Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Foxholer]

Love it you see someone offer up a view different to your own and assume she has a nanny from one of the 27? Really???
...

I presume you are refer to my 'I wonder if...'. That's vastly different from your 'assume she has', which is complete twaddle!

Btw. By BiM's interpretation, you'd be deemed a hypocrite!

 

[harpo_72]

I presume you are refer to my 'I wonder if...'. That's vastly different from your 'assume she has', which is complete twaddle!

Btw. By BiM's interpretation, you'd be deemed a hypocrite!

Now that is complete twaddle

 

[woody69]

It doesn't lock us into the possibility of a perpetual ball and chain from the EU, but you know this already and want to ignore it.

You're right. It's significantly worse than that as it effectively provides a back door to no deal in 2020.

 

[Foxholer]

You're right. It's significantly worse than that as it effectively provides a back door to no deal in 2020.

No more than already exists!

May's deal's 'default' was continued control of UK laws etc by EU (even though UK not a member)!
BoJo's deal' 'default' is No Deal, with NI being able to decide how 'tied' it is to EU.

To me, that's sufficient implementation of 2016 Refrendum result to prefer BoJo's over May's!

If Trade and other arrangements ('A Deal going forward') can't be negotiated, or at least seriously under way, by 30/12/20, then there is no hope, imo, of getting a deal done by 30/12/2019!

Huge congratulations have to go to the civil servants involved getting a workable kludge that satisfies the issues the NI'/Ireland border and the Good Friday Agreement posed!

 

[SocketRocket]

You're right. It's significantly worse than that as it effectively provides a back door to no deal in 2020.

Youve made a statement without justifying it. Lets see how you come to that conclusion.

 

[woody69]

Leave has been done Remain came second.
So any ref should be deal or no deal .

If Remain win we will have another three years of leave complaining and going to court.
So is it best of three /five until the EU / parliament gets the answer they want.

Nonsense. The next referendum would have 2 or possibly 3 detailed propositions, any one of which would require no more analysis: Johnson's Deal, Remain, or possibly No Deal (though that's the one thing Parliament have agreed on). The referendum would be binding, and the result implemented the next day. The law would mandate it.

We now know what Brexit means. Even with the govt refusing to publish its assessment of this deal we know it will make the UK worse off, rather than providing "exactly the same benefits" as promised by the Leave team.

Democracy demands that we simply check what the current will of the people is. There is no 'being fair to the majority' argument when we don't know what the majority want.

You could argue that, "It would be fair to all of those who voted leave. They won. They should get their “victory” as it were. That’s what they were promised", but that wasn't the deal, that was the spin. The deal, as was legally established at the time and afterward, was that it was a glorified opinion poll. The government informally promised to implement the result, which has caused all manner of confusion ever since.

But its fairness or otherwise is irrelevant to this conversation. We can Remain and then leave later if we change our minds about it. We can’t Leave and then decide to rejoin. That decision will be out of our hands.

The Leave/Remain decision is not symmetrical, which is why similarly irreversible decisions virtually always require more than a simple majority, and require absolute clarity uncomplicated by the type of different interpretations Brexit is subject to, and the fact that many of them are not for us to determine anyway.

Democracy is not something you do once and then the same people and policies rule forever. That’s dictatorship. With democracy, you re-test public opinion whenever circumstances have changed and, in the case of elections, at regular intervals.

 

[Foxholer]

Youve made a statement without justifying it. Lets see how you come to that conclusion.

Twaddle! 'as it effectively provides a back door to no deal in 2020.' seems 'justification' to me!

 

[woody69]

Youve made a statement without justifying it. Lets see how you come to that conclusion.

I've read the deal. The outcome is no deal at the end of the transition period if the FTA hasn't been agreed . Under the previous deal that TM negotiated, at the end of the transition period the back stop kicked in. With the Boris deal, that has gone, so "no deal".

 

[drdel]

Nonsense. The next referendum would have 2 or possibly 3 detailed propositions, any one of which would require no more analysis: Johnson's Deal, Remain, or possibly No Deal (though that's the one thing Parliament have agreed on). The referendum would be binding, and the result implemented the next day. The law would mandate it.

We now know what Brexit means. Even with the govt refusing to publish its assessment of this deal we know it will make the UK worse off, rather than providing "exactly the same benefits" as promised by the Leave team.

Democracy demands that we simply check what the current will of the people is. There is no 'being fair to the majority' argument when we don't know what the majority want.

You could argue that, "It would be fair to all of those who voted leave. They won. They should get their “victory” as it were. That’s what they were promised", but that wasn't the deal, that was the spin. The deal, as was legally established at the time and afterward, was that it was a glorified opinion poll. The government informally promised to implement the result, which has caused all manner of confusion ever since.

But its fairness or otherwise is irrelevant to this conversation. We can Remain and then leave later if we change our minds about it. We can’t Leave and then decide to rejoin. That decision will be out of our hands.

The Leave/Remain decision is not symmetrical, which is why similarly irreversible decisions virtually always require more than a simple majority, and require absolute clarity uncomplicated by the type of different interpretations Brexit is subject to, and the fact that many of them are not for us to determine anyway.

Democracy is not something you do once and then the same people and policies rule forever. That’s dictatorship. With democracy, you re-test public opinion whenever circumstances have changed and, in the case of elections, at regular intervals.

Spread over millions the laws of statistics would mean you have two options 'for' and one 'against' so, just by randomness, it would obviously favour the remain slant - which is obviously what the 'second time around' supporters want.

 

[Colonel Bogey]

I've read the deal. The outcome is no deal at the end of the transition period if the FTA hasn't been agreed . Under the previous deal that TM negotiated, at the end of the transition period the back stop kicked in. With the Boris deal, that has gone, so "no deal".

I think this is what BJ is playing for. (I hope). It is really his only choice, he will be finished politically if he does not do this. Plus, I now think that this is what Labour are playing for, so they can say they were all against it, and voted against it, so they did their best to stop it, but the EU let them down by not extending the whole mess.

 

[USER1999]

Assuming that 'the deal' is an agreement of the terms of leaving, I am not sure what those who want a referendum on deal, no deal, and remain really expect.
Whether deal or no deal, this still does not detail what any trade agreement with the EU would look like. So there is still an enormous amount of uncertainty to come. Is there to be a further referendum on the trade deal?

Deal or no deal doesn't cut it for me. Until the trade terms are negotiated, I don't see that there is enough information to vote on. The catch 22 being that you cannot negotiate until you leave.

 

[chrisd]

Democracy is not something you do once and then the same people and policies rule forever. That’s dictatorship. With democracy, you re-test public opinion whenever circumstances have changed and, in the case of elections, at regular intervals.

So. following the result of the 2016 referendum result can you tell me what part of democracy HAS been done?

 

[woody69]

Spread over millions the laws of statistics would mean you have two options 'for' and one 'against' so, just by randomness, it would obviously favour the remain slant - which is obviously what the 'second time around' supporters want.

No, because (as I have said before), the vote would be carried out using the single transferable vote system, which gets around the split-Brexit-vote problem and guarantees that all three sides are represented, while also guaranteeing a clear majority for the eventual winner.

 

[Foxholer]

...
We now know what Brexit means. Even with the govt refusing to publish its assessment of this deal we know it will make the UK worse off, rather than providing "exactly the same benefits" as promised by the Leave team.
...

That's no reason to cancel the result because...
1. The Remain side put that argument and 'the people' still decided to Leave!
2. There's nothing to stop further negotiation providing equivalent/same benefits from the EU. And other benefits can now be negotiated with non-EU countries.

...
Democracy demands that we simply check what the current will of the people is.

Twaddle. To me, it means 'the people, or their elected representatives, decide'. In the case of a Referendum, it's purely 'people decide'; in the case of elections and subsequent government, it's 'their elected representatives' that decide.

...
Democracy is not something you do once and then the same people and policies rule forever. That’s dictatorship. With democracy, you re-test public opinion whenever circumstances have changed...

But circumstances HAVEN'T changed!

While this has been an incredibly long drawn out exercise, there is NO compelling reason - and ignorance/gullability is no compelling reason - for another referendum!

 

[woody69]

So. following the result of the 2016 referendum result can you tell me what part of democracy HAS been done?

That's fairly obvious isn't it? People got the chance to have a say and as we live in a representative democracy the outcome of it has been discussed at length, by those chosen to represent us. Now we should be asked how we leave and if the "people" still do want to leave because circumstances have changed.

 

[chrisd]

That's fairly obvious isn't it? People got the chance to have a say and as we live in a representative democracy the outcome of it has been discussed at length, by those chosen to represent us. Now we should be asked how we leave and if the "people" still do want to leave because circumstances have changed.

So, the discussion at length negates the need to carry out the original promise that we leave the EU if a majority vote to do so?

I don't recall any "confirmatory vote" or 2nd referendum being agreed to at the time of referendum, so what you are saying that purports to be democracy is anything but.

 

[woody69]

That's no reason to cancel the result because...
1. The Remain side put that argument and 'the people' still decided to Leave!
2. There's nothing to stop further negotiation providing equivalent/same benefits from the EU. And other benefits can now be negotiated with non-EU countries.

The idea isn't to "cancel" the result. It is to confirm the result is still wanted.

Re/ #2 if you can honestly believe that further negotiation will provide equivalent/same benefits from the EU then I don't know where you have been for the past 3 years. We are currently members with a significant number of opt outs. We're not going to ever be outside with the beneficial opt-ins we currently enjoy. I also wish I could share your optimism with potential benefits we will negotiate with non-EU countries, however I am not sure we will be in a particularly strong position

But circumstances HAVEN'T changed!

They absolutely have. The leave campaign was built on the rhetoric of 'easiest deal in history', People were sold what they wanted to be sold. Norwegian / Switzerland deals were mentioned to get the more moderate people on side. For the anti immigration people we had promises that immigration was going to stop. People were told the EU needs us more than we need them and so we would get an amazing deal which would be better than now etc. etc. This deal has no similarities to these promises, so what about those people who have changed their minds in the light of new facts?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Spread over millions the laws of statistics would mean you have two options 'for' and one 'against' so, just by randomness, it would obviously favour the remain slant - which is obviously what the 'second time around' supporters want.

Exactly. Remainers accuse leave of running scared of a second Referendum, but only want a second Referendum if they can stack the vote in a manner that they know will split the leave vote. Utterly pathetic.

 

[woody69]

So, the discussion at length negates the need to carry out the original promise that we leave the EU if a majority vote to do so?

I don't recall any "confirmatory vote" or 2nd referendum being agreed to at the time of referendum, so what you are saying that purports to be democracy is anything but.

The flyer sent out by the government wasn't legal text. David Cameron lied to you to win votes, the referendum was advisory and held in bad faith. He made a promise that was completely irresponsible for a load of reasons we’ve gone over for the last three years and more, and which still can’t be resolved to anyone’s satisfaction.

 

[woody69]

Exactly. Remainers accuse leave of running scared of a second Referendum, but only want a second Referendum if they can stack the vote in a manner that they know will split the leave vote. Utterly pathetic.

Single Transferable Vote. It really isn't that complicated.