Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

navyblueshorts wrote:

superflyweight wrote:It's an attempt at satire.  Piss poor or otherwise, let's call it by its correct name.  

You seem to have arrived at the conclusion that there's only a binary choice - (i) have another referendum, or (ii) leave as planned.  However there are a multitude of choices available to the government but we're locked into a state of collective stupidity and those options are not being explored properly and explained to the public.    

It's not the responsibility of the government to do what the electorate wants, its responsibility is to do what it right for the country.  If Brexit on the terms available to us is not right for the country then the government should take the most appropriate steps using its informed position to make the right decision.  If the electorate doesn't like that decision then it can change the government for another one at the next general election.

Satire/wit; whatever. Both cover it.

Yes, I can easily agree with the rest. There are potential political problems for HMG if they’re seen to implement something that most of the ‘leave’ voters don’t accept as an actual Brexit. You might correctly say that doing so is less harmful, but I think it’s a bit naive to think that May et al. aren’t concerned about the implications of something like that.
We can change this Government at the next GE, but it might be a bit late re. Brexit consequences if we don’t like them. Your latter paragraph could also cover the fact that the damned referendum should never have happened in the first place, as we elect these chumps to make decisions in the best interests of us. Shame they too often seem to get that wrong though...

Therein lies the problem. Based on the binary choice we were given in the poll booth, anything that takes us out of the EU delivers on the result. The fact the Brexiters STILL cant decide what exactly the plan should be is more than enough reason to just abandon the whole fiasco, because theres no majority for any one plan. Its all well and good saying "Leave won" but when you break down all the variations of Leave that have been offered theres none that would come anywhere close to the 48% Remain got. I'd imagine No Deal would probably be the closest but even then it would likely be around 30%

Why not break down the variations of the 48% remain vote, as well? The ones who don't like really the EU but were worried about the economic impact of leaving, the ones who were happy with things exactly as they are, the ones who want a full federal Europe, the ones who believe that 'another Europe is possible' etc.

No option would come close to the 52% that 'Leave the European Union' commanded.

The difference is remaining doesn't require anything to change. There's no implementation involved.

This is the thing that angers me about those who led the Leave campaigns, both official and unofficial: they said and did whatever it took to win the referendum, as though winning the referendum was the end of it, when it was actually the start. They seemed to give no thought to how Brexit would be implemented. It's pretty damn scandalous.

Duty281 wrote:Why not break down the variations of the 48% remain vote, as well? The ones who don't like really the EU but were worried about the economic impact of leaving, the ones who were happy with things exactly as they are, the ones who want a full federal Europe, the ones who believe that 'another Europe is possible' etc.

No option would come close to the 52% that 'Leave the European Union' commanded.

The difference is most of those things arent mutually exclusive. The myriad of Leave options ARE mutually exclusive. You cant have a Norway + and a Canada +++ deal. You cant have No Deal and a customs union. With Leave its one or the other.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The difference is remaining doesn't require anything to change. There's no implementation involved.

This is the thing that angers me about those who led the Leave campaigns, both official and unofficial: they said and did whatever it took to win the referendum, as though winning the referendum was the end of it, when it was actually the start. They seemed to give no thought to how Brexit would be implemented. It's pretty damn scandalous.

The Cameron government should have been prepared to implement Brexit, but in his arrogance, they did not do so. Many of the leading Brexit campaigners were/are in no position to implement Brexit even if they had wanted to.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The difference is remaining doesn't require anything to change. There's no implementation involved.

This is the thing that angers me about those who led the Leave campaigns, both official and unofficial: they said and did whatever it took to win the referendum, as though winning the referendum was the end of it, when it was actually the start. They seemed to give no thought to how Brexit would be implemented. It's pretty damn scandalous.

The Cameron government should have been prepared to implement Brexit, but in his arrogance, they did not do so. Many of the leading Brexit campaigners were/are in no position to implement Brexit even if they had wanted to.

Many of the leading Brexit campaigners were in Theresa May's cabinet.

If only those pushing for Brexit had really thought it through beforehand which they evidently did not. They made promises on an ill-conceived idea and told people what they wanted to hear.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:May has said she won't fight another Election and best PM polls are misleading....Because only one of them has done the job....

Cameron regularly placed behind Brown...

But I agree Corbyn is a weak link......However with 500,000 members...Labour has greater reach and we can factor in Tactical voting too....I imagine some Greens will vote Labour if they can get a Tory out..

Like I said too early to know what will happen...But I'd be surprised if Corbyn wins...Then again I was surprised last time.

Never thought a misogynistic...racist....baby like Trump would win....Elections are funny things...........All about getting out the vote and feet on the ground are a big advantage.

I don't think it is 500K any more. It is still very healthy, sure, but I think a lot of people are losing patience and Labour are doing their level best to pretend the membership is that high. I can't confirm anything, but there is also a feeling that financially they are not doing as well as those numbers should suggest. They lost a lot of money on that festival last year for instance.

I just don't understand this boneheaded notion that having another referendum is some kind of betrayal of democracy. The last referendum was based on lies, there's no doubt about that. We were told it would be easy, told by some we'd still have access to the single market, told by others that the deal with the EU would be one of the easiest in history. We were told that countries would be lining up at the door to get a deal with us and that it would all be sorted nice and quickly.

None of that has happened, to the surprise of absolutely nobody who voted remain.

Saying that the choice is binary and that having another referendum is a betrayal is obstinate and short-sighted.

We've had a referendum on remain vs. fantasy Brexit. What's wrong with having a referendum on remain vs. real Brexit?

We're lied to in every election. Wise up people. You're assuming those that voted 'leave' did so either in complete ignorance or that, knowing the possible economic damage, mistakenly still voted to leave. Sad as it may be to admit, I think there's an awful lot of people that want out, regardless.
Have you looked at any of the HYS sections on BBC Brexit articles? Most of the time, the highest comment numbers are pro-Brexit or marginal.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The difference is remaining doesn't require anything to change. There's no implementation involved.

This is the thing that angers me about those who led the Leave campaigns, both official and unofficial: they said and did whatever it took to win the referendum, as though winning the referendum was the end of it, when it was actually the start. They seemed to give no thought to how Brexit would be implemented. It's pretty damn scandalous.

The Cameron government should have been prepared to implement Brexit, but in his arrogance, they did not do so. Many of the leading Brexit campaigners were/are in no position to implement Brexit even if they had wanted to.

Why give Article 50 notification when they did then? Why did they lose their sh1t when there was a delay in giving Article 50 notification? Why turn up to initial negotiations having done no preparation? Why claim it was going to be easy? Why use WTO terms as a fallback when they know less than f*ck all about how WTO terms work in practice and how they are negotiated between states?

Pr4wn wrote:told by some we'd still have access to the single market

None of that has happened, to the surprise of absolutely nobody who voted remain.

Near-enough every country in the world has access to the single market, including the UK after Brexit.

navyblueshorts wrote:We're lied to in every election. Wise up people. You're assuming those that voted 'leave' did so either in complete ignorance or that, knowing the possible economic damage, mistakenly still voted to leave. Sad as it may be to admit, I think there's an awful lot of people that want out, regardless.
Have you looked at any of the HYS sections on BBC Brexit articles? Most of the time, the highest comment numbers are pro-Brexit or marginal.

Yep, both official campaigns (Britain Stronger in Europe + Vote Leave) lied and lied and lied. Hence why I've been critical of both. And every major party lies and lies and lies at GE campaigns.

There's a few things we're not used to politically in this country and dealing with a referendum is one of those. Cameron naively and arrogantly thought that he could use them to settle arguments and 'move on' but look what's happened. The Scottish independence referendum result was a fairly convincing win for staying in UK and on the day after you would have thought another independence referendum would have been off the cards for a generation. Yet, 2015 saw the SNP sweep the board in general election north of the border, and the unilateral way May and the government have been dealing with Brexit (and arguably the way Corbyn has dealt with the issue) is moving this back up the agenda - I'd therefore be surprised if there wasn't another independence referendum within next 7-8 years, and it looks a certainty if we have a no deal Brexit.

A number of ministers and ERG acolytes are continually repeating the line (and far too often not being properly challenged by journalists) that another EU referendum is un-democratic - why? That's not the case at all and they're only saying it because they're scared of remain winning. If another referendum is held and a Brexit deal commands a majority it strengthens rather than weakens the democratic mandate for doing so.

Going back to my point above about us not being v good at referenda, the 2016 EU referendum was so simplistic for the 'leave' option that it is impossible to interpret what mandate the voters gave for it, despite what the likes of Boris, Liam Fox and Rees Mogg claim on 'what type of deal people voted for'! Those with vested interests to gain from a no deal Brexit and the 'shock capitalism' conditions this would enable for neo-liberal interests see they have a limited window of opportunity and will therefore push this line that another referendum is un-democratic, but don't fall for it.

There was such an unknown open-ended element from the 2016 referendum on what a leave vote entailed that it is only logical to ask the electorate again, now the implications are more widely known. If Leave wins again so be it, but lets give the electorate a chance to decide on more clearly defined options.

I predict that if the government don't give electorate opportunity for another referendum in near future it will simply raise its head in the next few years as the grievances of younger generations on this issue will come to a head when they have to pick up the pieces of the Brexit fallout.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47225787

Ford need to have a word with Duty, who can tell them with both knowledge and certainty that everything will be fine, no need to worry.

JuliusHMarx wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47225787

Ford need to have a word with Duty, who can tell them with both knowledge and certainty that everything will be fine, no need to worry.

Had a meeting this morning with a trade expert who's been analysing Brexit for the law firm I work for. The meeting was to look at the impact of 'no deal' for my particular clients. The prognosis was not positive in any way at all and the probable impact on jobs at all levels across the relevant sectors is particularly worrying.

Still, what does he, Ford, Jaguar Land Rover, major UK food retailers, the IMF, Mark Carney, Airbus, Siemens etc. know? Duty's got it covered.

navyblueshorts wrote:We're lied to in every election. Wise up people. You're assuming those that voted 'leave' did so either in complete ignorance or that, knowing the possible economic damage, mistakenly still voted to leave. Sad as it may be to admit, I think there's an awful lot of people that want out, regardless.
Have you looked at any of the HYS sections on BBC Brexit articles? Most of the time, the highest comment numbers are pro-Brexit or marginal.

Ha, yeah. I'm sure they're all completely real people and that absolutely no bots whatsoever are used.

MrInvisible wrote:There's a few things we're not used to politically in this country and dealing with a referendum is one of those.  Cameron naively and arrogantly thought that he could use them to settle arguments and 'move on' but look what's happened.  The Scottish independence referendum result was a fairly convincing win for staying in UK and on the day after you would have thought another independence referendum would have been off the cards for a generation.  Yet, 2015 saw the SNP sweep the board in general election north of the border, and the unilateral way May and the government have been dealing with Brexit (and arguably the way Corbyn has dealt with the issue) is moving this back up the agenda - I'd therefore be surprised if there wasn't another independence referendum within next 7-8 years, and it looks a certainty if we have a no deal Brexit.

A number of ministers and ERG acolytes are continually repeating the line (and far too often not being properly challenged by journalists) that another EU referendum is un-democratic - why?  That's not the case at all and they're only saying it because they're scared of remain winning.  If another referendum is held and a Brexit deal commands a majority it strengthens rather than weakens the democratic mandate for doing so.

Going back to my point above about us not being v good at referenda, the 2016 EU referendum was so simplistic for the 'leave' option that it is impossible to interpret what mandate the voters gave for it, despite what the likes of Boris, Liam Fox and Rees Mogg claim on 'what type of deal people voted for'!  Those with vested interests to gain from a no deal Brexit and the 'shock capitalism' conditions this would enable for neo-liberal interests see they have a limited window of opportunity and will therefore push this line that another referendum is un-democratic, but don't fall for it.

There was such an unknown open-ended element from the 2016 referendum on what a leave vote entailed that it is only logical to ask the electorate again, now the implications are more widely known.  If Leave wins again so be it, but lets give the electorate a chance to decide on more clearly defined options.

I predict that if the government don't give electorate opportunity for another referendum in near future it will simply raise its head in the next few years as the grievances of younger generations on this issue will come to a head when they have to pick up the pieces of the Brexit fallout.

I agree with much of this.

In any case does such an ill-conceived idea not merit reconsideration?

People voted Yes without fully comprehending whether what was being promised was achievable. It is akin to voting to abandon ship without checking if there are lifeboats - utter stupidity.

I get that many want out of the EU and on that principle alone people voted Yes largely taken in by right-wing Tories who had not even contemplated fully what they were promising. It is as clear as day that the Irish Border issue was never even considered by those pushing for Brexit. Why would they? They were largely Tory types based in the Home Counties in England and to them the Irish Border did not even enter their brain cell. People were whipped into a frenzy over promises of fewer immigrants, better trade deals and greater security. And when Yes won we still never heard anything about the Irish Border and what the plan was despite it being the biggest issue on any Brexit deal. It became an even huger issue when the Tories called upon the DUP to prop them up and they highlighted the Irish Border issue and suddenly a couple of years after campaigning, canvassing and getting the Yes vote the penny dropped that the Irish Border matter was pivotal and one the Yes campaign had not even considered.

Won't be a No deal....Next vote won't be till the 21st March..The clock will have reached midnight and she will either get her deal passed or A50 gets extended..My guess is EU will make some last minute concessions without offering anything concrete and it will probably be enough..

Either way her days are numbered.

From the BBC article today about ex pat brits living in Spain

Yvonne Stone, 62, is one of the younger members of the club and tells me she voted for Brexit: "I've been here for three years and have no plans to go back to the UK - but it will depend on what happens.

"When I voted to leave I didn't think it would change anything for my rights to live here. We like it here and we don't want to go back but if I don't get my pension we might not have a choice."

Really? Why would you be so arrogant as to think that?

Navy is right, though. We are lied to in elections. But this is not an election. It's far, far more important than that. Because of the arrogance of some remainers and the outright fabrications of the leavers, we're this situation.

It's an extraordinary situation and to treat it like it's any other election is short-sighted at best. We're talking massive, irrevocable changes that some people never foresaw before the referendum.

Like I said, we had a referendum on the fantasy rainbow unicorn Brexit. Why not have one on what Brexit will actually look like. See if the British people are really up for it before we jump off the cliff.

If Brexit is truly the will of the people then there should be no problem taking it back to the polls to confirm it and put this issue to bed once and for all. Unless of course it is no longer the will of the people in which case proceeding with it would be wholly undemocratic.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:We're lied to in every election. Wise up people. You're assuming those that voted 'leave' did so either in complete ignorance or that, knowing the possible economic damage, mistakenly still voted to leave. Sad as it may be to admit, I think there's an awful lot of people that want out, regardless.
Have you looked at any of the HYS sections on BBC Brexit articles? Most of the time, the highest comment numbers are pro-Brexit or marginal.

Ha, yeah. I'm sure they're all completely real people and that absolutely no bots whatsoever are used.

No, I don't think the majority are. Some, maybe, but it's not remotely the same as when Russia went into Crimea or Ukraine.

dummy_half wrote:From the BBC article today about ex pat brits living in Spain

Yvonne Stone, 62, is one of the younger members of the club and tells me she voted for Brexit: "I've been here for three years and have no plans to go back to the UK - but it will depend on what happens.

"When I voted to leave I didn't think it would change anything for my rights to live here. We like it here and we don't want to go back but if I don't get my pension we might not have a choice."

Really? Why would you be so arrogant as to think that?

Arrogance? Or simply ignorance? Arrogant or just poorly informed during any pre-Referendum 'debate'?

Samo wrote:If Brexit is truly the will of the people then there should be no problem taking it back to the polls to confirm it and put this issue to bed once and for all. Unless of course it is no longer the will of the people in which case proceeding with it would be wholly undemocratic.

You can't keep mouthing this as if it's a straight-forward, obvious answer. It's also hypocrisy of the highest order as, had the position been reversed, not 1 in 1000 'remainers' would have happily had a second referendum, 'just to make sure'.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:If Brexit is truly the will of the people then there should be no problem taking it back to the polls to confirm it and put this issue to bed once and for all. Unless of course it is no longer the will of the people in which case proceeding with it would be wholly undemocratic.

You can't keep mouthing this as if it's a straight-forward, obvious answer. It's also hypocrisy of the highest order as, had the position been reversed, not 1 in 1000 'remainers' would have happily had a second referendum, 'just to make sure'.

Its not hypocrisy at all. As has already been discussed, Remaining doesnt change anything, and despite Duty’s best protestations, there are no quantifiable variables to remaining. We just carry on as we are. Theres no need to ask “are you sure” when thats the case. Unlike Leaving where there are thousands of variables to be taken into consideration, about 5 viable different deals of brexit and of course the threat of no deal at all.

This isnt your normal referendum. Its not like the PR referendum where we can implement the result and if we dont like it after a few years we can change back. There is NO going back once we leave. Sure, we might be allowed to rejoin in a few years but we’ll never get the same level of deal that we have now. Not even close. So no, I dont think its hypocrisy, and I do think its as straight forward as I put it. You just dont like it because it goes against your ideas of what democracy is, regardless if you voted Remain or not.

There are many variables to Remaining, you’ve just highlighted it in your post.

Unfortunately for you, Samo, we actually enact the results of democracy in this country. This isn’t some totalitarian state where we keep voting until the ‘right answer’ is given.

It's the enactment that's the problem. We're still stuck there. And if we can't find a way of enacting it that satisfies a majority in parliament, what then? Parliament has already said that it won't stand for a No Deal Brexit.

Brexit isn’t a thing we can just try out for a few years and decide we preferred it how we had it. If (when?) it all goes tits up when we leave, that will have repercussions years and years down the road - as well as the immediate pain. It’s a huge thing to do, which is why I see no reason that we shouldn’t double check given we are making such a a huge decision on a 52/48 vote. Referendums are nonsense etc etc

I strongly suspect Leave would win again, but hey ho.

Duty281 wrote:There are many variables to Remaining, you’ve just highlighted it in your post.

Unfortunately for you, Samo,  we actually enact the results of democracy in this country. This isn’t some totalitarian state where we keep voting until the ‘right answer’ is given.

That is such a strawman argument - and not even a very good one.

One thing Brexit also does is not reflect at all well on is the union. The union is made up of four countries and of those four countries two wished to remain (Scotland and Northern Ireland) whilst two wished to leave but as England holds the biggest sway in terms of votes then what England wants it will invariably get. Now I get people will say but we are talking about a UK vote - that is fine. However, the countries that make up this union are not all consumed by raging Toryism. Far from it. The Tories have not been a majority party in Scotland for six decades and neither is it in Northern Ireland. My point is the UK is far more diverse in terms of political views than it has ever been and Scotland and Northern Ireland grow ever more restless for independence. The way Brexit has been handled only further fuels the discontent as there has been a flagrant disinterest to listen to any opinions by this government unless it falls in line with what it wants. That is really obvious by the PM's tactics now of running down the clock to a point of blackmailing MPs to vote for her deal or then saying everyone of them can be held accountable if there is No deal.

The above is just another aside of Brexit but one that should not be overlooked for its importance.

As has already been said Brexit (at present) is a pipe dream that nobody can agree on as so many factions want different elements from it. Some want completely out but that is not happening due to the hard border but still they chase the impossible dream. Some want out but with a Customs Union but the Tories don't want that. Some want out with a similar trade deal that Norway has with the EU but again the Tories do not want that. At present the only sensible move is to negotiate to put a pause on Article 50 being activated whilst a proper deal can be sorted out but again the Tories do not want that. What a mess.

And what is this all about democracy anyway? In 1979 Scotland voted to have its own parliament by (if memory serves by similar amount to Brexit) but guess what? The Tory government binned the idea when they came to power.

Duty281 wrote:There are many variables to Remaining, you’ve just highlighted it in your post.

Unfortunately for you, Samo,  we actually enact the results of democracy in this country. This isn’t some totalitarian state where we keep voting until the ‘right answer’ is given.

Im not asking for us to keep voting until we get the ‘right answer’. I want the people of this country to make sure they still hold the same opinion now that we actually know what Brexit will look like and the impact it have. Theres no shame in admitting you’re worried the vote might be overturned.

navyblueshorts wrote:

dummy_half wrote:From the BBC article today about ex pat brits living in Spain

Yvonne Stone, 62, is one of the younger members of the club and tells me she voted for Brexit: "I've been here for three years and have no plans to go back to the UK - but it will depend on what happens.

"When I voted to leave I didn't think it would change anything for my rights to live here. We like it here and we don't want to go back but if I don't get my pension we might not have a choice."

Really? Why would you be so arrogant as to think that?

Arrogance? Or simply ignorance? Arrogant or just poorly informed during any pre-Referendum 'debate'?

I nearly put 'stupid' instead...

To be honest, the above just boggles my mind - she lives in Spain courtesy of the free movement and other rights (healthcare, access to her UK pension) based on the UK's membership of the EU, votes leave and then complains when those rights may be removed.

I don't think people were so ill informed as to not realise that leaving would likely have an impact on their right of abode in another EU state. More just a lack of joined up thinking...

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's the enactment that's the problem. We're still stuck there. And if we can't find a way of enacting it that satisfies a majority in parliament, what then? Parliament has already said that it won't stand for a No Deal Brexit.

And herein lies the difficulty for the Prime Minster -
1/2 of her MPs want a hard Brexit, and will find something to object to in any deal that does not sever ties with EU governance.
Most hard Brexit proposals are based on unicorns - we can't just carry on with the same trade agreements as were made with the EU unless the other party to the deal agrees with those terms. So far essentially none have agreed to this.
The EU don't want to give the UK a particularly good deal, as it would reduce the reasons for other states to retain membership. And why should they - it's our fault we're leaving, not theirs.
A hard Brexit is likely to lead (at least in the short term) to a serious economic downturn, which would seriously undermine the possibility of the Conservatives remaining in power at the next elections.
Parliament as a whole is not so stupid as to support a hard Brexit because of these economic consequences.
She has sidelined all the Opposition parties, who don't feel generous in supporting her compromise position, especially as this is only a compromise to try to assuage the feelings of the hard line Tories.


At the moment, it seems like the only option is to extend the Article 50 deadline until some way forward out of this tangle is found. I'm far from convinced Mrs May is the person for the job, nor her Government the organisation to do so.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's the enactment that's the problem. We're still stuck there. And if we can't find a way of enacting it that satisfies a majority in parliament, what then? Parliament has already said that it won't stand for a No Deal Brexit.

No Deal is the default option, it doesn't need a majority in Parliament to go through. If a majority can't be found for agreeing May's deal, or for extension/any other option, that's what will happen.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And what is this all about democracy anyway? In 1979 Scotland voted to have its own parliament by (if memory serves by similar amount to Brexit) but guess what? The Tory government binned the idea when they came to power.

Because of the awkward little amendment put in by some Labour MP that stipulated that a certain percentage of the entire electorate needed to vote 'Yes' for it to go through. Not something I agree with, personally, but that's the way it was.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's the enactment that's the problem. We're still stuck there. And if we can't find a way of enacting it that satisfies a majority in parliament, what then? Parliament has already said that it won't stand for a No Deal Brexit.

No Deal is the default option, it doesn't need a majority in Parliament to go through. If a majority can't be found for agreeing May's deal, or for extension/any other option, that's what will happen.

You forget parliament has the power to completely revoke A50, which is more likely than them letting it go through without a deal. Especially now we know there is no majority for it.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:There are many variables to Remaining, you’ve just highlighted it in your post.

Unfortunately for you, Samo,  we actually enact the results of democracy in this country. This isn’t some totalitarian state where we keep voting until the ‘right answer’ is given.

Im not asking for us to keep voting until we get the ‘right answer’. I want the people of this country to make sure they still hold the same opinion now that we actually know what Brexit will look like and the impact it have.  Theres no shame in admitting you’re worried the vote might be overturned.

I don't think the vote would be overturned - I think Leave would win by a bigger margin second time around.

What I'm uncomfortable with is a precedent for overturning democratic decisions without enacting them in the first instance. And that's before you get on to the fact that, if another referendum was held and Remain won, such a result would have next to zero democratic legitimacy. The 2016 vote was ignored, why shouldn't the 2019 one be ignored, and so on and so forth.

All academic anyway: there isn't going to be another vote.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's the enactment that's the problem. We're still stuck there. And if we can't find a way of enacting it that satisfies a majority in parliament, what then? Parliament has already said that it won't stand for a No Deal Brexit.

No Deal is the default option, it doesn't need a majority in Parliament to go through. If a majority can't be found for agreeing May's deal, or for extension/any other option, that's what will happen.

You forget parliament has the power to completely revoke A50, which is more likely than them letting it go through without a deal.  Especially now we know there is no majority for it.

It does have the power to do that, but I can categorically, 100% say that revocation would never, ever happen.

No Deal is still the likeliest scenario, but we'll see what happens. I think it's too late in the day for an extension request to be put in, but who knows? The SNP amendment (request extension of article 50 for at least three months) is going through Parliament today, it'll give us a clearer idea.

Today's chosen amendments

Amendment a - the Labour frontbench amendment which requires the government to either give MPs a vote on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration on future UK-EU relations by 27 February, or make a statement saying there is no longer an agreement in principle with Brussels and so allow MPs to vote on - and amend - its planned next steps.
Amendment i - the SNP amendment which seeks to postpone the Brexit date by at least three months.
Amendment e - Conservative MP and Remain supporter Anna Soubry's amendment which instructs the government to publish within seven days "the most recent official briefing document relating to business and trade on the implications of a no-deal Brexit presented to cabinet".

How brain dead are Tory brexiteer MPs though? Talk is they will vote against tonight's amendment as they want No Deal Brexit to remain an option. Jeez...everyone knows a No Deal Brexit is not plausible or possible as it would see a hard border go up in Ireland and screw up the Good Friday Agreement.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It's the enactment that's the problem. We're still stuck there. And if we can't find a way of enacting it that satisfies a majority in parliament, what then? Parliament has already said that it won't stand for a No Deal Brexit.

No Deal is the default option, it doesn't need a majority in Parliament to go through. If a majority can't be found for agreeing May's deal, or for extension/any other option, that's what will happen.

You forget parliament has the power to completely revoke A50, which is more likely than them letting it go through without a deal.  Especially now we know there is no majority for it.

It does have the power to do that, but I can categorically, 100% say that revocation would never, ever happen.

No Deal is still the likeliest scenario, but we'll see what happens. I think it's too late in the day for an extension request to be put in, but who knows? The SNP amendment (request extension of article 50 for at least three months) is going through Parliament today, it'll give us a clearer idea.

I think the amendment has a real chance of going through, only the hard Brexit MP's will vote it down in the hope of securing a No Deal, but whether the EU grant us the extension or not is an entirely different question.

Motion defeated, and two of the amendments were also voted down in any case.

I'm sure everyone here, including Duty, is very much hoping that no-deal does not happen, like all rational people.

Pm's second bite gets voted down and she can't be bothered turning up...

According to sources Labour supposed to split tonight...Ummuna..Leslie etc... Seems they can't be bothered.

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need to him ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pm's second bite gets voted down and she can't be bothered turning up...

According to sources Labour supposed to split tonight...Ummuna..Leslie etc... Seems they can't be bothered.

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need to him ??

Well as I watched the coverage earlier some political correspondent felt that A portion of Tories would join them but only after Brexit matter has been resolved. That would surprise me if that happened.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pm's second bite gets voted down and she can't be bothered turning up...

According to sources Labour supposed to split tonight...Ummuna..Leslie etc... Seems they can't be bothered.

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need to him ??

Well as I watched the coverage earlier some political correspondent felt that A portion of Tories would join them but only after Brexit matter has been resolved. That would surprise me if that happened.

And that is on both matters I'd be surprised - Labour and Tories forming a new party AND Brexit matter being resolved.

If only someone had foreseen this. Project Fear probably did, but we can dismiss them because they cause fear, therefore must be lying.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/brexit-has-cost-uk-economy-at-least-80bn-since-vote-bank-of-england-rate-setter

dummy_half wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

dummy_half wrote:From the BBC article today about ex pat brits living in Spain

Yvonne Stone, 62, is one of the younger members of the club and tells me she voted for Brexit: "I've been here for three years and have no plans to go back to the UK - but it will depend on what happens.

"When I voted to leave I didn't think it would change anything for my rights to live here. We like it here and we don't want to go back but if I don't get my pension we might not have a choice."

Really? Why would you be so arrogant as to think that?

Arrogance? Or simply ignorance? Arrogant or just poorly informed during any pre-Referendum 'debate'?

I nearly put 'stupid' instead...

To be honest, the above just boggles my mind - she lives in Spain courtesy of the free movement and other rights (healthcare, access to her UK pension) based on the UK's membership of the EU, votes leave and then complains when those rights may be removed.

I don't think people were so ill informed as to not realise that leaving would likely have an impact on their right of abode in another EU state. More just a lack of joined up thinking...

OK. So stupid then.