Business figures call for vote on Brexit terms: Sunday Times

 

An anti-Brexit demonstrator waves flags outside the Houses of Parliament, in London, Britain, September 10, 2018. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

 

LONDON (Reuters) - More than 70 business figures are calling for a public vote on the final terms of Britain's exit from the European Union, warning that the country faces "either a blindfold or a destructive hard Brexit", the Sunday Times reported.

 

Firms are increasingly worried about the prospect of Britain leaving the world's biggest trading bloc in March without an agreement, or that politicians will sign up to a deal that limits companies' access to the continent's markets.

 

A new group called "Business for a People’s Vote", which includes Justin King, former boss of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain, and John Neill, head of the car parts supplier Unipart, is to be launched as campaigners raise the pressure on politicians.

 

London and Brussels hope to conclude a deal this month, but in a letter, the business figures warn of potential negative consequences.

 

"We are now facing either a blindfold or a destructive hard Brexit. Both these options will further depress investment," the Sunday Times quoted the letter as saying.

 

"They will be bad for business and bad for working people. Given that neither was on the ballot in 2016, we believe the ultimate choice should be handed back to the public with a People’s Vote."

 

Britain's Brexit ministry said it was confident of securing a deal that works for businesses and reiterated the government's opposition to a second referendum.

 

"The people of the United Kingdom have already had their say in one of the biggest democratic exercises this country has ever seen and the prime minister has made it clear that there is not going to be a second referendum," said a spokesman.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-11-04

Given the lack of consensus for the largest public policy decision of the last 50+ years, a final vote on whatever deal is finally struck seems to be a good idea; proceeding with a deal that doesn't have public scrutiny, consent and 'buy-in' will only lead to bitterness, recriminations and division.

 

That said, I doubt that it'll happen.

 

Sorry UK, I strongly suspect that you are really, really not going to like the next twenty years or so...

 

 

3 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Given the lack of consensus for the largest public policy decision of the last 50+ years, a final vote on whatever deal is finally struck seems to be a good idea; proceeding with a deal that doesn't have public scrutiny, consent and 'buy-in' will only lead to bitterness, recriminations and division.

 

That said, I doubt that it'll happen.

 

Sorry UK, I strongly suspect that you are really, really not going to like the next twenty years or so...

 

 

I couldn't agree more. Without a clear consensus, regardless of what happens one side will be unhappy and will blame the other side for anything bad that happens.Most of as older folks will never see the end of this. 

  In a way I am ambivalent about this IMO if the UK leaves  without a clear consensus it will be bad for my british friends, but if they remain it will be bad for the EU as they will block or try to block the necessary reforms of closer integration  needed for the EU to go forward.

As I have said before, Putin must be laughing his head off.

 

Whatever happens, I am sure the UK politicians will continue to blame the EU.

Maybe it's best that they get the hardest Brexit possible, just crash out.

And then, and maybe only then, some will realize what a stupid idea that was.

And maybe in a decade or two they will reapply for EU membership - obviously without all those special agreements.

Good luck! You will need it.

 

It would be preferable if the people who voted "out" were let down gently.

 

However the damage to the social fabric of the UK has already been done by "Camerons Folly" and is not likely to be made any worse by a reversal of the "commitment" to leave.........50% of the voters will be pissed off either way.

 

It only remains to make a decision with regard to what is economically prudent.

 

The fundamentally bourgeois nature of the British State dictates what that decision will ultimately be.

 

It is just, as it always has been, a question of "presentation".

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 20187 yr by Enoon

Let’s ignore for a moment that referendums in the U.K. are non-binding and advisory only, whatever Cameron and his government told people before:

 

If anything, the U.K. government only got a mandate to leave the EU. They never got a mandate for any specific terms of a deal regarding future relationships between the U.K. and the EU. So, generally, the government could agree on whatever it wants with the EU, anything from Norway to Canada to no deal at all, as long as the EU membership ends. 

 

Thus, a vote on such deal would be the only logical thing to do given that the U.K. let people vote on the leave-part as well. Everything else would be half-finished business. 

Edited November 4, 20187 yr by welovesundaysatspace

NO,No<no -Jacob Rees-Mogg has a plan we shall build gunboats and the like re-introduce the Lee Enfeild rifle put all unemployed in the Army?navy and bang next thing you know Empire 2.

You can't have the pie and eat it too????

2 hours ago, Enoon said:

It only remains to make a decision with regard to what is economically prudent.

And how much did the economy have to do with the decision of many people that they want to leave?

I am not from the UK but I got the impression that was a lot about immigration and very little about economy.

Somehow the average people thought they can make sure England is only for proper white English people and not for all those others. And that is why many voted for Brexit.

And now it's all about the economy. And then there is of course the questions where all those nurses should come from.

By now everybody should know how bad Brexit will be. It's only a question of bad or worse. But many people still want Brexit. Amazing!

20 minutes ago, Xonax said:

You can't have the pie and eat it too????

It seems 52% don't understand this. It shouldn't be that complicated...

4 hours ago, sirineou said:

I couldn't agree more. Without a clear consensus, regardless of what happens one side will be unhappy and will blame the other side for anything bad that happens.Most of as older folks will never see the end of this. 

  In a way I am ambivalent about this IMO if the UK leaves  without a clear consensus it will be bad for my british friends, but if they remain it will be bad for the EU as they will block or try to block the necessary reforms of closer integration  needed for the EU to go forward.

 As I have said before, Putin must be laughing his head off.

 

If UK is now deciding to stay at the EU's customs union, that would probably be the only win-win solution in this case. 

 

UK's Brexiters get it's independence, UK will also be able to keep it's businesses. 

 

EU on the otherhand is able to do the reforms, like you said, and improve integration to deal with the immigration etc. issues. 

 

As non-EU member, the will be flow of skilled and unskilled workers from UK towards EU, which is a good thing for both sides as well.

 

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

They will be bad for business and bad for working people.

Ha ha bleeding ha.......the very thought that "business" worries about the futures of the "working people" is utterly absurd....a world-class con job.

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

If UK is now deciding to stay at the EU's customs union, that would probably be the only win-win solution in this case. 

 

UK's Brexiters get it's independence, UK will also be able to keep it's businesses. 

 

EU on the otherhand is able to do the reforms, like you said, and improve integration to deal with the immigration etc. issues. 

 

As non-EU member, the will be flow of skilled and unskilled workers from UK towards EU, which is a good thing for both sides as well.

 

Such an arrangement IMO would be the beginning of the end of the EU as nationalist elements in other EU member countries would  demand a similar deal. Italy would probably be first in line.

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Such an arrangement IMO would be the beginning of the end of the EU as nationalist elements in other EU member countries would  demand a similar deal. Italy would probably be first in line.

Perhaps. Then again, would it be such an shame if some of these countries who believe that a strongman is the best person to lead the country, would leave the EU? If Italy wishes to follow Berlusconi type of conmen, perhaps it's best if they do so proudly outside of the EU. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Perhaps. Then again, would it be such an shame if some of these countries who believe that a strongman is the best person to lead the country, would leave the EU? If Italy wishes to follow Berlusconi type of conmen, perhaps it's best if they do so proudly outside of the EU. 

 

 

 That's why waterboarding is so effective, If people can be made to believe they are drowning, they will grasp at straws. "Strongmen" are after all in the business of selling straws.

The Express is reporting that there are enough Remainer MP's prepared to form a new party to stop a deal without a public vote.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1040518/brexit-news-latest-remained-ops-new-party-brexit-deal-european-union

The choice that the people and Parliament will have is simply between the deal that the Government end up with OR exit from the EU with no deal.  Once any deal is agreed with the EU, there will be no going back for further negotiations.   It is the agreed deal or no deal.  Any successful plans to scupper any agreed deal (as Labour plan to do) simply means NO DEAL.   Either way, the 52% who voted "Leave" get their way and the UK will be OUT.   It is just a question of whether the economic consequences will be better with a deal or with no deal, and the answer to that is fairly obvious. 

 

As I have said many times before, a reasonably acceptable deal will be achieved but probably not until the eleventh hour, as that is how the EU likes to work.  Business leaders keep calling for "clarity" but there can be no such clarity until the final deal is agreed.  Negotiations of any kind are always up in the air until the final decision is made and signed. Some proposed huge company takeovers which get cancelled at the last minute, despite all expectations,  prove my point.  The statement that "there can be no agreement until everything is agreed" has been made many times during the negotiation process.

2 hours ago, pegman said:

The Express is reporting that there are enough Remainer MP's prepared to form a new party to stop a deal without a public vote.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1040518/brexit-news-latest-remained-ops-new-party-brexit-deal-european-union

That’s exactly what I predicted earlier already in another thread on Brexit:

 

Politicians are just waiting for Brexit to happen so that they can make “Rejoin“ their agenda and win the next election with it. Everyone knows it’s a sure win, because everyone knows that the majority doesn’t want Brexit but remain in the EU. Even the Brexiteers themselves know it which is why they are fighting a second referendum. Rallying for “Rejoin” means winning the election, so that’s what politicians will do. We might see new politicians emerging or even new parties emerging in the political landscape, because some of the existing ones where stupid enough to join Brexit. 

10 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Given the lack of consensus for the largest public policy decision of the last 50+ years, a final vote on whatever deal is finally struck seems to be a good idea; proceeding with a deal that doesn't have public scrutiny, consent and 'buy-in' will only lead to bitterness, recriminations and division.

 

That said, I doubt that it'll happen.

 

Sorry UK, I strongly suspect that you are really, really not going to like the next twenty years or so...

 

 

It's my understanding the Brexit vote was not explained in detail, people didn't know the advantages and the inconvenient of the vote, later they started to realize they were played for and now (too late) they regret the vote, should have asked the ""bad hair day guy"" Johnson to fix his misleading information

 

 

3 hours ago, pegman said:

The Express is reporting that there are enough Remainer MP's prepared to form a new party to stop a deal without a public vote.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1040518/brexit-news-latest-remained-ops-new-party-brexit-deal-european-union

that would be interesting if put into play

 

If UK is now deciding to stay at the EU's customs union, that would probably be the only win-win solution in this case. 
 
UK's Brexiters get it's independence, UK will also be able to keep it's businesses. 
 
EU on the otherhand is able to do the reforms, like you said, and improve integration to deal with the immigration etc. issues. 
 
As non-EU member, the will be flow of skilled and unskilled workers from UK towards EU, which is a good thing for both sides as well.
 

EU skilled workers?,Haha, you can keep them, just had a load of polish bricklayers on our job building the foundations for a block of flats, looked like they put the brick in with a catapult!, took us good old English tradesman to sort their mess out, don't need them and don't want them..

Sent from my SM-G955F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

37 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

The choice that the people and Parliament will have is simply between the deal that the Government end up with OR exit from the EU with no deal.  Once any deal is agreed with the EU, there will be no going back for further negotiations.   It is the agreed deal or no deal.  Any successful plans to scupper any agreed deal (as Labour plan to do) simply means NO DEAL.   Either way, the 52% who voted "Leave" get their way and the UK will be OUT.   It is just a question of whether the economic consequences will be better with a deal or with no deal, and the answer to that is fairly obvious. 

 

As I have said many times before, a reasonably acceptable deal will be achieved but probably not until the eleventh hour, as that is how the EU likes to work.  Business leaders keep calling for "clarity" but there can be no such clarity until the final deal is agreed.  Negotiations of any kind are always up in the air until the final decision is made and signed. Some proposed huge company takeovers which get cancelled at the last minute, despite all expectations,  prove my point.  The statement that "there can be no agreement until everything is agreed" has been made many times during the negotiation process.

tend to agree with that

hence, I have some difficulties re what a vote/ref on a deal actually means

 

what would the ballot paper look like?

 

deal = text published by gov as xxxxxxx

 

are you happy with this? tick here

are you unhappy with this? tick here

 

Majority concludes happy, fine - government speeds ahead and try cast the deal into treaty text

Majority concludes unhappy, ??? what then? what does the government do? crash out with no deal?

 

7 minutes ago, lanng khao said:

EU skilled workers?,Haha, you can keep them, just had a load of polish bricklayers on our job building the foundations for a block of flats, looked like they put the brick in with a catapult!, took us good old English tradesman to sort their mess out, don't need them and don't want them..
 

As an example  medical doctors, nurses etc. There is a need for them in Britain once the elderly people start returning. 

 

When it comes to the unskilled workers, why don't the Brits do those jobs by themselves? Too low salaries and too good social security? I guess at least the latter will become non-issue later on. 

As an example  medical doctors, nurses etc. There is a need for them in Britain once the elderly people start returning. 
 
When it comes to the unskilled workers, why don't the Brits do those jobs by themselves? Too low salaries and too good social security? I guess at least the latter will become non-issue later on. 

Unskilled workers work for half the money , ten of them in one room, and what money they make goes straight back home and not back into the economy.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

21 minutes ago, lanng khao said:

Unskilled workers work for half the money , ten of them in one room, and what money they make goes straight back home and not back into the economy.

Who hires them? 

 

I suppose they also pay taxes to the UK? Anyway, that problem is about diminish soon enough. Then it's time for either to get a better education or start working at the construction sites as well as farms picking the crops. 

 

4 hours ago, pegman said:

The Express is reporting that there are enough Remainer MP's prepared to form a new party to stop a deal without a public vote.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1040518/brexit-news-latest-remained-ops-new-party-brexit-deal-european-union

Now why would the Express announce that? Any clues needed ????

1 hour ago, lanng khao said:

Unskilled workers work for half the money , ten of them in one room, and what money they make goes straight back home and not back into the economy.

That doesn’t make sense. If they’re unskilled, why would anyone hire them? Market mechanisms would sooner or later push them out of business, unless people actually are ok with their skills. 

That doesn’t make sense. If they’re unskilled, why would anyone hire them? Market mechanisms would sooner or later push them out of business, unless people actually are ok with their skills. 

It probably doesn't make sense to you because you have never completed a time served apprenticeship.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app