EU still open to Britain changing mind on Brexit

[webfact]

EU still open to Britain changing mind on Brexit

By Gilbert Reilhac

 

European Council President Donald Tusk delivers a speech during a debate on the last December European summit and Brexit at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, January 16, 2018. REUTERS/Vincent Kessler

 

STRASBOURG (Reuters) - Leaders of the European Union institutions weighed into a new British debate on whether to hold a second referendum on Brexit by saying on Tuesday that Britons would be welcome to stay in the EU.

 

Prime Minister Theresa May and her main opponent Jeremy Corbyn have ruled out giving voters a chance to approve whatever withdrawal treaty is agreed with Brussels before Britain leaves the bloc in March 2019. However, campaigners on both sides of the debate have raised the issue again this month.

 

Updating the European Parliament on a summit he chaired last month at which EU leaders agreed to open talks with London on their post-Brexit future, European Council President Donald Tusk took the opportunity to support those calling for a rethink.

 

"Brexit will become a reality, with all its negative consequences, in March next year, unless there is a change of heart among our British friends," the former Polish premier said. "We here on the continent haven't had a change of heart.

 

"Our hearts are still open to you."

 

Picking up on Tusk's comment, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, whose executive arm is negotiating Britain's departure, added his endorsement: "He said that our door is still open. I hope this is heard in London."

 

Constitutional lawyers are divided on whether Britain can withdraw its two-year notice to quit but the exchanges underline a view in Brussels that an EU political consensus could be found to avert Brexit -- even if most are now resigned to Britain leaving and believe the Union will weather the disruption.

 

May's spokesman repeated her determination to follow through on Brexit, even though she campaigned against it in 2016.

 

In the debate, senior EU lawmakers called on her to offer more clarity on what she wants. Some mocked her, with the top German conservative skewering her announcement that she would restore Britain's old blue passports after Brexit as a "scam".

 

TOUGH TERMS

 

Member states are discussing among themselves a new set of negotiating instructions for Juncker's negotiator Michel Barnier ahead of the expected launch of talks on a post-Brexit transition period during which much of the status quo would be maintained.

 

Diplomats say those discussions reveal a firm line among the 27 on holding Britain to commitments to accepting continued obligations to the Union during the transition, including accepting continued free immigration from the EU and being subject to EU courts -- key complaints of Brexit supporters.

 

Work is continuing on how Britain might continue to take part in free trade agreements between the EU and other countries during the transition and on how and whether the transition might be extended beyond Dec. 31, 2020.

 

Among the most eye-catching of demands which diplomats have clarified is that EU citizens arriving in Britain even after Brexit, during the transition, would be entitled to retain for life the rights currently enjoyed by EU expatriates.

 

Senior lawmakers in the Strasbourg chamber were generally scathing about May's plans for Brexit. The leader of the centre-right group, an ally of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, mocked her announcement that British passports would go back to being blue after Brexit as opposed to the red used by most EU states.

 

"The whole story is a scam," said Manfred Weber, denouncing a "lack of leadership" and of "honesty" in portraying the move on passport colour as a restoration of sovereignty. No EU law binds member states to red passports, and fellow member Croatia uses blue ones.

 

Guy Verhofstadt, the chamber's Brexit coordinator, called the passport saga "hilarious" and also derided May and her ministers for claiming credit for new laws curbing plastic bag use and credit card fees, when these were in fact EU legislation.

 

For the UK Independence Party, which campaigned for Brexit, David Coburn accused Barnier of trying to "destroy Britain" as a centre for financial services by rejecting London's efforts to retain existing access to EU financial markets.

 

(Additional reporting by Elizabeth Piper in London, Writing by Alastair Macdonald in Brussels, Editing by Angus MacSwan and Hugh Lawson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-01-17

[Samui Bodoh]

7 minutes ago, webfact said:

Leaders of the European Union institutions weighed into a new British debate on whether to hold a second referendum on Brexit by saying on Tuesday that Britons would be welcome to stay in the EU.

 

Take it!!!!

 

The decision to leave the EU was a terrible one; if you have the chance to reverse it, do so!!!

 

It's not too late.

 

One friend's point of view...

 

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Take it!!!!

 

The decision to leave the EU was a terrible one; if you have the chance to reverse it, do so!!!

 

It's not too late.

 

One friend's point of view...

 

 

 

The great thing about British politics is that nothing is set in stone.

 

Except for the fact that.........nothing is set in stone.

 

Was wondering last night when we would hear a call for one of these, to assess the "wisdom" of it all:

 

"Royal Commissions are called to look into matters of great importance and usually controversy. These can be matters such as government structure, the treatment of minorities, events of considerable public concern or economic questions. Many Royal Commissions last many years and, often, a different government is left to respond to the findings."

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Enoon

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

The great thing about British politics is that nothing is set in stone.

 

Except for the fact that.........nothing is set in stone.

 

Was wondering last night when we would hear a call for one of these, to assess the "wisdom" of it all:

 

"Royal Commissions are called to look into matters of great importance and usually controversy. These can be matters such as government structure, the treatment of minorities, events of considerable public concern or economic questions. Many Royal Commissions last many years and, often, a different government is left to respond to the findings."

 

 

 

 

I don't see it happening since Corbyn is lukewarm at best on the issue. Rather I think that Labour is hoping for a soft Brexit which will anger the Brexiters and make the Tories look incompetent. It does seem more and more likely that a very soft Brexit will be the outcome.

[hgma]

take it for the sake of my euro exploding to 50 bath!!

[Sir Dude]

Corbyn has never been a fan of the EU either and privately also wants out despite the majority of his Labour MPs being Remainers plus wouldn't probably fare any different to the Conseratives as the divisions run bitterly deep on this issue. Problem is, that the UK people will not get what they voted for and will end up with still being shackled to Brussels and having to accept all kinds of nonsense like the ECJ, rules/regs from them and freedom of movement, which is just silly, and is why they voted out in the first place. If they want to leave, they should just leave...don't become vassal state of the EU with no voting rights, no power or influence but having to do as it's told on everything just for the sake of the corporate world. The Conservatives having a Remainer PM, Chancellor and so on with Brexiteer ministers all mashed together with very thinly veiled serious differences, is unwise too. 

 

Trouble is with another referendum is that it becomes the neverendum thing like what they SNP etc. want...keep on voting till you get the right answer. Simple referendums are no way to sort out things of this magnitude and if you insist on using them then there needs to be a clear majority of say 60% in favour of something.

 

To me, I see why they voted out (my gut feeling is leave too) but the kids love that EU rubbish and they are the future. All that will happen is that in 25-30 years the UK will be applying to rejoin unless it goes really well, trade deals are struck with the rest of the world on the right terms and things really get better, which could happen, but it's a big gamble and will need the right people to pull that off.

 

It is going to be an interesting experiment to see how it pans out as no-one has done it before but sure is a risky roll-of-the-dice. We'll see over the next 5 years as the dust settles and it will become clearer. History will judge people from one side or the other quite harshly with words like 'folly' or 'visionary' being used when all is done. It could well depend more on whether the EU get's it's act together properly and not continuing to stagnate economically plus solves some of the glaring issues it has, than anything the UK does.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Sir Dude

[Orton Rd]

Both Benn and Powell were very much against the EU dictatorship, both were right

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQY2CHx4d3U

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Corbyn has never been a fan of the EU either and privately also wants out despite the majority of his Labour MPs being Remainers plus wouldn't probably fare any different to the Conseratives as the divisions run bitterly deep on this issue. Problem is, that the UK people will not get what they voted for and will end up with still being shackled to Brussels and having to accept all kinds of nonsense like the ECJ, rules/regs from them and freedom of movement, which is just silly, and is why they voted out in the first place. If they want to leave, they should just leave...don't become vassal state of the EU with no voting rights, no power or influence but having to do as it's told on everything just for the sake of the corporate world. The Conservatives having a Remainer PM, Chancellor and so on with Brexiteer ministers all mashed together with very thinly veiled serious differences, is unwise too. 

 

Trouble is with another referendum is that it becomes the neverendum thing like what they SNP etc. want...keep on voting till you get the right answer. Simple referendums are no way to sort out things of this magnitude and if you insist on using them then there needs to be a clear majority of say 60% in favour of something.

 

To me, I see why they voted out (my gut feeling is leave too) but the kids love that EU rubbish and they are the future. All that will happen is that in 25-30 years the UK will be applying to rejoin unless it goes really well, trade deals are struck with the rest of the world on the right terms and things really get better, which could happen, but it's a big gamble and will need the right people to pull that off.

 

It is going to be an interesting experiment to see how it pans out as no-one has done it before but sure is a risky roll-of-the-dice. We'll see over the next 5 years as the dust settles and it will become clearer. History will judge people from one side or the other quite harshly with words like 'folly' or 'visionary' being used when all is done. It could well depend more on whether the EU get's it's act together properly and not continuing to stagnate economically plus solves some of the glaring issues it has, than anything the UK does.

Much of what you said seems very sensible. Certainly the part about the advisability of referenda with huge consequences being decided by a simple majority. That goes for Scotland exiting, too.

 But it's overwhelmingly likely that a hard brexit would be very bad for the UK in the short and and just bad in the long run.

As for the EU stagnating economically, you're out of date.

 

https://euobserver.com/economic/139825

[roderick17]

I thought there had been a vote, and the British  people decided to leave!!

[Samui Bodoh]

25 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Corbyn has never been a fan of the EU either and privately also wants out despite the majority of his Labour MPs being Remainers plus wouldn't probably fare any different to the Conseratives as the divisions run bitterly deep on this issue. Problem is, that the UK people will not get what they voted for and will end up with still being shackled to Brussels and having to accept all kinds of nonsense like the ECJ, rules/regs from them and freedom of movement, which is just silly, and is why they voted out in the first place. If they want to leave, they should just leave...don't become vassal state of the EU with no voting rights, no power or influence but having to do as it's told on everything just for the sake of the corporate world. The Conservatives having a Remainer PM, Chancellor and so on with Brexiteer ministers all mashed together with very thinly veiled serious differences, is unwise too. 

 

Trouble is with another referendum is that it becomes the neverendum thing like what they SNP etc. want...keep on voting till you get the right answer. Simple referendums are no way to sort out things of this magnitude and if you insist on using them then there needs to be a clear majority of say 60% in favour of something.

 

To me, I see why they voted out (my gut feeling is leave too) but the kids love that EU rubbish and they are the future. All that will happen is that in 25-30 years the UK will be applying to rejoin unless it goes really well, trade deals are struck with the rest of the world on the right terms and things really get better, which could happen, but it's a big gamble and will need the right people to pull that off.

 

It is going to be an interesting experiment to see how it pans out as no-one has done it before but sure is a risky roll-of-the-dice. We'll see over the next 5 years as the dust settles and it will become clearer. History will judge people from one side or the other quite harshly with words like 'folly' or 'visionary' being used when all is done. It could well depend more on whether the EU get's it's act together properly and not continuing to stagnate economically plus solves some of the glaring issues it has, than anything the UK does.

Good, well-written post.

 

However...

 

Who would want to do trade deals with the UK? That is a serious question, not a snarky one.

 

Yes, it is true that trade deals aren't permanent, but partners expect their partners to stay in for a long time as there are always economic adjustments that are made to take advantage. I wouldn't want to enter into a trade deal with the UK as making the required changes to my own economy would be too risky (generally speaking). Sorry, but the UK has shown itself to be a fickle partner; who wants to join up with a fickle partner?

 

What trade deals are out there for the UK? I see often Brits talking about joining other trade deals, but I never hear any specifics. Rejoin an EU trade deal? If that is it, why leave? NAFTA? It is unlikely that the UK would be allowed to join; NAFTA already has a financial center (New York ), why would anyone agree to allow London in as a competitor? TPP? It will be much smaller without the US, and the UK is not a pacific country. The Chinese version of TPP? That will benefit China, and the UK is too far away. MERCOSEUR? The UK is not a Latin American country.

 

So, serious question. What trade deal(s)?

 

Cheers

[Sir Dude]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Much of what you said seems very sensible. Certainly the part about the advisability of referenda with huge consequences being decided by a simple majority. That goes for Scotland exiting, too.

 But it's overwhelmingly likely that a hard brexit would be very bad for the UK in the short and and just bad in the long run.

As for the EU stagnating economically, you're out of date.

 

https://euobserver.com/economic/139825

You are correct with Scotland...should also fall into that section.

 

Also, yeah, a hard brexit would also be problematic, true....but people need to make a finite choice. There is, of course, that it could be said that the public were not fully aware of what a hard brexit really means, but you make your bed and all...and it's within the EU's interests to  make an example of the UK so as to deter anyone else from thinking the unthinkable too. So, indeed, it will be a rough ride for many reasons.

 

Yes, the EU economy has shown signs of improvement but I wouldn't consider it out of the woods just yet. There are also many non economic related problems festering too which if they got sorted would give the whole block a renewed energetic zeal about itself...but that will require some tough decision making on uncomfortable topics. If they can grasp that nettle, so much the better for those still members of the EU. 

[toofarnorth]

I don't care any longer , I just what more than 43B - quid.

[Sir Dude]

24 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Good, well-written post.

 

However...

 

Who would want to do trade deals with the UK? That is a serious question, not a snarky one.

 

Yes, it is true that trade deals aren't permanent, but partners expect their partners to stay in for a long time as there are always economic adjustments that are made to take advantage. I wouldn't want to enter into a trade deal with the UK as making the required changes to my own economy would be too risky (generally speaking). Sorry, but the UK has shown itself to be a fickle partner; who wants to join up with a fickle partner?

 

What trade deals are out there for the UK? I see often Brits talking about joining other trade deals, but I never hear any specifics. Rejoin an EU trade deal? If that is it, why leave? NAFTA? It is unlikely that the UK would be allowed to join; NAFTA already has a financial center (New York ), why would anyone agree to allow London in as a competitor? TPP? It will be much smaller without the US, and the UK is not a pacific country. The Chinese version of TPP? That will benefit China, and the UK is too far away. MERCOSEUR? The UK is not a Latin American country.

 

So, serious question. What trade deal(s)?

 

Cheers

The UK is like the 5th largest economy in the world, there should be plenty of countries or trading blocks interested in some sort of deal. The UK may have to give good terms to the likes of the US or China etc. but many others appear interested too as they won't have to go through Brussels (which is notorious for being difficult). The US trade deal with the EU has ground to a halt and it took Canada 7 years to thrash one out with them.

 

I don't think trading partners will be scarce, it's all about the terms of the agreements. Getting fair trade deals will be a challenge for whoever has to finalize them but there should be takers but the takers will know that the UK needs them and that gives them leverage. Could always strengthen ties and deals with Commonwealth countries, might be an option...but haven't read much into that, just an idea. 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Sir Dude

[Baerboxer]

20 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Much of what you said seems very sensible. Certainly the part about the advisability of referenda with huge consequences being decided by a simple majority. That goes for Scotland exiting, too.

 But it's overwhelmingly likely that a hard brexit would be very bad for the UK in the short and and just bad in the long run.

As for the EU stagnating economically, you're out of date.

 

https://euobserver.com/economic/139825

 

A hard Brexit would be very bad for the EU as well as the UK.

 

"Hard Brexit could cost EU economy £100bn by 2020. 

It warned that the Republic of Ireland’s economy was also “particularly exposed”, due to the sizeable role the UK plays in its import and export markets, and the Czech Republic’s GDP could be hit by more than 1%.

Hungary, the Netherlands and Denmark could also see gross output fall by almost 1% if there is no deal, it said."

Source: Supply Management 16/01/22018.

 

Neither May or Corbyn (who was openly anti EU as a Labor backbencher; rather lukewarmly opposed the Brexiters before the referendum and sees a soft Brexit as the best option) will do anything to reverse that or give the people another choice. Even though it's clear opinions have changed somewhat. 

 

The EU are right to keep the door open and hope. It would be for the good of the UK, the EU and Europe as a whole. But sadly the UK politicians don't want that to happen. And once again for their own agendas rather than the good of the country and people.

 

 

[nauseus]

"Our hearts are still open to you." 

 

And your money and market of course!  

[Samui Bodoh]

41 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

The UK is like the 5th largest economy in the world, there should be plenty of countries or trading blocks interested in some sort of deal. The UK may have to give good terms to the likes of the US or China etc. but many others appear interested too as they won't have to go through Brussels (which is notorious for being difficult). The US trade deal with the EU has ground to a halt and it took Canada 7 years to thrash one out with them.

 

I don't think trading partners will be scarce, it's all about the terms of the agreements. Getting fair trade deals will be a challenge for whoever has to finalize them but there should be takers but the takers will know that the UK needs them and that gives them leverage. Could always strengthen ties and deals with Commonwealth countries, might be an option...but haven't read much into that, just an idea. 

Respectfully, that doesn't make a lot of sense... and as always lacks specifics.

 

The UK is the 5th largest economy at the moment, but once out of the EU you should expect that number to drop. Others can perhaps supply a better answer, but I'd question if the UK will still be in the top ten of global economies in ten years time; you cannot leave the largest single market in the world and expect your economy not to be affected, and affected badly. Any experts who can give an educated guess?

 

Assuming a hard Brexit or even a mildly hard one, there is little value doing deals with the UK in regards to the EU. As you have noted, Canada has completed a deal, so all of NAFTA-EU trade can be funneled through Canada. You are correct that making a new deal with the EU is troublesome, but neither the US nor China really need to if they go through Canada (both countries already have strong economic ties with Canada, and both will likely increase in the near future). And as for joining NAFTA, I simply cannot see a good argument for allowing the UK to join; it might be beneficial to the UK, but I don't see the argument from the point of view of the US, Canada or Mexico.

 

Sorry, I quite like the British people, but I do not see a good economic future ahead. If you can stay in the EU, I think you should do so.

 

Toodles

 

Edited January 17, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[Sir Dude]

31 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, that doesn't make a lot of sense... and as always lacks specifics.

 

The UK is the 5th largest economy at the moment, but once out of the EU you should expect that number to drop. Others can perhaps supply a better answer, but I'd question if the UK will still be in the top ten of global economies in ten years time; you cannot leave the largest single market in the world and expect your economy not to be affected, and affected badly. Any experts who can give an educated guess?

 

Assuming a hard Brexit or even a mildly hard one, there is little value doing deals with the UK in regards to the EU. And as you have noted, Canada has completed a deal, so all of NAFTA-EU trade can be funneled through Canada. You are correct that making a new deal with the EU is troublesome, but neither the US nor China really need to if they go through Canada. And as for joining NAFTA, I simply cannot see a good argument for allowing the UK to join; it might be beneficial to the UK, but I don't see the argument from the point of view of the US, Canada or Mexico.

 

Sorry, I quite like the British people, but I do not see a good economic future ahead. If you can stay in the EU, I think you should do so.

 

Toodles

OK...maybe so, some valid points there. I have said a hard brexit would be problematic but it is impossible to see the future with pinpoint clarity. You are correct about the sticking point is an economic one, it's just that with membership of the EU there are so many, often unpalatable, strings attached and tbh the access to trade is their biggest weapon and they sure use it to the hilt. 

 

The UK just wants to trade with the EU by the look of it, but it will have to pay a high price for it as the EU wants its tentacles in every corner of everything. 

 

As for staying in the EU, if the deal that emerges shackles the UK to so much of the EU as is now without any voting rights or power over anything...then yes, agree, keep the status quo. I think my signature quote on my posts sums it up well.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Sir Dude

[ilostmypassword]

19 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, that doesn't make a lot of sense... and as always lacks specifics.

 

The UK is the 5th largest economy at the moment, but once out of the EU you should expect that number to drop. Others can perhaps supply a better answer, but I'd question if the UK will still be in the top ten of global economies in ten years time; you cannot leave the largest single market in the world and expect your economy not to be affected, and affected badly. Any experts who can give an educated guess?

 

Assuming a hard Brexit or even a mildly hard one, there is little value doing deals with the UK in regards to the EU. As you have noted, Canada has completed a deal, so all of NAFTA-EU trade can be funneled through Canada. You are correct that making a new deal with the EU is troublesome, but neither the US nor China really need to if they go through Canada (both countries already have strong economic ties with Canada, and both will likely increase in the near future). And as for joining NAFTA, I simply cannot see a good argument for allowing the UK to join; it might be beneficial to the UK, but I don't see the argument from the point of view of the US, Canada or Mexico.

 

Sorry, I quite like the British people, but I do not see a good economic future ahead. If you can stay in the EU, I think you should do so.

 

Toodles

 

Actually, it's the fifth largest economy on a nominal basis. That means according to the exchange rate. But for most citizens (expats excluded) what's more pertinent is PPP - Purchasing Power Parity. Which is how much you can actually buy with your pound, or euro, or rupee etc.  And on that basis the UK is #9.

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp.php

[dunroaming]

51 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Also, yeah, a hard brexit would also be problematic, true....but people need to make a finite choice. There is, of course, that it could be said that the public were not fully aware of what a hard brexit really means, but you make your bed and all...and it's within the EU's interests to  make an example of the UK so as to deter anyone else from thinking the unthinkable too. So, indeed, it will be a rough ride for many reasons.

 

And there, I think, you have the problem.  In life we do indeed make our beds and have to lay in them.  Some of us make very good beds with hospital corners and feather pillows and some of us make a real pigs ear of it.  Dodgy mattresses with springs sticking through and pink nylon sheets.  That is fine because it's your bed and it only affects you.  But why should I have to lay in your bed?  And vice versa why should you have to lay in mine?  Please don't say "that is democracy" because that is what got us in this mess in the first place.

 

Surely it is better for the decisions for something like this should be made by the bed and mattress manufacturers.  They know how it all works and are qualified and do not need us insisting it is done this way or that.  The way I want my bed is not going to be the same as others want there's.  The way it is now is that I don't want to compromise and neither do they.  The manufacturers can't deliver and in the end, if we are not careful, we will all end up sleeping on the floor.

 

Should there be a definitive second referendum?  I don't know.  If there was then it would have to be made clear that the result would be binding and if it was a tie (let's say less than a 5% margin) then the government would have the casting vote.  At least this time we would have an idea of what Brexit would mean and therefore we would be making a better informed vote.  On the other hand, maybe a meaningful vote after the negotiations have been carried out would be better.  Not on the ludicrous terms that May and Davis proposed of "Go with the negotiations we have agreed or we walk away with no deal".  Surely much better and fairer to say "Go with the negotiations we have agreed or we will scrap Brexit altogether". 

 

I don't think that the UK government can deliver a deal that is going to be good for Britain.  It is OK saying that we will have short term pain but in the long run be better off.  The reality is that we cannot afford short term (whatever that really means) pain or the NHS will probably completely collapse and our education system will continue to suffer.

 

[bartender100]

"EU still open to Britain changing mind on Brexit"

 

I bet they are, countries within the EU are already asking for a good deal for the UK, because they know the implication of us not getting a good deal will have on them.

 

The Dutch and the leaders of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Spain and Ireland have all spoken out publicly to call for the EU not to punish the UK for Brexit.

[watcharacters]

 

 

I thought this was settled.

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

I thought this was settled.

 

 

 

 

Given that the referendum was not legally binding, it isn't absolutely settled. But the politics are such that most likely it is. Unless the proposed terms of Brexit are so unpalatable that enough political pressure is generated to warrant another referendum.

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, bartender100 said:

"EU still open to Britain changing mind on Brexit"

 

I bet they are, countries within the EU are already asking for a good deal for the UK, because they know the implication of us not getting a good deal will have on them.

 

The Dutch and the leaders of Italy, Poland, Hungary, Spain and Ireland have all spoken out publicly to call for the EU not to punish the UK for Brexit.

Yes but it is hard to see the logic in that.  Giving the UK a good deal makes it easier for Brexit to go ahead and that is going to be harmful and expensive for the other EU countries.  Much better for them to keep the pressure on because then the whole Brexit thing may fall apart.

 

The EU have said from day one that they would welcome the UK changing it's mind.  Brexit is bad news for them as well as bad news for Britain.

 

If May had a free hand in this I think there may be an opportunity for her to go back and agree to scrap Brexit in return for some agreeable changes to the rules.  That way both sides come away with a successful result.  However because of her stupid rhetoric she would find that difficult, to say the least.

[RickBradford]

2 hours ago, roderick17 said:

I thought there had been a vote, and the British  people decided to leave!!

"A decision is only a decision if it's the one you want." - Sir Humphrey Appleby, Department of Administrative Affairs.

 

Many of the self-appointed elites inside and outside the UK did not like the democratically taken decision on Brexit and would happily see the vote rerun until they get the answer they want. That's what they did with Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Nice, plus Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty.

 

The EU is not undemocratic; it is anti-democratic.

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

"A decision is only a decision if it's the one you want." - Sir Humphrey Appleby, Department of Administrative Affairs.

 

Many of the self-appointed elites inside and outside the UK did not like the democratically taken decision on Brexit and would happily see the vote rerun until they get the answer they want. That's what they did with Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon and the Treaty of Nice, plus Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty.

 

The EU is not undemocratic; it is anti-democratic.

I can see that argument.  As I said before any second referendum could only be justified because people of both sides were lied to about the consequences of Brexit.  We now know that we all voted based on those lies and unrealistic promises.  It would have to be agreed that any referendum was binding and definitive and with a result with less than a 5% margin then the government would have the deciding vote.

 

I am not calling for a second referendum as I think there should be a deciding vote after the government have finished their attempts of negotiating a good deal.  Then we really will know what Brexit means for the UK and can make an informed choice.

[CG1 Blue]

27 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

If May had a free hand in this I think there may be an opportunity for her to go back and agree to scrap Brexit in return for some agreeable changes to the rules. 

I'd be in favour of this. But in reality the EU won't give the UK any agreeable changes to the rules. David Cameron tried that before the referendum. If the EU had been more accommodating to Cameron I think the UK would have voted to remain.

A lot of the rhetoric coming from the EU and it's members suggest they are sick of the UK getting special treatment, and that if the UK were to 'cancel' Brexit we would be re-joining under different terms, e.g. must switch to the Euro, slashed rebate etc.

 

[maxpower]

3 hours ago, roderick17 said:

I thought there had been a vote, and the British  people decided to leave!!

They did but thousands of the dumb-asses thought it was going to happen the next day.

[dunroaming]

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I'd be in favour of this. But in reality the EU won't give the UK any agreeable changes to the rules. David Cameron tried that before the referendum. If the EU had been more accommodating to Cameron I think the UK would have voted to remain.

A lot of the rhetoric coming from the EU and it's members suggest they are sick of the UK getting special treatment, and that if the UK were to 'cancel' Brexit we would be re-joining under different terms, e.g. must switch to the Euro, slashed rebate etc.

 

Not according to what is being said. By changing our minds Brexit would simply be cancelled, so not a matter of re-joining at all.

 

As for my comments about changes in the EU rules.  I wasn't suggesting special rules for the UK, rather for changes for all EU countries. It would give the EU the chance to tweak some of the regulations that many countries find unpalatable.  We are not in the position that we were in when Cameron came back with a pretty pathetic deal.  We are now much further down the road so there is no comparison.  In fact it could be argued that we are in a stronger position with the threat of Brexit.

 

However I doubt that May will go down that road given her weak position. 

[CG1 Blue]

If the UK government offered a 2nd referendum, what would the options on the voting slip be?

 

Remain/Leave:

a) remain in the EU (under new terms, join the Euro, reduced rebate, EU army commitments etc.) or 

Leave with the EU deal on offer?

 

Leave/Leave:

a) Leave with the EU deal on offer, or 

leave and go to WTO rules?

 

If it's the first scenario, the EU will make sure the deal on the table is as bad as possible.

 

[dunroaming]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If the UK government offered a 2nd referendum, what would the options on the voting slip be?

 

Remain/Leave:

a) remain in the EU (under new terms, join the Euro, reduced rebate, EU army commitments etc.) or 

Leave with the EU deal on offer?

 

Leave/Leave:

a) Leave with the EU deal on offer, or 

leave and go to WTO rules?

 

If it's the first scenario, the EU will make sure the deal on the table is as bad as possible.

 

You continue to just blame the EU for all this.  It was us that said we wanted to leave but still keep all the benefits of staying in.  A bit like I want a divorce but still want to live in the house, drive the car and sleep with my wife without paying my share of the bills. The answer was rather predictable.

 

As for the voting the slips would probably read

 

Remain:

Just scrap Leaving as we are going to be massively worse off if we leave.  No new terms as we won't have left at all.

 

Leave:

Head for the creek but sorry there are no paddles!