UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

I have read the thread. If rally 123 (or anyone else) has stated that there should never be another referendum, quote them. I don't believe they have.

I'm not asking you to care how Brexiteers feel. I'm asking you to address the problem of how it's possible to have a final deal referendum without that referendum completely undermining Britain's negotiating position.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I just don't see the thing as being a zero sum game. Our European friends have formed a club. The bigger the club, the bigger the benefits accruing to all. If we want to leave then leave. The EU don't wish to change their rules just because the UK demands change. Of course they would prefer us to stay and I would prefer to remain and push for change from within.

 

We're not dealing in secondhand cars. 

 

No brexiter has ever been able to explain the huge tangible benefits of leaving to compensate for the major real damage that will and is already occurring.

 

If it takes 6 months to determine if there is a significant majority for leaving, so what? I Promise you the EU would grant a year with no problem. This is a major issue.

[nauseus]

35 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

However I don't think ", The Establishment" (politicians, civil servants, Bank of England, the City, the unions) will allow a no deal Brexit

 

35 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

You have a point. However I don't think ", The Establishment" (politicians, civil servants, Bank of England, the City, the unions) will allow a no deal Brexit. So an extension makes sense and that will inevitably coincide with a General Election fought on Brexit/Remain manifestos. Hopefully the country will see sense.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

We already had a GE post Brexit where the two main parties both accepted leaving the EU in their manifestos - and they got 85% of the total vote between them. Article 50 was triggered after a huge parliamentary majority. But, that's not good enough for some, is it? 

 

An extension of A.50 past the next general election is just another ploy (of so many) to achieve the remain dream of a complete turnover of the 2016 referendum. So, if you think the country is divided now, wait to see how this split looks if these shenanigans go on much longer; especially if they go on past 28th March next year.     

 

 

Top quote extra in error. Sorry about that!

Edited August 11, 2018 by nauseus

[mfd101]

The Ivan Rogers speech is pretty devastating. (1) Brexit is the result of 50 years of anti-European political propaganda based largely on lies, ignorance and delusions of British grandeur (2) Britain will gain nothing real from leaving, just a bit of symbolism if that (3) Britain will lose hugely across the whole of its economy, reinforced by the fact that the levels of transnational integration of modern economies are such that whole industries will grind to a halt (4) there is practically speaking (including legally) almost no halfway house. Either you're in (in which case why leave?) or you're out and you lose 95% of the benefits of your closest market to which you currently sell 65% of all your exports (5) practically all of current discussion in Britain including government papers are based on ignorance of the EU and how 'free trade' systems work, and they refuse to accept the obvious fact that the EU is a sovereign entity obliged under law to defend its sovereignty and it won't weaken it for the sake of British sovereignty.

 

Madness. Sheer bloody madness.

Edited August 11, 2018 by mfd101

[My Thai Life]

An excellent Ivan Rogers speech. Actually he does say this, probably the most optimistic paragraph in his speech:

 

"If the option now exists of the UK aligning itself more permanently regulatorily on goods, and staying in both a Customs Union and having quasi Single Market membership, paying something for it, living under ECJ jurisprudence and jurisdiction in goods, but disapplying the fourth fundamental freedom, free movement of people, the EU faces the decision as to whether this is an unacceptable option sundering indivisible freedoms and offering something too close to membership advantages to a non member. Or whether it’s rather a good deal for the EU with a major strategic partner. With the added advantage of providing far more continuity in the sectors in which you have a surplus with the UK than those in which you have a deficit – notably key services sectors."

 

I'm not an exiter or a remainer. But the idea that exit is going to blight every one's children for ever is just hysteria in my opinion. Particularly as it's far from clear what the future relationship will be will be.

 

 

[mfd101]

4 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

An excellent Ivan Rogers speech. Actually he does say this, probably the most optimistic paragraph in his speech:

 

"If the option now exists of the UK aligning itself more permanently regulatorily on goods, and staying in both a Customs Union and having quasi Single Market membership, paying something for it, living under ECJ jurisprudence and jurisdiction in goods, but disapplying the fourth fundamental freedom, free movement of people, the EU faces the decision as to whether this is an unacceptable option sundering indivisible freedoms and offering something too close to membership advantages to a non member. Or whether it’s rather a good deal for the EU with a major strategic partner. With the added advantage of providing far more continuity in the sectors in which you have a surplus with the UK than those in which you have a deficit – notably key services sectors."

 

I'm not an exiter or a remainer. But the idea that exit is going to blight every one's children for ever is just hysteria in my opinion. Particularly as it's far from clear what the future relationship will be will be.

 

 

Yes, a nice way forward, based on Britain giving up everything the Brexiteers thought they were after (sovereignty).

[My Thai Life]

2 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Yes, a nice way forward, based on Britain giving up everything the Brexiteers thought they were after (sovereignty).

But the quote does suggest ending free movement of people, which I thought was one of the biggest exiter aspirations.

 

[My Thai Life]

As an observer, it seems that the remainers are torturing themselves with completely unrealistic fantasies about how things may magically turn around in their favour. So I guess they are in real pain.

 

The idea that kids' futures will be blighted is not true. The right qualifications will continue to do the trick. As with the NHS, education should be free at the point of use in my opinion, and yes the current situation does disadvantage working class youngsters: we can blame Thatcher and Blair for that (and others I'm sure).

 

 

[rixalex]

I don’t share your alleged concern about a vote on an exit deal.
 
It is not a valid reason to deny such a vote. 
 
As to you not finding any others who do not accept there should be another vote...I can only advise you to read with more care. 
 
 

Remainers of course aren't concerned that a vote on the final deal scuppers any chance Britain has of getting a good deal out of the EU because they don't want that. Thwart, derail, delay and undermine has been the strategy from the start. Calling for another referendum is just more of the same.

They know that such a vote would cripple Britain's negotiating position and so it's hardly surprising they are campaigning for it. Argue against it, with the reasons I've given, and they, like you, simply avoid addressing those problems and resort to slinging accusations of anti-democracy, which is hypocrisy in the extreme.

On your second point, just one quote from one poster who has advocated there never be another referendum is all you need to do to prove you aren't just making a straw man argument.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tomacht8]

5 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

This is a good summary.

 

https://brexitoptions.co.uk/

 

Also Paul Krugman's recent column on Brexit (it was linked here somewhere).

 

A very long but good read is this transcript of a speech by an insider, former UK ambassador to the EU among many other things, Sir Ivan Rogers.  I read it this week and I'll read it again, it's that interesting.  I don't particularly see him taking sides.  He describes the long-term forces that have led to the current situation, and while I suspect he voted remain, he seems quite fatalistic that this was unavoidable.  I agree with you that an in depth look is more interesting than trying to score forum victories over the other side.  That can be fun, but in the end you don't learn anything and it changes no one's position.

 

https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/blog-sir-ivan-rogers-speech-text-in-full/

 

 

 

Sir Ivan Rogers speech is very worth reading. Very factual and reflective.

Thx.

[Stupooey]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes everywhere.

 

Your assumptions are the fantasies. The 1975 vote was for the EEC (common market) and not the political project that is now in plainly evident to all. There was a small group of European sceptics then but this had grown to become 52% of the country by 2016. That the UK is not fully integrated into the EU, Schengen and the Euro is just as well - there were no majorities of any political party pushing for that, except maybe the Lib-Dems. The successive signing of treaties without referenda was bad enough.

 

The "shape" of the EU would not be much different if we had been further absorbed into it. Germany, with France plus their supporting cast of continental allies would have run the show, as they have, anyway. This EU is not what was approved in 1975 and if the British public had not been so deceived, the EEC would have been rejected by them then.  

 

 

You think that my assumptions are fantasies, I think that yours are. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. However, I think that the quote from the Luxembourg PM, quoted in the speech by Sir Ivan Rogers that is doing the rounds, is relevant: "Before they (the British) were in with a lot of opt-outs; now they are out and want a lot of opt-ins". The difference of course is that the opt-outs were controlled by the UK, whereas any opt-ins are under the control of the EU.

[Bluespunk]

33 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Remainers of course aren't concerned that a vote on the final deal scuppers any chance Britain has of getting a good deal out of the EU because they don't want that. Thwart, derail, delay and undermine has been the strategy from the start. Calling for another referendum is just more of the same.

They know that such a vote would cripple Britain's negotiating position and so it's hardly surprising they are campaigning for it. Argue against it, with the reasons I've given, and they, like you, simply avoid addressing those problems and resort to slinging accusations of anti-democracy, which is hypocrisy in the extreme.

On your second point, just one quote from one poster who has advocated there never be another referendum is all you need to do to prove you aren't just making a straw man argument.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

The statements I made on authoritarian and anti democratic tendencies are based on brexiteers statements. 

 

no hypocrisy there. 

 

I see you’ve finally found at least one of the brexiteers arguing against there being another vote.

 

Keep looking there are others. 

 

You've given no reasons why there cannot be another vote on a final brexit deal.

 

You’ve said why you don’t want one, but that’s not enough. 

 

People are entitled to call and campaign for a vote on a final deal. 

 

It’s their democratic right.

 

To deny any such possibility is authoritarianism.  

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Bluespunk

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

You think that my assumptions are fantasies, I think that yours are. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. However, I think that the quote from the Luxembourg PM, quoted in the speech by Sir Ivan Rogers that is doing the rounds, is relevant: "Before they (the British) were in with a lot of opt-outs; now they are out and want a lot of opt-ins". The difference of course is that the opt-outs were controlled by the UK, whereas any opt-ins are under the control of the EU.

I didn't make any assumptions. Luxembourg PM? Oh another Juncker! Very good. Great!

 

OK yes we can agree.. to disagree. 

[Stupooey]

46 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

But the quote does suggest ending free movement of people, which I thought was one of the biggest exiter aspirations.

 

It was, up to and including the referendum date. Then people realised that it made them look like isolationist racists (which many of them are) so it suddenly became all about sovereignty, which as we all know rests with the UK Parliament who, being (mostly) informed, intelligent people, would have voted overwhelmingly to remain.

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The statements I made on authoritarian and anti democratic tendencies are based on brexiteers statements. 

 

no hypocrisy there. 

 

I see you’ve finally found at least one of the brexiteers arguing against there being another vote.

 

Keep looking there are others. 

 

You've given no reasons why there cannot be another vote on a final brexit deal.

 

You’ve said why you don’t want one, but that’s not enough. 

 

People are entitled to call and campaign for a vote on a final deal. 

 

It’s their democratic right.

 

To deny any such possibility is authoritarianism.  

 

I'll let you into a little secret, another vote on the final brexit deal is not up to brexiteers, if another vote was authorised would it be fair to say that it would have to come from the Prime Minister May, and she is a remainer. So to me the question is a lame duck.

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I'll let you into a little secret, another vote on the final brexit deal is not up to brexiteers, if another vote was authorised would it be fair to say that it would have to come from the Prime Minister May, and she is a remainer. So to me the question is a lame duck.

That doesn’t change my points or anything I’ve said. 

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

It was, up to and including the referendum date. Then people realised that it made them look like isolationist racists (which many of them are) so it suddenly became all about sovereignty, which as we all know rests with the UK Parliament who, being (mostly) informed, intelligent people, would have voted overwhelmingly to remain.

There you go again...absolute gash ...and  worse.....disagree completely

[My Thai Life]

7 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

It was, up to and including the referendum date. Then people realised that it made them look like isolationist racists (which many of them are) so it suddenly became all about sovereignty

Hmm you can believe that if you want. Seems like a distortion to me.

 

As for people demanding a 2nd referendum. Obviously you can carry on calling for a 2nd referendum, 3rd , 4th, as many as you want. You can even go to speaker's corner and get on a soapbox and shout about it. No-one in Parliament is going to hear your cries from Thai Visa. If anyone thinks they're in with a chance of a 2nd referendum, tell me what odds you want and I'll open a book (or maybe the bookies have already?). Otherwise it's just hot air.

 

The quote I made from Ivan Rogers' speech is the best deal remainers will get. I'm not sure how likely it is, but Rogers seems to think the UK is sufficienly important as a strategic EU partner to make it a possibility. At the other extreme there is "no deal".

 

[david555]

I think another referendum vote would give same result but slight different as possible 52% remain and 48 % leave so just same deadlock …?. just the U.K. sort it out on themselves....And let E.U . just go on finally their way

Edited August 11, 2018 by david555

[mfd101]

25 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Hmm you can believe that if you want. Seems like a distortion to me.

 

As for people demanding a 2nd referendum. Obviously you can carry on calling for a 2nd referendum, 3rd , 4th, as many as you want. You can even go to speaker's corner and get on a soapbox and shout about it. No-one in Parliament is going to hear your cries from Thai Visa. If anyone thinks they're in with a chance of a 2nd referendum, tell me what odds you want and I'll open a book (or maybe the bookies have already?). Otherwise it's just hot air.

 

The quote I made from Ivan Rogers' speech is the best deal remainers will get. I'm not sure how likely it is, but Rogers seems to think the UK is sufficienly important as a strategic EU partner to make it a possibility. At the other extreme there is "no deal".

 

The quote from Rogers' speech is, as you have pointed out, the nearest he gets to mentioning a doable proposition to be put to the EU. But the point of it is that, for a Brexiter, it represents a LOSS of sovereignty, because - for a hollow gain in symbolism - Britain would lose any actual power to influence EU decisions which would continue to apply across the whole of the British economy and with full rule of ECJ on legal matters.

 

So Rogers' speech actually points to there being now only 2 real doable options: bad (his suggestion, which involves submitting to all relevant EU rules & laws) or disastrous (no deal exit, which will cause incalculable economic damage across the whole of Britain).

Edited August 11, 2018 by mfd101

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

This is a good summary.

 

https://brexitoptions.co.uk/

 

Also Paul Krugman's recent column on Brexit (it was linked here somewhere).

 

A very long but good read is this transcript of a speech by an insider, former UK ambassador to the EU among many other things, Sir Ivan Rogers.  I read it this week and I'll read it again, it's that interesting.  I don't particularly see him taking sides.  He describes the long-term forces that have led to the current situation, and while I suspect he voted remain, he seems quite fatalistic that this was unavoidable.  I agree with you that an in depth look is more interesting than trying to score forum victories over the other side.  That can be fun, but in the end you don't learn anything and it changes no one's position.

 

https://policyscotland.gla.ac.uk/blog-sir-ivan-rogers-speech-text-in-full/

 

 

 

First class

[brewsterbudgen]

The quote from Rogers' speech is, as you have pointed out, the nearest he gets to mentioning a doable proposition to be put to the EU. But the point of it is that, for a Brexiter, it represents a LOSS of sovereignty, because - for a hollow gain in symbolism - Britain would lose any actual power to influence EU decisions which would continue to apply across the whole of the British economy and with full rule of ECJ on legal matters.
 
So Rogers' speech actually points to there being now only 2 real doable options: bad (his suggestion, which involves submitting to all relevant EU rules & laws) or disastrous (no deal exit, which will cause incalculable economic damage across the whole of Britain).

Yes, and what is truly shocking and bordering on being traitorous, is that hard Brexiteers would rather the whole of Britain suffer incalculable economic damage, than admit that Brexit is a badly judged and misconceived idea.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[StreetCowboy]

Let's face it; the real question is not membership of the EU; it is sovereignty.  Should that rest with the government appointed by the crown with the support of parliament, or ad hoc plebiscite referenda driven by social media?  

If I was to offer an opinion on this, I would say "Boaty McBoatface"

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Yes, and what is truly shocking and bordering on being traitorous, is that hard Brexiteers would rather the whole of Britain suffer incalculable economic damage, than admit that Brexit is a badly judged and misconceived idea.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

If you want to accuse anyone with that "traitorous" word, you can start with Heath, who purposely conned the people into believing that there would be "no essential loss of national sovereignty". And then you can continue on with Major and Blair before insulting the 52%. That is what is truly shocking.  

[3NUMBAS]

tony blair and the remainers never give up hoping for another vote ,,buts its been dismissed by No10 many times .it wont happen as it would take too long to do it again and  costs too much

[Grouse]

Enough! We all understand the finer points now. It is clear that the best option is to remain on condition of modification of free movement. Who agrees?

 

Carried!

[pedro01]

On 8/10/2018 at 8:22 AM, sammieuk1 said:

A revote with the facts should be the natural way forward the aspirations of Boris Gove and Faranatang have now been proved useless in a global economy. The EU will at some stage fall apart from its own miss management .After more than two years of constant bickering resignations the DUP propping up a weak inept government all we have to show for it  is fast rising prices and a destroyed pound and a massive bill?

whose facts would those be?

[david555]

20 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Enough! We all understand the finer points now. It is clear that the best option is to remain on condition of modification of free movement. Who agrees?

 

Carried!

Hypothetical solution ….as the  E.U. founding principles policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the internal market

[My Thai Life]

8 hours ago, mfd101 said:

The quote from Rogers' speech is, as you have pointed out, the nearest he gets to mentioning a doable proposition to be put to the EU. But the point of it is that, for a Brexiter, it represents a LOSS of sovereignty, because - for a hollow gain in symbolism - Britain would lose any actual power to influence EU decisions which would continue to apply across the whole of the British economy and with full rule of ECJ on legal matters.

 

I think everyone understands what you are saying, it's been said thousands of times before. But your "a Brexiter" epithet is a gross oversimplification which doesn't really help any discussion.

 

The quote I offered suggests it's possible that the EU will flex on freedom of movement because of the important strategic relationship with the UK: this is Rogers' opinion, not mine.

 

One of the things that comes out clearly in Rogers' speech is that the the EEC/EU is a project of ever closer union. The UK view has always been that it's a Common Market project based on a loose federation of sovereign nation states. These two views are not reconcilable.

 

Politics in general is something that workers feel to be distant and marginalised from. EU politics even more so.

[Bluespunk]

11 hours ago, rixalex said:

Remainers of course aren't concerned that a vote on the final deal scuppers any chance Britain has of getting a good deal out of the EU because they don't want that. Thwart, derail, delay and undermine has been the strategy from the start. Calling for another referendum is just more of the same.

They know that such a vote would cripple Britain's negotiating position and so it's hardly surprising they are campaigning for it. Argue against it, with the reasons I've given, and they, like you, simply avoid addressing those problems and resort to slinging accusations of anti-democracy, which is hypocrisy in the extreme.

On your second point, just one quote from one poster who has advocated there never be another referendum is all you need to do to prove you aren't just making a straw man argument.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

As I misread your post and thought you’d finally admitted posters were clearly denying the possibility of another brexit vote, as way of apology I give you posts 201 and 206. 

 

There are others before them. 

[My Thai Life]

One or two of the remain camp may have received the idea that Ivan Rogers is an apologist for the remain position(s). He is not, as these two quotes from The Guardian 24th May 2018 clearly show.

 

" Rogers hinted there may still be a permanent deal to be done where the UK would drop some of its red lines in exchange for “quasi-single market membership, paying something for it, living under [European court of justice] jurisprudence and jurisdiction in goods, but disapplying the fourth fundamental freedom, free movement of people.” "

 

" Rogers said all current schools of thought on Brexit, including remainers wishing to reverse the referendum result via a new vote, were “fantasies or incoherent and muddled thinking”. "

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/24/uk-stop-blather-face-reality-brexit-trade-ivan-rogers

 

It's old news now, but when he resigned the "BBC revealed he had privately told ministers a UK-EU trade deal might take 10 years to finalise, sparking criticism from some MPs."

 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by My Thai Life