such a change so it's vastly insulting behaviour of remain supporters to suggest that it's an outcome that ANYONE would have voted for - let alone a majority of all those that did vote.

As you well know, what is being advocated is just a worse form of remain. They can spin it any way they want but the majority that voted leave will know that they are being lied to, and that democracy is once again being ignored by the corrupt EU supporting establishment.
Click to expand...

And yet this is similar to what Norway went for because they had a vote, had a similar result to us, and decided to reflect their population as a whole, and not some subset of it. By doing a hard brexit, it would damage the economy the harder (as has been shown many times) both short and long term, and would be undemocratic.

The vote did not mention whether we would stay or leave the single market or customs union, many leave campaigners actually said that the Norway (or Swiss) option is preferable. People like Farrage, Hannan, Paterson, Elliot, or Banks, all suggested that a soft Brexit in some form was the way forward.

All this leads us to the conclusion that the referendum was badly thought out. Other democratic countries have ignored referendums what they realise it was all a bad idea, and have remained democratic countries (eg. Sweden), but sadly, the UK doesn't seem to have the courage to do what's best for itself.
 
ceptimus said:
What do you think the "meaningful vote" options might be? Accept whatever pathetic deal is negotiated or crash out with no deal whatsoever? The only other options are, "try to negotiate a better deal" or "abandon Brexit and remain". Both of those latter ones rely on the EU being prepared to offer them - what if they don't?
Click to expand...

Then it sucks to be you. Maybe you will learn something from facing the consequences of voting for such a poorly defined policy?
 
ceptimus said:
We had the most meaningful of meaningful votes already. All the voters in the country were entitled to vote in that one, and it's now up to parliament to deliver what was voted for.
Click to expand...

But no one knew at the time what they were even voting for. It wasn't like there was a plan and people could vote yes or no for that plan.
 
ceptimus said:
Yes and once we get past the remain supporter induced delay, Sterling will soar to a greater height than it was pre-Referendum. Again, it is remain supporters that are delaying things, stoking uncertainty, and losing the wealth of ordinary UK residents in the process.
Click to expand...
Poe
 
wobs said:
All this leads us to the conclusion that the referendum was badly thought out. Other democratic countries have ignored referendums what they realise it was all a bad idea, and have remained democratic countries (eg. Sweden), but sadly, the UK doesn't seem to have the courage to do what's best for itself.
Click to expand...

In part this is because it is, and has always been, a Conservative Party internal issue. The referendum was there to attempt to quieten the Eurosceptic wing of the party and stop them defecting to UKIP and since the result there is every appearance that the sole priority is to keep Theresa May in post.

Something as abstract as the good of the country doesn't even start to come into it :mad:
 
Strawberry said:
The same Irish government that went running to Brussels before the ink was dry on the Brexit ballot papers to secure a promise that a united Ireland would see the North move seamlessly back into the EU?

I'll take a wild guess and say they'd agree.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Irish government and people (remember there'd have to be a referendum) would be that stupid.
 
uke2se said:
He didn't suggest that. He asked a question.

And for the record, access to the single market was something the leave campaign promised.
Click to expand...
Every country, for example Uganda, has "access to the the single market".


Access to the single market is not the same as being a MEMBER of the single market. The question is, how much does that access cost and what, if any, other restrictions does that access place on a country trading with the EU.
 
Craig B said:
These (Channel Islands and Isle of Man) may get caught in the crossfire (I'm speaking figuratively; at least I hope so) of the Irish situation, as they are included in the Common Travel Area along with the UK and Republic of Ireland. If people start messing about with that CTA, and Brexit will disrupt it probably fatally, then the legal provisions under which residents of the Crown Dependencies have travel and residence rights in the U.K. will become non functional.

So I apologise for omitting them from the enumeration of the residual Territories dependent on the UK.
Click to expand...
I suspect they'll eventually welcome French annexation.
 
uke2se said:
I thought you were in favor of holding more votes. Did democracy stop at the Brexit vote?
Click to expand...
If remainers get their way and a second referendum is held which returns a 'remain' vote, would you be in favour of holding yet another referendum to make it the "best of three"?
 
wobs said:
The vote did not mention whether we would stay or leave the single market or customs union, many leave campaigners actually said that the Norway (or Swiss) option is preferable. People like Farrage, Hannan, Paterson, Elliot, or Banks, all suggested that a soft Brexit in some form was the way forward.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. No person in favour of Leave advocated a 'Brexit' that would leave the UK bound to follow EU rules, still paying the same as before for access to the single market, and unable to negotiate independent trade deals with non-EU countries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom