Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They could if all 27 agree, after all they're being asked to agree on a lot of things that have been unexpected in recent months. If they really want closure on the whole Brexit saga, it provided a way out for all, and a possible way back for the remainers.

A far better option than a no deal crashout, which is still possible if an extension is refused.

That would be contrary to the treaties and the ECJ has already previously held a country which leaves and subsequently wants to come back must go through accession in accordance with Article 49 of the TFEU.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To leave the European Union.

No matter how much anyone disagrees with it that it what they voted for.

With no deal?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What did the "leavers" vote for?

Bang on!

Beside the constant lies from the leave side, the referendum question was far to vague for the leave side. There's so many variations of leave that voters could of been voting for any thing.

One certain thing is that they didnt vote for NO DEAL as the leave side kept banging on about the "Easies Deal" etc etc

The great thing about Democracy people can change their minds, especially nearly 4yrs on and the demographic of voters has changed so much at this stage too. We know voters are more knowledgable about Brexit and alot of them have changed their mind.

A confirmation Referendum is the only way to go at this stage

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

While I think that Leave is an idiotic postilion. To dismiss what he's pointing out with such a question is disingenuous. It ignores that Leave/Remain is now tribal. Logic does not apply any more. As illogical as that may be.

Nate

Explain how asking what Leave voters voted for is "disingenuous". Is it not also disingenuous to hand wave away awkward questions by dismissing Brexit as "tribal"?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To leave the European Union.

No matter how much anyone disagrees with it that it what they voted for.

Yes indeed, though it illustrates how poorly set up the referendum was.

'Leave and do what?' should have been the burning issue. What the UK public did was the equivalent of selling the house and car, quitting their job of 25 years, divorcing their spouse, all on the same day and with no plan whatsoever for what happens the following day and not knowing how damaging this might be to their life.

Hancock being destroyed by Peston on a Peston special.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Let's be honest, if Remain won 52-48 and Farage was demanding a second referendum, the people who now support a second referendum would be dismissing it in the harshest possible terms and saying 'the people voted, get over it.'

I have sympathy with Leave voters in that respect. There's a double standard at the heart of it.

That's a false equivalence. The premise of brexit at the time of the referendum was all things to all voters. Remaining was the status quo that everybody knew through experience if not knowledge. If the result had been reversed, the answer to any would be second referendum proponents could be "tell us what you want and we'll set it out specifically in a referendum." and they'd still be working it out a decade from now. And that's all people are looking for now. For the exact form of brexit that has been agreed to be put back to a referendum. It's not an outrageous demand.

The problem with brexit is and always will be that it immediately fails in every respect the minute it's defined.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

What is wrong with asking people if they are happy with the deal they've got? A simple confirmatory vote - Remain or the Deal. Why are Brexiteers so afraid of that?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

Had it been sold to the British public on those terms, it would never have passed i.e. Vote Leave and the Daily Telegraph having to admit "We cannot guarantee Brexit will not decimate the UK economy".

They had to lie to the public to get it over the 50% threshold.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So what you are saying in essence is that no country can ever leave the EU?

It's really simple. There is nothing complex about it. They voted to leave the European Union.

Either with a deal or no deal. Either way they leave all the institutions of the EU.

That is what they voted for, that must be respected.

They have a deal so time to move on.

No I have not said that. I'm talking about brexit and the way it was sold. The Leave campaign even admitted that they knew it would fail miserably if they tried to define it. So they kept it vague and illusory. They didn't just ignore the issues, they denied them. I'd like to think (and brexit has helped here) that any other country would not allow such an important decision to be put to a referendum without a clear understanding of the risks and what they were voting for.

And 'deal or no deal' didn't even become a 'thing' until 2017. After the referendum. So to imply that people voted in that way is... disingenuous.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Its ridiculous this call to bring an amendment for an all UK customs union.

The deal was negotiated between the EU and the UK. Parliament can't just make whatever changes they fancy to this now and think that is ok. It's so arrogant.

Who says a customs union is now on offer? Who says that wouldn't require a different compromise from the UK? Quid pro quo. How would a customs union then affect the arrangements for Ireland?

The deal is the deal. It's the second deal. It's infuriating this idea that the UK can unilaterally change the deal now. Barnier was literally briefing ambassadors on the deal yesterday, and the UK is already trying to pick it apart again.

The UK need to understand that the latest deal is the deal unless and until there is agreement from the EU to alter it. The EU have no intention of changing the deal as they just concluded it literally days ago, miraculously pulling it out of the bag after some big compromises.

If the UK don't want to pass the deal, they should focus on getting an extension for a GE and/or a referendum. That also requires agreement of the EU if they don't want to crash out in 11 days.

Of course we don't know if the deal has a majority or not, because the HOC stopped the HOC asking the HOC. For ****s sake.

It took a few weeks to change the deal on the backstop, do you think it will take a lot of time for the EU to change the WA to a permanent customs union? We have to consider if it is in the interest of the EU to have a permanent customs union with the UK. If the answer is yes then it can be done. If the answer is no then it will be rejected. Do you think we will reject an option to cause less damage than Johnson's deal will do?

As for what the EU would think of the changing of the deal, if it means there is a majority that will accept a permanent customs union it makes it more likely to pass, which is what the EU will be interested in as well. So they should be welcoming if there is an indication from the HoC and Johnson if they will accept this.

Finally, most of those involved are seasoned politicians hence why the EU didn't fall for the 3 letters scam from Johnson. They know the game as they have been playing it as well. They know what the opposition will be trying to do and so they would have thought of what possibly could happen and might have some contacts with the plans as well. So the EU shouldn't be surprised by the moves of the opposition and I think they should be welcoming if it means a better deal than we have now, which a permanent customs union undoubtedly is.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brazilians in Tuam for starters, Indians in IT support roles and countless other imports to maintain growth.

Indians in IT support roles?

In Ireland?

And not outsourced in India?

Who is doing that exactly?

And in what numbers?

schmittel wrote: »

The simple answer is obviously they think they will lose their Brexit.

I am not a Brexiteer but I don't think a confirmatory referendum is the best way forward.

Whilst I agree the sheer common sense of the approach is difficult to argue with in theory, I think in practice it will be a disaster and simply serve to create more division and mayhem.

I think a General Election is the only way forward. In any election it looks like voters will have 3 choices:

i) Leaving whatever it takes, even if that means no deal - Tories
ii) Negotiated deal, subject to 2nd referendum - Labour
iii) Revoke article 50. No further referendum needed - Lib Dems.

Electorate can have their say, and victorious party can act on the will of the people. That is pretty straightforward, and it has the advantage of the fact the public have hitherto respected the results of GEs being democracy in action in a way that they have not with the referendum.

Brexiteers might well ask why some Remainers seem so afraid of this option.

And what happens if a GE results in a hung parliament?