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

[My Thai Life]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But it isn't about the complexity of the services. It's about who will be providing them. Clearly the EU plans to restrict the the access of UK financial firms to the European market. Which is why I am calling your invocation of "range, scope, and complexity" persiflage.

It's not quite as simple as that, as we will see when the final agreements are made.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

It's not quite as simple as that, as we will see when the final agreements are made.

More evasion. No specifics.

[SABloke]

On 8/10/2018 at 10:21 AM, Bluespunk said:

It’s quite simple. 

 

People should have the right to vote on any final brexit deal. 

But what would be the point? Say there are two "deals" put forward by the government and the people vote for "Deal A" - the government takes "Deal A" to the EU and the EU doesn't agree with "Deal A". So the people's wishes don't matter because the UK can't twist the EU's arm by saying, "You have to take this deal because the people chose it". Additionally, you've just wasted millions of  Pounds on a referendum for no reason at all.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, SABloke said:

But what would be the point? Say there are two "deals" put forward by the government and the people vote for "Deal A" - the government takes "Deal A" to the EU and the EU doesn't agree with "Deal A". So the people's wishes don't matter because the UK can't twist the EU's arm by saying, "You have to take this deal because the people chose it". Additionally, you've just wasted millions of  Pounds on a referendum for no reason at all.

The referendum would be on the deal that the UK government arrives at with the EU. Not the deal that the UK government proposes to take to the EU.

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, SABloke said:

But what would be the point? Say there are two "deals" put forward by the government and the people vote for "Deal A" - the government takes "Deal A" to the EU and the EU doesn't agree with "Deal A". So the people's wishes don't matter because the UK can't twist the EU's arm by saying, "You have to take this deal because the people chose it". Additionally, you've just wasted millions of  Pounds on a referendum for no reason at all.

Don’t put forward two deals.

 

Put it forward one final negotiated deal.

 

Problem solved.

 

Plus, I would include a don’t leave option. 

[My Thai Life]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

More evasion. No specifics

BBoy, it's not evasion at all. It's recognising that, with all my years in the Financial Services sector - in the City and internationally - this issue is too complex for one liners, or even one paragraphers.

 

And that is the main reason we have seen no detailed analysis of FS in the whole referendum debate (as I said a few posts ago).

 

You may remember that it was Cameron's discussions with his EU peers about the EU's intention to introduce additional taxes on FS that was one of the key factors in starting this whole sorry fiasco.

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

BBoy, it's not evasion at all. It's recognising that, with all my years in the Financial Services sector - in the City and internationally - this issue is too complex for one liners, or even one paragraphers.

 

And that is the main reason we have seen no detailed analysis of FS in the whole referendum debate (as I said a few posts ago).

 

You may remember that it was Cameron's discussions with his EU peers about the EU's intention to introduce additional taxes on FS that was one of the key factors in starting this whole sorry fiasco.

 

 

 

I have read no person whose authority on the subject is provable who says the EU restrictions on the financial firms of the UK won't impose some loss on them. But of course, these are people whose life and bona fides are independently verifiable. So there you have the advantage of them.

[My Thai Life]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I have read no person whose authority on the subject is provable who says the EU restrictions on the financial firms of the UK won't impose some loss on them

Including me.

 

And of course, the UK FS sector will be imposing losses on the EU.

 

The precise nature of each is completely impossible to predict until we know the shape of the final outcome. And that's why the experts in the field have not made any simplistic predictions.

[Mattd]

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Don’t put forward two deals.

 

Put it forward one final negotiated deal.

 

Problem solved.

 

Plus, I would include a don’t leave option. 

The issue is that this just cannot possibly work unless the vote was a yes, which makes it an expensive non event.

The UK and EU finally agree on a deal and then the UK people say no, then what happens?

Yes, theoretically the UK has until 2020 to change its mind about Brexit, if that did happen, then imagine the fallout long term, as this would put the EU in an impregnable position, meaning that the UK would get reamed financially for years and years, what can we do, threaten to leave again?

Ain't no winners.

[whatsupdoc]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The referendum would be on the deal that the UK government arrives at with the EU. Not the deal that the UK government proposes to take to the EU.

I think a "blind Brexit" is quite likely. In that case it would still take a long time before it is clear what type of deal is achievable.

And it would be rather strange to have a referendum with a vote about "a deal that might be struck with the EU but we have no clue what it entails."

[Jip99]

8 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

 it would be rather strange to have a referendum with a vote about "a deal that might be struck with the EU but we have no clue what it entails."

 

 

Indeed.............we already had one.

 

 

The referendum question was 'remain or leave'............. simple as that.

 

The vote was to leave, it was unconditional.

 

 

To be fair we could probably have expected a lot better from our politicians - and the EU - in framing the basis of that exit.

[My Thai Life]

11 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

I think a "blind Brexit" is quite likely. In that case it would still take a long time before it is clear what type of deal is achievable.

I agree, and by the way, your English is excellent whether as a native English speaker or not. Puts most of us Brits to shame!

[Bluespunk]

11 minutes ago, Mattd said:

The issue is that this just cannot possibly work unless the vote was a yes, which makes it an expensive non event.

The UK and EU finally agree on a deal and then the UK people say no, then what happens?

Yes, theoretically the UK has until 2020 to change its mind about Brexit, if that did happen, then imagine the fallout long term, as this would put the EU in an impregnable position, meaning that the UK would get reamed financially for years and years, what can we do, threaten to leave again?

Ain't no winners.

That doesn’t change my belief that to say there cannot be another vote is authoritarian and against democratic values. 

[whatsupdoc]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That doesn’t change my belief that to say there cannot be another vote is authoritarian and against democratic values. 

I agree with you on that. But I think a new referendum is more likely to be about rejoining the EU.

Rushing to a new referendum now is, in my opinion, not practical and very divisive.

[My Thai Life]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

That doesn’t change my belief that to say there cannot be another vote is authoritarian and against democratic values. 

You are right in principle I guess. But in practical terms, a 2nd referendum before the 1st has been acted upon is some kind of legal quagmire isn't it? And then of course others could shout for a 3rd, 4th, ad infinitum. Goodbye representative democracy.

 

However, we do have this as an EU precedent (from The Guardian)

 

"In June this year, 53.4% of Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty, against 46.6% who supported it (giving the "No" camp a "sweeping victory" similar to Obama's). Yet now the Irish will be asked to vote again. EU officials' behind-doors deal to force a second referendum in Ireland reveals their utter contempt for Irish voters, and for democracy itself. It is an historic sucker punch against the sovereignty of the people."

 

 

 

[anon537687643]

There is no justification at all for another referendum that says remaining exactly under same conditions ,it ain’t gonna happen. The fact that formulating any question(s) that is acceptable to all is impossible, proves the pathetic argument of the losers in 2016. UK voters aren’t going to be played like other nations who are told by politicians to keep voting until we get the result the failing EU want !!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

[rixalex]

That doesn’t change my belief that to say there cannot be another vote is authoritarian and against democratic values. 

It's not a case of that there can't be another referendum, it's that there are good reasons why another referendum so soon would cause more problems than it solves. Problems that you refuse to face, address or reply to, in your blinkered desire to overturn the 2016 vote, as you instead perversely lecture on democratic values.

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

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

You are right in principle I guess. But in practical terms, a 2nd referendum before the 1st has been acted upon is some kind of legal quagmire isn't it? And then of course others could shout for a 3rd, 4th, ad infinitum. Goodbye representative democracy.

 

However, we do have this as an EU precedent (from The Guardian)

 

"In June this year, 53.4% of Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty, against 46.6% who supported it (giving the "No" camp a "sweeping victory" similar to Obama's). Yet now the Irish will be asked to vote again. EU officials' behind-doors deal to force a second referendum in Ireland reveals their utter contempt for Irish voters, and for democracy itself. It is an historic sucker punch against the sovereignty of the people."

 

 

 

I disagree with that quote. 

 

Contempt for me is denying the right to a vote on any final exit deal. 

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, rixalex said:

It's not a case of that there can't be another referendum, it's that there are good reasons why another referendum so soon would cause more problems than it solves. Problems that you refuse to face, address or reply to, in your blinkered desire to overturn the 2016 vote, as you instead perversely lecture on democratic values.

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

I’m not blinkered. 

 

I just do not accept your premise for denying a vote on any final exit deal. 

[Mattd]

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m not blinkered. 

 

I just do not accept your premise for denying a vote on any final exit deal. 

You are missing the point completely IMO.

A vote for any final exit deal is useless, what could it possibly achieve and should there be another one if the result doesn't suit everybody?

Nobody is against the democratic process and that process has happened and will continue to do so, in 2016 there was a referendum and the result was Brexit, the following year there was a general election where the voters had their chance to elect a different government, the voters at some point have to accept the result and let the elected government negotiate on their behalf, that is what they are elected for, the general public cannot keep intervening.

The majority of the public would not know if any deal was a good deal or a bad deal, they will listen to what they are told and a good percentage won't understand in all honesty.

The reality of it all is that the complexity of the issue is beyond many of us, the UK and the EU are so intertwined it is untrue.

 

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, Mattd said:

You are missing the point completely IMO.

A vote for any final exit deal is useless, what could it possibly achieve and should there be another one if the result doesn't suit everybody?

Nobody is against the democratic process and that process has happened and will continue to do so, in 2016 there was a referendum and the result was Brexit, the following year there was a general election where the voters had their chance to elect a different government, the voters at some point have to accept the result and let the elected government negotiate on their behalf, that is what they are elected for, the general public cannot keep intervening.

The majority of the public would not know if any deal was a good deal or a bad deal, they will listen to what they are told and a good percentage won't understand in all honesty.

The reality of it all is that the complexity of the issue is beyond many of us, the UK and the EU are so intertwined it is untrue.

 

I have more faith than you in people understanding the issues and being allowed a vote on any exit deall

 

Even if I didn’t, I still would believe that the population should have the final say. 

 

After all, they were considered able enough to vote in the initial brexit referendum. 

[Mattd]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I have more faith than you in people understanding the issues and being allowed a vote on any exit deall

 

Even if I didn’t, I still would believe that the population should have the final say. 

I'm glad you have that faith ? Personally I honestly do not believe that ordinary people (and I include myself) can possibly PROPERLY comprehend the complexity of any deal no matter how simplified it can be made.

What is the final population going to have the say about?

It could even make things a lot worse.

 

At the end of the day the population cannot keep on wanting a say in between general elections, yes, I 100% agree that this is a very important issue, perhaps the most, but that was made very clear in the referendum and the vote was for leaving, like it or hate it doesn't change that fact and interfering can only make things worse.

 

I would almost guarantee the last thing that either party wants is a no deal exit.

[dick dasterdly]

21 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

But on lies from BOTH sides.

 

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

I am not in favour of referendums, but don't you think Bill that that would be a fairly good reason to ask the question again.

If the uk govt. agreed to another referendum, do you honestly think the lying and scaremongering wouldn't happen next time round??

 

IMO it would be FAR, FAR worse ☹️!

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

If the uk govt. agreed to another referendum, do you honestly think the lying and scaremongering wouldn't happen next time round??

 

IMO it would be FAR, FAR worse ☹️!

Except the scariest thing this time around would be not possible nightmarish futures but the past actual and nightmarish performance of the Conservative government.

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, Mattd said:

I'm glad you have that faith ? Personally I honestly do not believe that ordinary people (and I include myself) can possibly PROPERLY comprehend the complexity of any deal no matter how simplified it can be made.

What is the final population going to have the say about?

It could even make things a lot worse.

 

At the end of the day the population cannot keep on wanting a say in between general elections, yes, I 100% agree that this is a very important issue, perhaps the most, but that was made very clear in the referendum and the vote was for leaving, like it or hate it doesn't change that fact and interfering can only make things worse.

 

I would almost guarantee the last thing that either party wants is a no deal exit.

I do not accept that there cannot be another vote.

 

Nor do I believe the result of the brexit vote cannot be reversed. 

[Mattd]

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

I do not accept that there cannot be another vote.

 

Nor do I believe the result of the brexit vote cannot be reversed. 

Nobody is saying that there CANNOT be another vote, what is being said is what would be the point of another vote.

Of course the result of the referendum could be reversed, it may for legal reasons, require another referendum, as of right now, I do not think that will not happen for many many reasons, i.e. no party wants to commit political suicide, remaining could put the UK in an even worse financial position that exiting now, etc. etc. etc.

 

As I said, I don't see any poster on here that is anti democracy, just realists that understand that the line has to be drawn on the population wanting a referendum for every issue.

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, Mattd said:

Nobody is saying that there CANNOT be another vote, what is being said is what would be the point of another vote.

Of course the result of the referendum could be reversed, it may for legal reasons, require another referendum, as of right now, I do not think that will not happen for many many reasons, i.e. no party wants to commit political suicide, remaining could put the UK in an even worse financial position that exiting now, etc. etc. etc.

 

As I said, I don't see any poster on here that is anti democracy, just realists that understand that the line has to be drawn on the population wanting a referendum for every issue.

There are a number who have said that brexit is done and that’s the end of it. 

 

That is anti democratic, authoritarian thinking. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

14 minutes ago, Mattd said:

I do not think that will not happen for many many reasons

That applies to everything we discuss here, regarding any topic. We will always only be the ones sharing our personal views, regardless what the people in charge will actually do. That cannot be an argument; it could only be an argument for closing this discussion board (and any type of discussion) altogether. 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

There are a number who have said that brexit is done and that’s the end of it. 

 

That is anti democratic, authoritarian thinking. 

Not at all.

 

I'm pretty sure those supporting brexit have not said that there can NEVER be another referendum on the issue, just that the the recent referendum result should be implemented (as per the govt. leaflet sent to every household prior to the vote).

 

Once genuine brexit has happened, of course remainers will have the same opportunity to campaign to re-join the eu - as leavers had previously campaigning to leave the eu.

[Mattd]

 

8 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

That applies to everything we discuss here, regarding any topic. We will always only be the ones sharing our personal views, regardless what the people in charge will actually do. That cannot be an argument; it could only be an argument for closing this discussion board (and any type of discussion) altogether. 

Actually, when I reread what I wrote then I made no sense, what it should have said is 'I do not think that will happen' ?