[Politics] Brexit

dingodan said:

A second vote isn't a "way out". If people vote to remain then we no longer have a "Brexit" problem. But we have a new one, perhaps a greater one. A crisis of confidence in democracy itself and the dividing political crack in this country becomes a fissure. If people vote to leave again then it's full circle and we are back where we started two years ago.

People don't want a "way out", they want the vote respected. Respecting the vote is more important than anything. The consequences of leaving the EU without a deal in place may be somewhat problematic, but the consequences of not respecting the vote are worse.

The real problem here is that the HoC find themselves, by a majority, in disagreement with the people. Only one side will have their will respected. The political class or the people. & I cannot overstate how severe a problem we would face if it turns out that we have a government for, of, and by, the politial class, rather than the people.

We can get through a Brexit without a deal on WTO terms. I'm not sure how we can get through a crisis of confidence in democracy itself.

Click to expand...

A1X said:

I keep seeing this but how can it be the case? If the people change their minds in a democratic referendum then surely that should be the antithesis of a crisis in democracy? Democracy allows people to change their minds.

What I think this is being lumped in with is people being unhappy that they didn't get their way. Unfortunately that's the case with any sort of public vote, but if Leave are unable to find the arguments to win another public vote then clearly it isn't something which should be pursued.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

Ok so what is to be said about having another vote in 2 years? What will be said is, "No, we voted. Decision made. Respect the decision". That's the problem. In the end it will have nothing to do with respecting the democratic process, and everything to do with voting until you win, then stopping.

Democracy does allow people to change their minds, but not only once. So it's a referendum once, to be accepted. Or if a referendum periodically. The way this will go, if we have a second vote and remain win, will be percieved as - First vote, wrong answer. Second vote, correct answer. Voting has now closed.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

Right, so you are saying that these positive decisions were taken despite Brexit.

& The negative decision of Hitachi was taken because of it.

Typical.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

Ok so what is to be said about having another vote in 2 years? What will be said is, "No, we voted. Decision made. Respect the decision". That's the problem. In the end it will have nothing to do with respecting the democratic process, and everything to do with voting until you win, then stopping.

Democracy does allow people to change their minds, but not only once. So it's a referendum once, to be accepted. Or if a referendum periodically. The way this will go, if we have a second vote and remain win, will be percieved as - First vote, wrong answer. Second vote, correct answer. Voting has now closed.

Click to expand...

hans kraay fan club said:

It IS though.



It is already a fissure.



A second Leave vote would be hugely better informed, and thus far more respected.

.

Who are you to talk for 'people'? Some 'people' DO want a way out. Only one way to find out how many...



No it isn't. Not at ANY cost.

,

Somewhat problematic? Idiot.



Threats of violence? Really, really strong letters to the Daily Mail? A few idiots refusing to cast their vote for UKIP in later elections? None of that is 'worse' than an economic catastrophe.

.

You don't know that. And there is only one way to find out.



Again - utter tripe. There are many in the 'political class' pro-brexit, and many of 'the people' all for staying. Those people have the right to have their 'will' and future prosperity and freedoms respected too.



You definitely can - and just have.



Yes we can, albeit massively poorer. For no benefit.



there goes the overstating again.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

Arlene Foster caught out telling lies.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

First decide on a deal. Then put it to the people of this deal or remain.

Article 50 shouldn't have ever been invoked until a deal was thrashed out.

This month the EU are passing a law on outlawing tax havens so I wonder why our millionaire political classes were so keen to get out of the EU, they invoked article 50 as soon as they were possibly able. Gina Miller had to go to the High Court to get Parliament to vote on it, as is democratically permissable, instead of Theresa May using Henry VIII powers to go it alone.

Click to expand...

fanseagull said:

....and how do we 'respect that vote' while simultaneously respecting the concerns and values of 48%? Then there's the simple fact that new voters are going to be more affected than me (and presumably you) in the longer term. Perhaps they have more right to speak than us. Full circle again! .

Click to expand...

Hotchilidog said:

By dropping the red lines that May has set out as a basis for her negotiation strategy. The 48% and industry have many concerns. Namely frictionless trade, the rights of EU and UK citizens living elsewhere in the UK, the protection of rights of workers, the maintainence of environmental standards etc.

Trade concerns can be met with a customs union. The Labour Party have argued for this and the EU would accept this. Access to the single market is possible, now technically this would involve FoM, but as we currently do not apply the rules to the fullest we could comply and tighten our immigration policy at the sametime. Citizens and workers rights are easily protected if you have a government committed to maintaining the existing rights and promising to keep pace with future rights. Again all on offer from the Labour Party.

My personal view is that the easiest way to achieve all this is stay in the EU. That said to say there is no other deal available is false, there are options, they just have not been pursued by this government. As I currently see it, the Remain lobby has not sufficiently won over a large enough number of either the public or MPs. A soft Brexit is something that I feel some sort of majority could live with.

What would be a disaster is leaving with no-deal, something for which there is absolutely no mandate.

Click to expand...

neilbard said:

Diane Abbott on Question Time this evening should be interesting.

Click to expand...

Hotchilidog said:

By dropping the red lines that May has set out as a basis for her negotiation strategy. The 48% and industry have many concerns. Namely frictionless trade, the rights of EU and UK citizens living elsewhere in the UK, the protection of rights of workers, the maintainence of environmental standards etc.

Trade concerns can be met with a customs union. The Labour Party have argued for this and the EU would accept this. Access to the single market is possible, now technically this would involve FoM, but as we currently do not apply the rules to the fullest we could comply and tighten our immigration policy at the sametime. Citizens and workers rights are easily protected if you have a government committed to maintaining the existing rights and promising to keep pace with future rights. Again all on offer from the Labour Party.

My personal view is that the easiest way to achieve all this is stay in the EU. That said to say there is no other deal available is false, there are options, they just have not been pursued by this government. As I currently see it, the Remain lobby has not sufficiently won over a large enough number of either the public or MPs. A soft Brexit is something that I feel some sort of majority could live with.

What would be a disaster is leaving with no-deal, something for which there is absolutely no mandate.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

Your politics is getting in the way of your senses.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

He has actually asked for less than the other party leaders, that a no deal brexit is confirmed as being off the table. A completely reasonable position to demand on behalf of his party and members, democratically setting their policy through conference.

Click to expand...

Triggaaar said:

But taking 'no deal' off the table destroys the UK's negotiating position. It's fine if our leaders agree among themselves that we won't leave with no deal, but if that's not even an option for the EU to worry about, then they'd have us over a barrel. Yes we know that no deal would be bad for the UK, but it is also a real fear for many business leaders in the EU. They'd rather give us a fair deal than suffer no deal.

Corbyn demanding that it's taken off the table is like him saying we'll pay for nuclear weapons, but would never use them.

Click to expand...

WATFORD zero said:

We currently trade under the EU negotiated tariffs and quotas within the WTO. We have submitted some of our own, but there are over 20 members of the WTO who have objected (including Russia and the USA) and these will have to go to arbitration, a process which traditionally takes years under the WTO.

As of 29th March we will, therefor, trade under the following 'modest' WTO defaults (Cereals & Meat - 45-50%, Processed foods - 25%-35%, Clothes - 12%, Footwear - 10%, Vehicles - 9%) with all members of the EU, where trade is tariff free currently and all members of the WTO that we currently use EU schedules for. The EU part alone will be 44% of UK exports and 53% of imports.

You are right in that we have methods of processing imports under WTO rules but these will have to be changed to the default rates and have all quotas (a method of managing volumes) removed. We will then have to put all EU imports through the same processes checks and systems as the rest of the world. (and this includes anything from the rest of the world that comes via the EU in any shape or form - planes, ferries, roads).

74 days to go - It won't happen. That's the point

Click to expand...