Another new Brexit thread

[mcfc1632]

Not the point. As you well know.

No - seriously - that is how your posts were reading - now maybe you can understand why they came across so confused/inconsistent

It was not Leave posters choosing to read your posts in a certain way - it was actually the content of your posts

 

[Ban-jani]

This is my point though, leading up to the referendum, the idea was that we'd get a deal that would leave us in a better position than we are currently in with our membership in the European Union.

No deal is essentially a highjacking of that referendum by extremists who don't care or don't understand what damage would be done to the country.

It's like buying a new phone that is hyped up to be brilliant and better than the last generation but when you actually get it, it's demonstrably worse than promised so and the manufacturer falls back on: "Well we produced a phone like we said we would didn't we?"

No deal wasn’t uttered once prior to the vote in 2016, not by any of the leave campaign or those in the public eye that backed leaving.

The argument from many current leave supporters is that the government said a vote to leave would be a vote to leave the Customs Union and Single Market, which is true... but they also said, as did every vote leave figure, that we’d have a trade deal with Europe, with the vast majority stating it’d be a free trade deal.

I’m a remain voter and would vote remain every time I was asked. However I think given the above, we must leave with a deal and cannot and should not leave with no deal.

If you want a mandate for any other direction, than a deal with the EU, then it needs to be put back to the people in another referendum, despite the fact I hate them.

 

[Vic]

Sorry to interrupt but the Newsnight exchanges between Boles, Lilley and Benn are poisonous stuff. The comparison between France/Corsica or Italy/Sicily making equivalent concessions to GB/NI is a telling point against those who claim there is no real attempt to get a deal. The accusation is squarely made by Maitliss to Benn that his backbench Act in August was timed to sabotage the very likely possibility of the EU re-opening the backstop legal text.

Oooh, an accusation! Did she really, really use those words? Honestly, really? Timed? Sabotage? Very likely?

You know she didn't. The only poisonous stuff is your making stuff up.

And you missed off Hilary Benn's point that the current proposals that seem to be off would not get through Parliament because they've not seen the text. Not that that has stopped Tory MPs from being willing to buy a deal sight unseen.

 

[Vic]

No deal wasn’t uttered once prior to the vote in 2016, not by any of the leave campaign or those in the public eye that backed leaving.

The argument from many current leave supporters is that the government said a vote to leave would be a vote to leave the Customs Union and Single Market, which is true... but they also said, as did every vote leave figure, that we’d have a trade deal with Europe, with the vast majority stating it’d be a free trade deal.

I’m a remain voter and would vote remain every time I was asked. However I think given the above, we must leave with a deal and cannot and should not leave with no deal.

If you want a mandate for any other direction, than a deal with the EU, then it needs to be put back to the people in another referendum, despite the fact I hate them.

Referendums or the people?

 

[Vic]

I think remainers, if leave won, would find ‘new facts’ that the dumb as fuck public weren’t aware of at the time of the second vote to demand a third one. If remain won of course then the campaigns would have been run fairly and common sense would have prevailed. We would never need another referendum ever again as although things can change a remain victory would mean nothing really changes ever ever again.

I think the fairest way out of this is only those people named Gina Miller can vote.

Why do I suspect you know two Leavers called Gina Miller?

 

[flyer]

22 days left thank fuck

 

[hilts]

Why do I suspect you know two Leavers called Gina Miller?

I know one with 2 faces;-)

 

[BobKowalski]

22 days left thank fuck

I’m pretty sure you posted this sentiment around this time last March. I’m pretty sure you will be posting it again in about six months time.

 

[flyer]

I’m pretty sure you posted this sentiment around this time last March. I’m pretty sure you will be posting it again in about six months time.

It'll be relevant to the next time I look in this forum. 1st November, jelly and ice cream

 

[mcfc1632]

Cake? No thanks. If you want to discuss, fine. If you want to make snide comments then I’m not interested in responding to you.

That's fair enough - and I apologise for the snide comment - it was not necessary

I guess I get so many gratuitous snide comments thrown at me - literally 100s - particularly by a couple of individuals - that it can become seen as the way people post on here.

You will be aware of the truth of this as we have previously discussed why you only pick up inappropriate posts from one side

 

[mcfc1632]

A different argument mashed in to muddy and obfuscate. Off the point, and irrelevant to my post.

That's the problem with inconvenient truths - they can be so damned inconvenient

 

[mcfc1632]

How about you just reference the page number. You clearly know it, since you have a reference time.

edit; wait wait wait. Are you seriously suggesting, in a conversation where you made a reference to "scottish citizens" living in England, is me advocating that Scotland is an "independent sovereign country", when the context was about Scotland gaining independence from the UK if we leave with no deal?
It's got to be done...

No, dear boy, no... That is Scouser levels of desperate.

;-)

I wonder how many hours are spent trawling back through the posts of those 'on his list' looking for something that can be twisted

 

[Vic]

Most of the public, in fact everyone I know on either side just want it put to bed either way and forget it ever happened, their is nobody I know would want to start this all up again, once this dogs sleeping it will be left to lie.

That goes back to Henning Wehn and his suggestion that the referendum question should have been "do you want normality or never-ending palaver?"

 

[Vic]

And this morning's Brexit boost.

Scottish distillers worried about the effect of a 25% tariff to the USA might take comfort from the likelihood that a No Deal would mean the pound plunging against the dollar, perhaps by as much as 25%....

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

That £15 billion extra cost is if we come out without a deal isn’t it? And given that most Leave voters don’t want No Deal, I’m not sure why you didn’t mention that the cost was in the event of a No Deal Brexit.

Nope ..... the cost is there if we come out...... giving the Tories an excuse for never ending underfunding of services and a reason to flog off the NHS.

 

[blueinsa]

Newsnight - Junker just claimed No Deal would lead to the collapse of the United Kingdom according to Andrew Neil.
They're sounding rattled - deal incoming?

They have seemingly lost their cool.

Deal is incoming.

 

[Vic]

Nope ..... the cost is there if we come out...... giving the Tories an excuse for never ending underfunding of services and a reason to flog off the NHS.

Nope. It's in a No Deal scenario.

The £15bn is an estimate of 215 million extra customs declarations at a cost to firms of an average of £35 per declaration - £7.5bn doubled because EU exporters to the UK will face the same. All costs that are likely to be added to prices which consumers will pay.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

That solution has never been put forward or been wanted though. The eu knows that and hasn’t compromised

The whole idea of the backstop insurance policy was a load of shite. They just wanted Northern Ireland to remain in the eu

I would absolutely welcome a no deal now. An eu where the decision maker is Angela merkel and we have Unelected Eurocrats lecturing us. Good riddance to the undemocratic orgainstation which you clearly love so much

Single market and Customs Union was a May red line as was coming out of the jurisdiction of the ECJ (which is why we'll never get a Norway type deal)

Coming out with no deal does not solve the requirement for a border in Northern Ireland. Without control over quality and standards and a dispute resolution mechanism the Eu will not trade with the UK. Currently 42% of our trade is with the Eu.

Coming out with no deal does not automatically mean we get a free trade agreement with the Eu after all we will owe them the (agreed) sum of £39 billion.

Last time I checked ... all MEP's were democratically elected (albeit on a proportional representation system known as De Hont)

Last time I checked the Eu Commissioners were all elected by people that this country had voted for (and in any event the commission cant vote anyway)

 

[Coatigan]

But there's currently no mandate to remain.

You are 100% right. indeed, there is currently no mandate to remain.

There is also absolutely no mandate for no deal. Nobody campaigned on that, and when the outcome was suggested, all brexit supporters (note i dont say voters) laughed it off and denied any likelyhood.

And according to many, beexiteers in particular, there is no mandate for May's deal either (still the only real deal on the table), as it isnt brexity enough for them. I myself would have been perfectly fine with leaving on that deal btw. Lets not forget, that was blocked by the brexiters.

So with no realistic likelyhood of actually leaving, and no mandate for anything, the only way i can see out is a second referendum, with clarity on the actual implications. on the one side, the best deal we can possibly get, and on the other, remain as the status quo and still the less disruptive/damaging outcome.

And if the result is still leave, then so be it.

I honestly do not see a second referendum as some chance to overturn the referendum, i personally doubt the result would. You'd like to think people would at least have the chance (at least those that didn't the first time) to look back at it objectively and reconsider/consider properly.
But i do think it seems the only way through this blockage of everyone (particularly brexiters, as remainers at least are consistent) picking the implied perceptions they like on the day to argue for what they want out of this.

Asking again, after all that has come to light, is not undemocratic. Forcing a no deal is.

 

[Saddleworth2]

True it is. I personally was part of Labour Leave and have long advocated for EFTA membership, even before the Scottish Referendum.

I'm astonished at the ineptitude of Parliament, the party politics, antics of MP's, refusal to find a compromise or a deal. However, I value democracy too highly to dismiss brexit due to their incompetance, nor can I support a 2nd referendum ideally, as there would be nothing to suggest a 3rd or 4th couldn't be held.

The first result wasn't legally binding, btu Parliament promised to enact how we, the electorate, voted. The current Government chose to carry out the result. A General Election is the only way to determine whether the Government still wishes to carry out the result, as they will have been chosen by that same electorate. If we vote in candidates who say they will, we continue with a new Parliament supporting brexit. If we vote in those MP's who advocate revoking A50, it will have been us, the electorate who will have given Parliament that instruction via appointment.

That's the only democratic way I see of clarifying the position.

And if we vote in another hung parliament?