How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

[PPT]

Why set such an arbitrary time period? If said referendum causes economical and social destruction is it not regressive to stick to such decision? 15 years is a long time! Heck we will had about 20 different PMs in that time period the way we are going

Because the opposite will allow democratically made decisions made by the people to be overturned by politicians on a whim. The UK / Westminster political system is not democratic at all. It is an illusion of democracy that we are presented with. In Switzerland they have circa 3 or 4 referendums every year where the people can vote on issues and / or potential changes. This way the politicians are wary and have to respect the views of the people and not hold them in total contempt as they do in this country.

 

[bugsyblue]

Because the opposite will allow democratically made decisions made by the people to be overturned by politicians on a whim. The UK / Westminster political system is not democratic at all. It is an illusion of democracy that we are presented with. In Switzerland they have circa 3 or 4 referendums every year where the people can vote on issues and / or potential changes. This way the politicians are wary and have to respect the views of the people and not hold them in total contempt as they do in this country.

You seem to be conflating two arguments: politics in general in the UK and the Brexit referendum.

A referendum as fundamentally important as Brexit shouldn’t be held to an arbitrary 15 year period. It’s not like making a referendum on whether all toll roads should be scrapped! It IS literally democracy if the will of the people is represented is it not? Now, Not many people before Brexit predicted a war in Europe. For example many people would now like to be part of a united Europe and a stronger EU is the safest route to long lasting peace. With this in mind it would be anti-democratic to hold a referendum decision made almost 6 years ago to some longer time period! New information has come to light, people understand the ramifications of said decision. Tell me one good reason why it is undemocratic to discuss a new referendum six years after said event?

 

[red 2 hats]

What a shit situation we've put ourselves in, prior to brexit we were sat at the top table in the EU, was everything perfect, No, but nothing ever is, we had pull, we had a stronger arm than most, we were part of a huge trading block, free movement, no tariffs and loads of plus points.
We've now got blue passports and eerrrrrrr not much else.
If we did try and re join would we have the same terms and conditions as before, no chance, we played Russian roulette with a fully loaded pistol and pulled the trigger, what absolute bellends were the leavers.

 

[PPT]

You seem to be conflating two arguments: politics in general in the UK and the Brexit referendum.

A referendum as fundamentally important as Brexit shouldn’t be held to an arbitrary 15 year period. It’s not like making a referendum on whether all toll roads should be scrapped! It IS literally democracy if the will of the people is represented is it not? Now, Not many people before Brexit predicted a war in Europe. For example many people would now like to be part of a united Europe and a stronger EU is the safest route to long lasting peace. With this in mind it would be anti-democratic to hold a referendum decision made almost 6 years ago to some longer time period! New information has come to light, people understand the ramifications of said decision. Tell me one good reason why it is undemocratic to discuss a new referendum six years after said event?

Read my previous posts.

 

[bugsyblue]

Read my previous posts.

I did. Read my response

 

[blueparrot]

But over what timescale?
Same debate with Scottish independence.
You just can't (or shouldn't) do what the EU do
and just keep voting until you get the answer you want.
That is not democracy. I think that in all referendums an agreed time period should be set before the same issue / topic can be put back to the voters. For Brexit it should an absolute minimum of 15 years.

Why should there be a minimum, if the whole economy is tanking it would be beyond stupid to to wait for some random time period to change things.

 

[west didsblue]

I wonder what makes our economy worse than the rest of the G7?
https://www.ft.com/content/81fbdff6-dacb-476b-a4ba-12696e7f7800

 

[PPT]

Why should there be a minimum, if the whole economy is tanking it would be beyond stupid to to wait for some random time period to change things.

OK.

 

[PPT]

I did. Read my response

I did. Which is why I responded.

 

[Brewster's millions]

Rejoin shouldn't be talked about as though it's the same thing as remain because it isn't. It's different to say that people want to rejoin to remain vs rejoin in a new guise which is now the reality of rejoin. Of course people may now think it was a mistake but it's too late and we'll never get what we had back.

The reality is that rejoin would mean we join as a new EU country and the starter for 10 for the EU will always be deep UK integration and taking the Euro, both major red lines with the public. What we had previously wasn't given to us, it took years of difficult negotiation with the EU. We had to negotiate an opt-out of the Euro for example but our main bargaining chip was that we were in the club already.

We now aren't in the club so everything that preceded before is irrelevant, the EU is not going to accept a UK position in the EU which is the UK made a mistake and is allowed back in as though nothing ever happened. There are certain aspects of UK membership that the EU never approved of and rejoin would be an opportunity for them to get rid of those things for good.

The one thing constantly missed is the compromise options which were never properly discussed during the leave negotiations. Why can't we for example just forget EU membership and negotiate alignment to get what we need which is single market access (EFTA?). The most critical failure of Brexit is not Brexit, it has been the consistent failure to meet in the middle and to appraise all available options.

The compromise options never really existed for the UK though unfortunately, certainly in terms of EFTA or EEA membership, and this should really have been emphasised during the referendum debate. Had it been emphasised, then voters would probably have had a better understanding of where we would ultimately end up, which in my opinion was always going to be where we are currently, with a simple free trade agreement but without single market access and so on.

EFTA membership actually doesn’t relate to single market access, and EFTA is essentially a bit of a free trade relic now as it was essentially just a staging post for countries which ultimately went on to joining the EU outright. The UK would need to join the EEA if it wanted something close to full single market access, but again this is very unlikely as being an EEA member leaves you subject to new EU legislation, but without a vote on this legislation or any major influence on its formation. No large country would ever sign up to this situation, so this is really a non-starter.

Essentially, no existing organisation would suit the UK’s circumstances. The only real option for the UK is to try to come up with more bi-lateral agreements with the EU, but the EU presumably has little incentive to do this and the Northern Ireland protocol will be a constant distraction. So we are where we are, and again I think this really should have been emphasised during the referendum as it may have made the difference.