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

[mfd101]

21 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

It is like it is.
If you no longer want to be a member of a club and do not like the club rules anymore, you step out.
Finished.

Fine. No problems with that. But don't whine about the consequences.

[Baerboxer]

14 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

I won't argue with you but I'd love to see how the UK will be striking up all those trade deals. After a no deal Brexit they will have to start from scratch so a lot to catch up with.

How long do you think it will take for just one deal (with whatever country/trade bloc you like)? And how will the UK manage to do a lot of trade negotiations simultaneously?

So far, the UK doesn't seem that good in negotiating....

"So far, the UK doesn't seem that good in negotiating...."

 

Takes both parties to negotiate. If one just keeps saying "no" and offering no real contribution into discussing and resolving things then there is no negotiation.

[flossie35]

The 2016 referendum was advisory, not mandatory - it decided nothing. Mrs May has acted dishonestly from the start by pretending otherwise - and stupidly having painted herself into a corner where she feels bound to deliver some sort of brexit. A more honest approach would have left a much needed escape route. And escape we must.

[Proboscis]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Remainers don't like Joe Public voting, best leave it as it is and just leave.

The trouble with "leaving it as it is" is that no two people seem to agree precisely on what "as it is" means. Yes, the majority agreed to leave the EU. But that could mean anything from, on one hand, a very hard brexit with no bedding in period under WTO rules and no membership of institutions through various stages on the spectrum to, on the other hand, remaining within the single market and in most of the institutions (medicines, air traffic control, EU arrest warrant etc etc) but not as a member of the EU. Within this space there are probably a million positions. Throw in the Irish border and ways and means of safeguarding it and you have yet another dimension to argue over.

 

This is why no political party has a unified position on brexit (Lib Dems have at least a remainer position although I doubt you will find unanimity if you probe that too). The problem with asking Joe Public is the following:

a. you ask Joe Public whether he still wants to leave the EU and you engage the wrath of those who say that the question is not nuanced enough. It still does not get you around what kind of brexit he wants anyway.

b. you pick out several options for Joe Public to chose in a referendum (leaving out the remain option based on the first referendum and this yields no clear majority in favour of any. Besides you will have plenty of wrath from those who say that you missed out on some nuance or other. Besides the remainers will hate you for that too.

c. you include the remain option in b but you get remain winning but no clear majority.

 

This could go on and on.

My guess is that the government will fudge it but this will depend on when the economic bad news comes and we will get whatever comes out of that, anything from a hard brexit under WTO rules to a softer than Checkers brexit, depending on how it comes out the in parliamentary shuffle or if there is an election. But there will be no second referendum for the reasons given above, at least if the conservatives stay in power. If a Corbyn government takes over, all bets are off!

[Baerboxer]

19 minutes ago, Rally123 said:

Errr we had it. We voted to leave. So really we cant have another referendum on it until we've left. Good look with that Remoaners. 

Since the start of this charade it's clear that a hard Brexit would be the final result. 
So carry on Remoaners. Waaaa waaaa waaaa.

 

Yes the "advisory" referendum that Cameron brilliantly constructed.

 

Interesting to wonder what the whines of the Brexiters have been had to vote gone the other way. "Unfinished business" as Farage said.

[whatsupdoc]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

"So far, the UK doesn't seem that good in negotiating...."

 

Takes both parties to negotiate. If one just keeps saying "no" and offering no real contribution into discussing and resolving things then there is no negotiation.

So what has the UK offered so far apart from cherry picking and trying to divide the 4 freedoms??

If you're not even remotely realistic you cannot expect much in negotiations. A deal has to be beneficial to the EU as well.

[sungod]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

 

Takes both parties to negotiate. If one just keeps saying "no" and offering no real contribution into discussing and resolving things then there is no negotiation.

I think you are talking about Barnier

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, flossie35 said:

The 2016 referendum was advisory, not mandatory - it decided nothing. Mrs May has acted dishonestly from the start by pretending otherwise - and stupidly having painted herself into a corner where she feels bound to deliver some sort of brexit. A more honest approach would have left a much needed escape route. And escape we must.

 

Indeed she did. Even trying to circumvent parliamentary procedure and wasting tax payers money by going through the courts to the Supreme Court to try and achieve her aim.

 

The results of the 'advisory" referendum should have been debated and voted on by our representative MP's.

[tomacht8]

28 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Fine. No problems with that. But don't whine about the consequences.

I agree.
The problems will be huge. But the brexiters have foreseen that. Therefore, the loudes speakers (boris, nigel) have also immediately pinched there tails and leave TM the dirty job.

Real heroes the brexit leaders.

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

So what has the UK offered so far apart from cherry picking and trying to divide the 4 freedoms??

If you're not even remotely realistic you cannot expect much in negotiations. A deal has to be beneficial to the EU as well.

 

What has the EU offered - nothing. Not one suggestion other than threats and demanding large (and unsubstantiated) sums of money. 

 

The biggest (and most neglected by the media) area of contention is law. The attempted imposition of EU law on the UK after Brexit kills it - and the EU know it.

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, sungod said:

I think you are talking about Barnier

 

He was specifically picked as a known obstinate anti British French politician who would follow Juncker's instructions.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

So be it. 

 

Thats what democracy is. 

So there will never be a decision on whether to leave or to stay, as the referenda cycle would go on for ever, thereby achieving your preferred option by default?

[tomacht8]

I hope the UK makes another referendum on the abolition of all taxes. I think there is also a majority. Would certainly be more exciting than Brexit in the implementation. 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

45 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

I won't argue with you but I'd love to see how the UK will be striking up all those trade deals. After a no deal Brexit they will have to start from scratch so a lot to catch up with.

How long do you think it will take for just one deal (with whatever country/trade bloc you like)? And how will the UK manage to do a lot of trade negotiations simultaneously?

So far, the UK doesn't seem that good in negotiating....

Unfortunately, negotiating with the EU appears to be just one-way traffic.  They insist that we come up with all the proposals so that they can shoot them down.  Exactly what suggestions or proposals have the EU come up with, particularly regarding the Irish border problem, which is one of the major stumbling blocks?   Have they made any suggestions at all, which are not totally negative?

[whatsupdoc]

21 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

What has the EU offered - nothing. Not one suggestion other than threats and demanding large (and unsubstantiated) sums of money. 

 

The biggest (and most neglected by the media) area of contention is law. The attempted imposition of EU law on the UK after Brexit kills it - and the EU know it.

The UK voted to leave, not the EU. And if the UK still wants to keep part of the benefits yes, they would be subject to the ECJ.

The EU wants a deal, but not one that is good for the UK but bad for the EU.

[vogie]

37 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

It would be an interesting economic experiment.

Looking forward to the UK applying for rejoining the EU after a couple of years.

Please don't hold your breath till we do. ???

[vogie]

37 minutes ago, flossie35 said:

The 2016 referendum was advisory, not mandatory - it decided nothing. Mrs May has acted dishonestly from the start by pretending otherwise - and stupidly having painted herself into a corner where she feels bound to deliver some sort of brexit. A more honest approach would have left a much needed escape route. And escape we must.

No it wasn't, 

 

 

[tomacht8]

7 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Unfortunately, negotiating with the EU appears to be just one-way traffic.  They insist that we come up with all the proposals so that they can shoot them down.  Exactly what suggestions or proposals have the EU come up with, particularly regarding the Irish border problem, which is one of the major stumbling blocks?   Have they made any suggestions at all, which are not totally negative?

and why should the EU accept a boarder solution that is bad for them?

[Retiredandhappyhere]

As I understand it, Article 50 made no specific mention of a leaving country's continuing, or one-off, legal obligation to pay for some of the EU's future costs, whether budgetted for during membership or not.

 

On the understanding that an offer to pay about 45 billions pounds as a divorce settlement would enable the EU to be reasonable in future trade negotiations, the UK provisionally agreed to pay, on the understanding , as the EU have stated many times, "that nothing is agreed until everything has been agreed". 

 

On that basis, if there is no deal, then the UK should simply withdraw its offer, since goodwill only makes sense when it comes from both sides. 

[whatsupdoc]

8 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Unfortunately, negotiating with the EU appears to be just one-way traffic.  They insist that we come up with all the proposals so that they can shoot them down.  Exactly what suggestions or proposals have the EU come up with, particularly regarding the Irish border problem, which is one of the major stumbling blocks?   Have they made any suggestions at all, which are not totally negative?

So the UK wants to leave but the EU has to come up with proposals and solutions???? Strange logic.

And about the Irish border; the EU did come up with solutions but the UK only with red lines.

 

I would really love to see a hard no deal Brexit so the UK government has to sort out its own mess.

Just feel very sorry for the people that voted remain or could not vote at all and still have to suffer the consequences.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

4 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

and why should the EU accept a boarder solution that is bad for them?

Because they have had no trouble operating similar borders with other countries.  They do not like the UK proposal because it comes from a country that wants to leave their exclusive club and that hurts their ego as well as their finances and, horror of horror, might even encourage other doubters to consider leaving also.  I wonder what the situation would be if all remaining 27 countries were to be offered a "leave or remain" referendum?  I doubt that the result would be a resounding 27 to 0 in favour of staying.  Yes, the leaders seem to be in favour of staying, like Cameron, but what exactly happened to the risk that he took?  Other leaders are too scared to offer their people the same option.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

4 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

So the UK wants to leave but the EU has to come up with proposals and solutions???? Strange logic.

And about the Irish border; the EU did come up with solutions but the UK only with red lines.

 

I would really love to see a hard no deal Brexit so the UK government has to sort out its own mess.

Just feel very sorry for the people that voted remain or could not vote at all and still have to suffer the consequences.

A similar situation to any General Election, where you vote for the party of your choice and then you and the opposition voters have to put up with the consequences. People understand that, just as they did with the Brexit referendum.  Many people voted "out" in the referendum, because they understood exactly what the EU stood for and where it was headed, and subsequent events have proved that they were right.

[tomacht8]

2 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Because they have had no trouble operating similar borders with other countries.  They do not like the UK proposal because it comes from a country that wants to leave their exclusive club and that hurts their ego as well as their finances and, horror of horror, might even encourage other doubters to consider leaving also.  I wonder what the situation would be if all remaining 27 countries were to be offered a "leave or remain" referendum?  I doubt that the result would be a resounding 27 to 0 in favour of staying.  Yes, the leaders seem to be in favour of staying, like Cameron, but what exactly happened to the risk that he took?  Other leaders are too scared to offer their people the same option.

The EU just wants to prevent that criminals pirates smuggling substandard products duty-free into the EU. That's not difficult to understand.

[ballpoint]

Johnny Bull was a member of a club, a quite senior member who was made treasurer.  One day he decided that he didn't like being a member, didn't like paying for membership and didn't like the club's rules. 

"I'm leaving" he said. 

"Oh" said Herman, the club president, "are you sure?  We'll be sorry to see you go". 

"Yes", said Johnny, "I've had enough, I want to form my own club of one.  But, by the way, I still want to be able to come in and use the facilities whenever I choose, and still expect to be treasurer". 

"Well", said Herman, "you can't be treasurer any more if you're not a member. We'll nominate my cousin, Freddy Frankfurter for that job now. You may occasionally use the facilities as a non-member, but we'll have to negotiate some sort of pay-per-usage deal with you in order to do so". 

"What?" said Johnny, "How dare you!  I demand to be able to still walk in whenever I like!  My great grandfather was a man of substance, I'll have you know!" 

"If you don't like it", said Herman, "then you can leave without any rights to the facilities, though we'd like you to settle your bill before doing so". 

"But they're the only facilities in town" moaned Johnny.  I have a right to use them". 

"Come back when you have a reasonable offer to pay for their use then" said Herman.  "While we're at it, you must also promise to keep your back garden gate unlocked so little Seamus O'Reilly can get his ball back whenever he kicks it over the fence".

 

And here we are...

 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, smedly said:

what deal ? - they didn't vote for a deal they voted to leave period, that was what the referendum was for - leave the EU or stay in, nothing about a deal, nothing about soft/hard they voted to leave the EU period

 

If a trade deal can be sorted out with the EU after we leave then fine - do they get a vote on that ? do they get a vote on trade deals with China - USA - Australia - India - Japan ?????? are you proposing there is a referendum every time the UK negotiates a trade deal with another country ?

 

A trade deal with the EU is not and never should have been part of the leaving process - it is exactly what has confused the issue, there is nothing in ART 50 that requires any sort of trade deal, the referendum did not say "leaving the EU with a trade deal" or staying in, of course certain divisive people continue to say the people didn't know what they voted for - that is a fundamental lie, everyone knew exactly what leaving meant, we have people like Anna Soubry constantly trying to justify themselves by making this claim - it is absolute nonsense - she was elected by her constituents on the CON manifesto that clearly stated leaving the EU - she was elected and now stands in the house doing the exact opposite and her constituents that voted her in to that seat cannot remove her until another General Election - politically she is finished along with her band of supporters in the house

 

Those MP's across the house that refuse to accept the will of the people and the clear result of the referendum should have joined the Libdems 

 

People keep referring to Mogg and the other leave supporters in the house as rebels when in fact all they are doing is supporting the result of the referendum - they are hardly rebels, it is the other crew that are ignoring the result are the ones causing all the problems in the house. and there is equal confusion in the LAB party it just doesn't get exposed so much because they are not in government.  

It’s quite simple. 

 

People should have the right to vote on any final brexit deal. 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Rally123 said:

Errr we had it. We voted to leave. So really we cant have another referendum on it until we've left. Good look with that Remoaners. 

Since the start of this charade it's clear that a hard Brexit would be the final result. 
So carry on Remoaners. Waaaa waaaa waaaa.

Err...there was a vote. 

 

That does not preclude another, especially one where the full consequences of leaving are clear. 

 

Why be so scared?

 

Surely you believe you’ll win again 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

So there will never be a decision on whether to leave or to stay, as the referenda cycle would go on for ever, thereby achieving your preferred option by default?

If you bother to read the thread, you’ll see I have made clear that as i do not live in the U.K., I do not feel I should vote either way. 

 

However, I cannot comprehend authoritarian brexiteer thinking that precludes any further votes.  

 

Especially ones on a final deal. 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Unfortunately, negotiating with the EU appears to be just one-way traffic.  They insist that we come up with all the proposals so that they can shoot them down.  Exactly what suggestions or proposals have the EU come up with, particularly regarding the Irish border problem, which is one of the major stumbling blocks?   Have they made any suggestions at all, which are not totally negative?

The Irish government from the moment brexit was voted on tried to negotiate a deal with the U.K. govt over the border. 

 

The uk govt did nothing to settle this issue until it was too late. 

 

They knew there were huge concerns in Eire. 

 

They were offered the chance to have a temporary/ad hoc arrangement where issues could be settled on a case by case basis. 

 

Yet they did nothing. 

 

Not a thing. 

[smedly]

44 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

It’s quite simple. 

 

People should have the right to vote on any final brexit deal. 

what deal ? you keep talking about a deal, the only deal being discussed is a trade deal, that has nothing to do with leaving the EU, like I said already - do you think there should be a referendum every time the UK negotiates a trade deal ? that would be an awful lot of referendums, you really are talking nonsense 

[tomacht8]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

What has the EU offered - nothing. Not one suggestion other than threats and demanding large (and unsubstantiated) sums of money. 

 

The biggest (and most neglected by the media) area of contention is law. The attempted imposition of EU law on the UK after Brexit kills it - and the EU know it.

eg if. a uk fruit trader imports chemically contaminated fruit into the uk and then sells it unchecked in the eu, and i get seriously ill, i want to be able to sue the trader in the eu for damage money and under eu law. Under uk law i have to prove the intent of the deliberate intention.

 

I'm surprised that many believe the uk would have better consumer protection laws.

This is an erroneous belief.