Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Jamesbrown]

Are you capable of having a discussion without ad hominem attacks?

If nobody has changed their minds, nothing has changed then what is the harm in asking the question?

No I’m not, I’m not much for dithering and waffling. I just do, usually without thinking.

The harm in asking the question will harm and tarnish any future vote asked of the population. It makes voting a pointless exercise. To even ask the question again screams “I don’t like the result, please please let it be the one we want”.

I’m all for a second referendum, but then we would also need a third. And these referendums must only be voted on by those who voted in 2016 to actually gauge if anyone actually “changed their mind”.

 

[bobmac]

No-one knows what deals we'll be able to get next year unless they've got 20/20 vision

 

[woody69]

No I’m not, I’m not much for dithering and waffling. I just do, usually without thinking.

The harm in asking the question will harm and tarnish any future vote asked of the population. It makes voting a pointless exercise. To even ask the question again screams “I don’t like the result, please please let it be the one we want”.

I’m all for a second referendum, but then we would also need a third. And these referendums must only be voted on by those who voted in 2016 to actually gauge if anyone actually “changed their mind”.

Yes but three years ago, many people didn't know in reality what Brexit would look like. No one did. We can go on about the myths of people googling the EU after the vote, regretting it instantly, thinking it was just a poll (in some ways more right than they thought) and so on but many people (myself included in some respects) would have admittedly not understood what the impact would have been in reality on things like:

1. The customs union (or what in reality it was)

2. The single market (as above)

3. Foreign nationals living in the UK.

4. UK nationals living in the EU.

5. Northern Ireland/ GFA.

6. The effect on the pound.

7. The effect on pretty much every industry and sector from fisheries to telecommunications.

And there's every reason why people wouldn't have considered or understood the above, because we all have jobs, families, relationships, golf clubs, holidays, financial worries to keep us busy. The above considerations are for MPs to concern themselves with.

Now there has been information out there on what effect Brexit may have on the above, we can make an informed choice/decision. This petty line reasoning of "ooh best out of three" or "17.4 million people voted" or "vote until you get the right decision" is nonsense. Virtually no remainer says that or most likely thinks it.

I would prefer us to revoke Article 50 and get back to addressing the issues that need addressing in this country (of which the EU has never been top of the list). But that is not a political possibility. As such, as deeply flawed as referenda are- it is the only way to square the circle.

I don't know whether remain would win. I would hope so, but if it doesn't and leave wins again then so be it. I am not sure what leavers are worried about if there is another vote- that they don't "win". If by win, they mean win a vote for the sake of doing so when the effects of winning would be to merely brag and the economic benefits of leaving seem at the very best to be uncertain, then that is pretty petty and childish.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

No-one knows what deals we'll be able to get next year unless they've got 20/20 vision

Should we have rolling referendums throughout the whole process? . One to confirm the first ref was what they wanted after all based on the outcome now. Next up, after the next round of talks, do we get the deal with EU that we want? Next, next, next?

It would be like a Greek fable, we are stuck in a never ending round of talks and referendums with no end in sight

 

[drdel]

It is very plain to see that those not wanting a second vote are unhappy that the original decision may be overturned. I'd just like a bit of honesty: the simple underlying aim is to prevent a reverse of the result by hook or by crook.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I "continually ignore the truth that any new vote will be biased". You made that statement. Perhaps you can tell me, why a single transferable vote with the various options would be in any way biased

There is a stack of research into the subject and design of surveys and questionnaires if you care to look - Not worth going off topic here.

 

[Hobbit]

Thanks for the reply, but I am not sure why do you have to be so aggressive?

Yes, the EU have said that the door will be open for us to rejoin, but the terms of that membership will almost certainly not be nothing like we have today and just because we ask to rejoin and they are saying we can now, it isn't in our hands is it? We'll be asking to rejoin the club and the club are the ones who decide the terms of that membership. We don't get to walk away, say "sorry we made a mistake" in 10 years time and then go back to how it all is. We will almost certainly have to make concessions.

Also, what you have said regarding democracy, is not the definition of democracy.

Aggressive? Sorry I didn't realise you were so precious.

So from saying we couldn't rejoin you're now saying we can. And that is what really burns my pish. People say one thing but when they're pulled for it they change their tune. Do you know the UK wouldn't be offered the same, or better, terms or is this another assumption based on chicken bones and pixie dust?

Like I said, lets be honest in the debate.

 

[woody69]

Aggressive? Sorry I didn't realise you were so precious.

So from saying we couldn't rejoin you're now saying we can. And that is what really burns my pish. People say one thing but when they're pulled for it they change their tune. Do you know the UK wouldn't be offered the same, or better, terms or is this another assumption based on chicken bones and pixie dust?

Like I said, lets be honest in the debate.

Can't help yourself can you? Patronising as well now.

You have misread (or misunderstood) what I have written. "WE" cannot decide if we get to rejoin. We can ASK and, yes the EU have currently said we would be welcome, but WE don't get to decide if they actually do let us rejoin. That will be up to the EU to decide if they want us back.

Regarding your 2nd sentence, of course it is an assumption, but a realistic one and based on a little more than chicken bones and pixie dust (what ever that is)

 

[harpo_72]

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.

Pathetic? You have seen 3 years of sorting out your leave deal.
Then when we see the colour of your money you don’t want to have a bet ... cowards

 

[Hobbit]

Thought I'd repost the Beeb article from last Wednesday. A very interesting insight on the Leavers AND Remainers who've changed their mind.

Somewhat surprised that it drew zero comments last Wednesday - maybe its too uncomfortable reading for some.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50043549

 

[robinthehood]

Thought I'd repost the Beeb article from last Wednesday. A very interesting insight on the Leavers AND Remainers who've changed their mind.

Somewhat surprised that it drew zero comments last Wednesday - maybe its too uncomfortable reading for some.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50043549

Or maybe because it's as meaningless today as it was last Wednesday

 

[Hobbit]

Can't help yourself can you? Patronising as well now.

You have misread (or misunderstood) what I have written. "WE" cannot decide if we get to rejoin. We can ASK and, yes the EU have currently said we would be welcome, but WE don't get to decide if they actually do let us rejoin. That will be up to the EU to decide if they want us back.

Regarding your 2nd sentence, of course it is an assumption, but a realistic one and based on a little more than chicken bones and pixie dust (what ever that is)

Oh stop it. 3 years of waffle tends to make me a little tetchy when people get all waffly with their version of spin - you say we can't and then you say we can. Make your mind up. Maybe try being a little more accurate with your posts and say "we can ask..." rather than your original version = We can’t Leave and then decide to rejoin.

Do you think the EU would say no to having the UK rejoin? The proverbial boot would be on the other foot. An economy that currently generates £1bn a month net for the EU and you're worried about them saying no. The ECB is on the verge of either having to say no to buying back a whole host of junk bonds held by a significant number of European banks or letting them fall. As Drdel has said many times, the EU finances are in a precarious state, and can only be bolstered by more QE.

The EU will lose 14% of its budget just at the time it is about to issue a new rolling budget that shows an increase in spending and you think the EU will say no or will impose stringent rules for rejoining when they will be desperate for money?

 

[Foxholer]

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

Nor is the promise to implement the result - and Parliament's subsequent commitment to do so! In fact that's less complicated than STV!

 

[robinthehood]

 

[woody69]

Oh stop it. 3 years of waffle tends to make me a little tetchy when people get all waffly with their version of spin - you say we can't and then you say we can. Make your mind up. Maybe try being a little more accurate with your posts and say "we can ask..." rather than your original version = We can’t Leave and then decide to rejoin.

Do you think the EU would say no to having the UK rejoin? The proverbial boot would be on the other foot. An economy that currently generates £1bn a month net for the EU and you're worried about them saying no. The ECB is on the verge of either having to say no to buying back a whole host of junk bonds held by a significant number of European banks or letting them fall. As Drdel has said many times, the EU finances are in a precarious state, and can only be bolstered by more QE.

The EU will lose 14% of its budget just at the time it is about to issue a new rolling budget that shows an increase in spending and you think the EU will say no or will impose stringent rules for rejoining when they will be desperate for money?

OK, I obviously didn't communicate what I was attempting to say clear enough and it has been misinterpreted. That can easily happen when trying to write a post on a forum and doing other things at the same time. I have obviously confused you by saying what appears to be two contrasting statements.

We can't leave and then simply rejoin at a later point in time. We will have to ask to ask the rejoin.

Does that help clear it up?

Do I think the EU would say no? Probably not, but I do think the UK would be applying and trying to negotiate admission in an incomparable position to the one in which it secured its current opt-outs from certain EU laws and policies. Other recently joined states will probably be sceptical of special pleading to exempt the UK from the basic expectations of membership, and may not be willing to make concessions that would put the UK back in the position in which it left the EU. The UK might well be put on a fast track to membership if it were to reapply, but that should not be mistaken for one in which too many exceptions from the normal expectations would be made.

 

[Fade and Die]

Nick Ferrari on LBC often uses the 'divorce' analogy when arguing against circumstances changing supporting a case for a confirmatory referendum.

His analogy has it that a couple decides to divorce - and that's it. They divorce. End of. They go their own ways.

But that is not it. A couple decide to divorce and their solicitors work with the couple to agree a divorce settlement, and once that is agreed and the couple review the agreement the couple then proceed with their divorce. Or they don't. Because it is quite possible that during the settlement negotiations the couple realise the error or their ways - perhaps through pleadings from any children, or when they look at the impact of their separating on themselves; their family; their friends - and in looking at all of that, they decide that it's just not worth it - perhaps that the reasons for initiating the divorce were mistaken or petty - whatever. In any case. A couple who decide to divorce, and initiate divorce proceedings, are not required to go through with it. Circumstances might change; they might change their minds; and they might just decide to call it off and stay together.

Ferrari's analogy just doesn't work.

You also know he hasn't used it for a while and now rages against people using analogies as he admits they do not work.

 

[drdel]

OK, I obviously didn't communicate what I was attempting to say clear enough and it has been misinterpreted. That can easily happen when trying to write a post on a forum and doing other things at the same time. I have obviously confused you by saying what appears to be two contrasting statements.

We can't leave and then simply rejoin at a later point in time. We will have to ask to ask the rejoin.

Does that help clear it up?

Do I think the EU would say no? Probably not, but I do think the UK would be applying and trying to negotiate admission in an incomparable position to the one in which it secured its current opt-outs from certain EU laws and policies. Other recently joined states will probably be sceptical of special pleading to exempt the UK from the basic expectations of membership, and may not be willing to make concessions that would put the UK back in the position in which it left the EU. The UK might well be put on a fast track to membership if it were to reapply, but that should not be mistaken for one in which too many exceptions from the normal expectations would be made.

Since only 10 members contribute but 18 members take cash and the takers are all East of Germany do you think the EU would refuse a net contributor especially when their expansion add more Eastern members with no money!!! Tis why France, etc aren't happy.

 

[ScienceBoy]

Another deal I really hope we don’t sign up to...

All this uncertainty has done far more damage than staying in/leaving would have done...

 

[Dando]

View attachment 28392

no doubt Mr Fragger will wont approve of this, but you really are a ***

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

It sounds like you don’t understand the meaning of winning and losing.
We were told by the PM it would be implemented.
So Remain is out of the equation.
Whatever deal they mash up is fine but we must leave.
If not democracy is dead ,just get on with it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You also know he hasn't used it for a while and now rages against people using analogies as he admits they do not work.

mmm - I believe I heard him use it on Friday - most certainly he used it late last week as I only mention it now as it was fresh in my mind. In fact he may have used it today when interviewing Sarah Woollaston.