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

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

But a soft Brexit is not Brexit. David Cameron said before the the referendum that it meant leaving the single market, everybody was well informed no matter what remainers believe was said.

Soft Brexit does not deliver on your version of what Brexit is.  And I might very well agree because surely the whole point of Brexit is to regain sovereignty lock, stock, and barrel.  Soft Brexit does not do that.

 

But crucially, prominent Leavers glossed over the single market issue by promising a Free Trade deal equal to that and even better than the single market. There is no getting away from this...

 

 

 

 

[transam]

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No reason there cannot be another vote before brexit.

Just to please remainers like you because you ain't happy........????

 

If it were the other way round you would be here shouting..

 

."No new vote comrades"...????

[smokie36]

323 pages from those who don't even live in the UK....quite remarkable.

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

But it is enactable, either via a free trade deal solution as proposed by Barnier-Tusk and Johnson & co, or via a no deal exit which gets to the global free trade solution faster albeit with more short term pain.

 

The irony is that Labour, by their commitment to vote down any deal, is making a no deal more likely.

 

Chequers doesn't deliver on the referendum and neither does the EEA option.

 

Futher referendums, revoking A50, and the like are pie in the sky.

 

 

'The irony is that Labour, by their commitment to vote down any deal, is making a no deal more likely.'

 

You're surely not laying this fiasco at Labour's door.  It's the opposition's duty to hold the Government to account.

 

I'm not sure all of Labour will vote the deal down.

[tebee]

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

But it is enactable, either via a free trade deal solution as proposed by Barnier-Tusk and Johnson & co, or via a no deal exit which gets to the global free trade solution faster albeit with more short term pain.

 

The irony is that Labour, by their commitment to vote down any deal, is making a no deal more likely.

 

Chequers doesn't deliver on the referendum and neither does the EEA option.

 

Futher referendums, revoking A50, and the like are pie in the sky.

 

 

The referendum vote was a simple in-out vote - nowhere was it defined how we leave.

 

The current impasse is derived from TM's red lines which nobody voted for.

 

If you insist that people voted only for FTA or no deal options  you are insisting that people voted for the destruction of the British car industry and the loss of up to one million jobs - do you really believe that ?  

[tebee]

3 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

323 pages from those who don't even live in the UK....quite remarkable.

Those of us who are British are in this sh1t together, even if we don't live in the UK. 

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, tebee said:

but if the first vote isn't enactable in any form that was envisioned then what can we do?

 

Go back to the original referendum vote - which was to leave.

 

There was no 'hard/soft' brexit option on the ballot paper, just leave - yes or no - and the result was 'yes - leave', as already pointed out in my previous post:-

 

22 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

The question on the ballot paper was 'Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU', and the options were very simple - remain or leave.

 

The unexpected result was 'leave', which IS "deliverable" - just not the preferred option of many, particularly politicians and the eu who then came up with 'soft brexit'/'hard brexit'.

 

I do agree that the electorate expected the uk and eu to negotiate sensibly and agree a reasonable (for both sides) trade agreement, which hasn't happened yet as the uk (for some obscure reason....) allowed this to be the last item on the agenda ????.

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

18 minutes ago, vogie said:

But a soft Brexit is not Brexit. David Cameron said before the the referendum that it meant leaving the single market, everybody was well informed no matter what remainers believe was said.

David Cameron said that. Other said something differently. The ballot paper didn’t mention any specifically at all. And, technically, leaving the EU is something completely different than any future relationships. 

 

So what does “respecting the referendum result” actually mean when everyone had a different understanding about what he’s voting for or against? 

[transam]

6 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

323 pages from those who don't even live in the UK....quite remarkable.

Why is it remarkable in your opinion...?

[welovesundaysatspace]

22 minutes ago, vogie said:

But a soft Brexit is not Brexit. David Cameron said before the the referendum that it meant leaving the single market, everybody was well informed no matter what remainers believe was said.

David Cameron said that. Others said something differently. The ballot paper didn’t mention any specifics at all. And, technically, leaving the EU is something completely different than any future relationships; you can very well leave the EU (which will happen anyway) and then strike a deal to stay in the single market with its four freedoms. 

 

So what does “respecting the referendum result” actually mean when everyone had a different understanding about what he’s voting for or against? 

Edited October 15, 2018 by welovesundaysatspace

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

Where exactly did he say this and was it official policy - I remember one of the major criticisms of the referendum being that the type of Brexit was undefined, allowing supporters to claim the freedoms of a hard  brexit with the economics of a soft one. 

He said it on the Andrew Marr show.

 

David Cameron confirmed Sunday that he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the European Union at the upcoming referendum.

The prime minister told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show that it would be impossible to copy the Norwegian model by remaining inside the trading bloc despite being outside the EU because that would mean accepting freedom of movement and trade rules made in Brussels.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Go back to the original referendum vote - which was to leave.

 

There was no 'hard/soft' brexit option on the ballot paper, just leave - yes or no - and the result was 'yes - leave', as already pointed out in my previous post:-

 

 

 

 

But no one - with the exception of a few nut jobs - thought  they were voting for the chaos of a no deal, no transition brexit.

 

The only thing that is forcing us into this situation is the red lines  - nobody voted for those either 

.

Therefore if you insist the referendum result must be respected, you should insist that the red lines are abandoned  so a brexit deal can be reached.

[vogie]

15 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

323 pages from those who don't even live in the UK....quite remarkable.

In all fairness Ronnie, I think that the majority are Brits, but I can understand why some of our European friends would be peeved to see us leave. ????????

But a lot of us still have ties in the UK and may want to return some day.

Edited October 15, 2018 by vogie

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, transam said:

So why don't we have another vote if YOU don't like the party voted in Government..?

The present Government is ruling with bought Irish votes.. With your stance on voting then there should have been a second general election, well shouldn't there...?

I don't quite understand your logic

 

GEs happen after a set period, or after a vote of no confidence. How can I influence that?

 

If you are referring to the EU referendum, it was a farce and has resulted in a pantomime. It is clearly moronic to lose what we have in return for intangible and unceasingly unlikely benefits.

 

I think a people's vote will enable parliament to overturn a moronic decision by the people.

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Go back to the original referendum vote - which was to leave.

 

There was no 'hard/soft' brexit option on the ballot paper, just leave - yes or no - and the result was 'yes - leave', as already pointed out in my previous post:-

So who’s deciding what was on the ballot paper and how people were supposed to interpret it? You? The Brexit campaign? Boris? Is that really how we “respect” democracy? 

[dick dasterdly]

22 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

A second referendum on Brexit is pointless since it would also be indeterminate in that it would merely be 1-1 if Remain won... best of 3, 5, 7?.  I'm happy to sit with the UK's decision to Leave as being a genuine expression of what people want.

 

Yet we are left with something that is in fact undeliverable because of the pie in the sky promises under which Leave was secured.  Brexit must be shelved.  That's what happens when things go wrong in our own lives, in business, in just about anything where real life shows us it is not possible or nonsensical to continue.

Your first and second paras. are contradictory.

 

Virtually all politicians and msm insisted that a leave result would be immediately catastrophic.  Their 'pie in the sky promises' were far worse than the leave campaign's.  Osborne's promised 'punishment budget' springs to mind - and quite possibly resulted in a few getting annoyed enough at this type of propaganda to result in them voting leave, even if they'd been unsure previously....

 

The electorate (correctly) didn't believe them, and voted accordingly.

[My Thai Life]

18 minutes ago, tebee said:

The referendum vote was a simple in-out vote - nowhere was it defined how we leave.

 

The current impasse is derived from TM's red lines which nobody voted for.

 

If you insist that people voted only for FTA or no deal options  you are insisting that people voted for the destruction of the British car industry and the loss of up to one million jobs - do you really believe that ?  

> Yes a simple in-out vote, out providing control of money, borders, laws and trade.

 

> I certainly agree that May has created a mess; I think she was possibly trying to appease remainers, but there are many theories on her position. I haven't kept a list of her red lines, but the ones that get referred to frequently are consistent with the leave vote: just a shame that she has reneged on several of them. It's not her red lines that have made the mess, it's her reneging on them.

 

> FTA is a key outcome of the leave vote. You are catastrophising again, the British car industry will not be destroyed. Interesting to note that the British car industry was the 2nd largest in the world in the 1950s.

Edited October 15, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"However, the referendum was not binding, regardless of any verbal assurances. I can post the original act if like?"

 

And yet the govt. told the electorate that they would 'enact the referendum result' (or words to that effect).

 

I'm sure another poster can post the relevant part of the govt.'s leaflet - send to every household - if you like?

 

Seems a bit pointless though, as we've had this discussion on the forum many times already....

 

 

Show me something legally binding

 

Did you trust something written by a politician?

[mommysboy]

37 minutes ago, vogie said:

He said it on the Andrew Marr show.

 

David Cameron confirmed Sunday that he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the European Union at the upcoming referendum.

The prime minister told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show that it would be impossible to copy the Norwegian model by remaining inside the trading bloc despite being outside the EU because that would mean accepting freedom of movement and trade rules made in Brussels.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

 

So, he didn't actually say what you said he'd said. You need to be accurate when quoting.

 

To counter concerns over single market access, prominent leavers promised a Free Trade Deal the equal and indeed better of what we already had.

 

Moreover, a Free Trade Deal was sought, and only recently did it become downgraded to an FTA.  I remember posters on this forum who may now argue that it is simple in or out, being the most vocal on just how a Free Trade Deal was inevitable.  It was so central to negotiations that the EU used the idiom ' to have your cake and eat it too'.

 

Where is that Free Trade Deal?  Quite rightly people are angry.

Edited October 15, 2018 by mommysboy

[nauseus]

9 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

BREXIT could be over before Christmas. A number of crowdfunded cases pending may block it. A number of Expats in Europe were denied voting in the referendum (3 million in total). This case is going on before the European Court of Justice as the UK broke European Law by denying their rights under European Law that applies to all EU citizens. Another case going before the UK Supreme Court is the UK Government acted in contempt of court over Miller Article 50 case. Article 50 is in 3 parts. Article 50 (1) is the discussion in Parliament and voting to leave (this was not done). Article 50 (2) the Notice of Withdrawal to the EU. This was voted on and passed, but it is Invalid because Article 50 (1) has not been carried out. Article 50 (3) is the UK leaves on the 29 March 2019 with or without a deal only if Article 50 (1) & (2) have been met. Of course, the BrexMoaners won't like this. A Democracy is not a Democracy unless people have a right to change their minds. As many now have done. If the court cases are won then the Referendum will have to be run again and include those who were denied their legal rights. Plus the many new young voters who want to remain in support of their own future. Remainers are not moaning their working hard using real legal Democracy to get the country back to common sense. If Brexiteers think 23 July 2016 can't be changed, then neither can the original Referendum vote of 1975 be change. Thus making the current episode again invalid.

 

What gash! Article 50 mentions nothing about Parliamentary "discussions" and your claims about mind-changing are assumptions. With the 2015 Referendum Act Parliament gave legality to the referendum.

 

By the way the referendum was on 24th JUNE 2016. Remoaners have been constantly moaning since then.

 

 

[billd766]

24 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

323 pages from those who don't even live in the UK....quite remarkable.

Many of the posters are not even British.

[transam]

11 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I don't quite understand your logic

 

GEs happen after a set period, or after a vote of no confidence. How can I influence that?

 

If you are referring to the EU referendum, it was a farce and has resulted in a pantomime. It is clearly moronic to lose what we have in return for intangible and unceasingly unlikely benefits.

 

I think a people's vote will enable parliament to overturn a moronic decision by the people.

Do you not realise there WAS a peoples vote.....????

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

Profiteers don't seem to know or probably dont even care about the cultural benefits of EU mmembership.

Britain will be a "cultural jail" as a result of Brexit.....

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-orchestra/brexit-drives-eu-youth-orchestra-from-london-to-italy-idUSKBN1CG1MK

 

Pathetic! Why not just have a totally inclusive European Youth Orchestra and pull the damn politics out of culture, at least? 

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Do you not realise there WAS a peoples vote.....????

Of course there was. Do you think that over two years on, with what we have all learnt since, the same result would occur?

 

I think if a deal was done to limit free movement of labour there would be a super majority to stay would result. But you know that really, don't you.

[My Thai Life]

34 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Soft Brexit does not deliver on your version of what Brexit is.  And I might very well agree because surely the whole point of Brexit is to regain sovereignty lock, stock, and barrel.  Soft Brexit does not do that.

 

But crucially, prominent Leavers glossed over the single market issue by promising a Free Trade deal equal to that and even better than the single market. There is no getting away from this...

I agree with your first paragraph completely.

 

But the second para I'm not so sure about. A zero tariff zero quota FTA as proposed by Tusk satisfies the leave vote, and it satisfies prominent Brexiters. If one of them had been in charge we'd be well on the way by now.

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

History is an anathema to most Brexiteers......

We need to learn from history..... not WW 1 or  2 or even a simplistic view of English history.
We should be looking at the last big threat to a union and how they dealt with it.
That would be the American Civil war ... In which a small minority tried to leave the U.S. union and were brought back in line by the majority.

 

Take a look at Tory history too.....

 

 

 

This poster is not entirely factual.

 

From left to right:

 

1. Intensely - no.

2. Applied - yes.

3. Negotiated with the EEC - Charlemagne Prize - lied through his teeth to the electorate.

4. SM yes. EU superstate with single currency and ECB/ECJ... NO NO NO! She saw the light too late!

5. Yuk!

[transam]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Of course there was. Do you think that over two years on, with what we have all learnt since, the same result would occur?

 

I think if a deal was done to limit free movement of labour there would be a super majority to stay would result. But you know that really, don't you.

Stop clutching at straws......????

[aright]

6 hours ago, tebee said:

I would alternatively suggest that, having a second vote because what was promised in the first vote is not deliverable, is instead the epiphany of what democracy should be.

Why would anyone want to use a democratic vote to stay in an undemocratic Union?

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Your first and second paras. are contradictory.

 

Virtually all politicians and msm insisted that a leave result would be immediately catastrophic.  Their 'pie in the sky promises' were far worse than the leave campaign's.  Osborne's promised 'punishment budget' springs to mind - and quite possibly resulted in a few getting annoyed enough at this type of propaganda to result in them voting leave, even if they'd been unsure previously....

 

The electorate (correctly) didn't believe them, and voted accordingly.

 

Two wrongs never made a right.  I hold passionate Remainers equally in error. Lies were made on both sides. We can't sit down and cancel out the whoppers on both sides and conclude everything is ok.  But the lies of Leave side are rather more salient, since they won.

 

There is nothing contradictory in my posting.  I am saying UK wanted to leave but central to that desire was a Free Trade Deal.  The heart said Leave (very important that), but the head said Free Trade deal.  There is no burger without either the bun or the meat.

 

I am saying a second referendum won by Remain can not possibly deliver a final resolution.  This should be obvious to everyone, since it neither cancels out the validity of the first, or deals with the problem at hand.

 

lastly I am saying when in fact something is undeliverable, then the deal also ceases.  This is a fundamental concept in law, which operates formally or otherwise in every transaction we make.  It operates in the playground when we were kids swapping bubble gum cards, and will happen today in some boardroom.

 

 

[whatsupdoc]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Pathetic! Why not just have a totally inclusive European Youth Orchestra and pull the damn politics out of culture, at least? 

The article says the orchestra relies on EU funding. Only fair it is based in an EU country, not the UK.