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

[pedro01]

Plenty of countries do business with the EU without being members of it.

 

The EU want British goods and Britain wants European goods.

 

I fail to see where the 'big disaster' is if Britain is out. 

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, david555 said:

Hypothetical solution ….as the  E.U. founding principles policies aim to ensure the free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the internal market

But we are still in but on the cusp of leaving so we have leverage. I'm not suggesting getting rid of free movement just some quantitative limitations. Doable I think

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

Plenty of countries do business with the EU without being members of it.

 

The EU want British goods and Britain wants European goods.

 

I fail to see where the 'big disaster' is if Britain is out. 

Huge damage to the economy particularly large scale manufacturing and financial services in exchange for no real tangible benefit.

[My Thai Life]

Depends on how you define "tangible". Do you mean quantifiable? The effect of leaving cannot be quantified until we know what kind of leaving we are committing to, what kind of post-leave government we will have, and who will be running it.

 

I would guess that many people voted leave for intangible reasons.

 

Putting the boot on the other foot. Given the EU project of "ever closer union", does any remainer actually know what they are voting for by voting remain. Of course they don't! 

[Grouse]

21 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Depends on how you define "tangible". Do you mean quantifiable? The effect of leaving cannot be quantified until we know what kind of leaving we are committing to, what kind of post-leave government we will have, and who will be running it.

 

I would guess that many people voted leave for intangible reasons.

 

Putting the boot on the other foot. Given the EU project of "ever closer union", does any remainer actually know what they are voting for by voting remain. Of course they don't! 

So model each scenario. Tell me, what tangible or quantifiable  benefits do we get from a clean break for example?

 

We already opted out of Euro and Schengen and could continue to do so ad infinitum by staying on the periphery but just inside.

[My Thai Life]

As I said, many leave voters voted for intangible reasons. 

 

Also, given the EU project of "ever closer union" the remain voters can't possibly know what they voted for.

 

If you want to reduce the debate to short-term national economic self-interest, then yes, voting remain is the best vote, obviously.

 

As for "model each scenario", sure I'll just knock that up on Excel before lunch, LOL.

 

Speaking as someone who has worked internationally for 30 years, and completely outside of the UK for 20, and having a major strand of International Business in my Master's, I am more aware than most of the practical difficulties that lie ahead. 

[whatsupdoc]

18 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So model each scenario. Tell me, what tangible or quantifiable  benefits do we get from a clean break for example?

 

We already opted out of Euro and Schengen and could continue to do so ad infinitum by staying on the periphery but just inside.

To be honest, I think that for the UK to profit most from EU membership they actually should have adopted the Euro and Schengen.

The UK were always a bit of half-in, half-out. Not a good long term strategy.

[whatsupdoc]

26 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

[Stupooey]

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

There you go again...absolute gash ...and  worse.....disagree completely

...and there you go again as well, claiming that everything I post is wrong without ever saying what you think is the correct version. Anyone who thinks that freedom of movement/immigration was not the main issue leading up to the referendum clearly did not read the Mail, Express or the Sun, who were the true architects of the result (no doubt you will take issue with this, but it is no coincidence that every General Election since 1970 - and also the Referendum - has been won by the party the Sun told its readers to vote for). It is also true that since the referendum the emphasis shifted towards "Sovereignty" as being the major issue, as evidenced by TV threads for a start. I have my own opinion of the reason for this shift, you clearly have others

So what else is "gash" (apologies, I had to look up your usage of the word, which I hope is the military slang version and not the urban dictionary one!)? That MPs are on the whole better educated and informed than Joe Public? If they are not, it rather makes a farce of parliamentary democracy. Their attitude towards Brexit? All the statistics I have seen show that about 57% of Conservative MPs 97% of Labour and 100% of SNP and Lib/Dems would have voted to remain. Or is that "gash" (or worse) as well?

[sandyf]

On 8/10/2018 at 3:52 PM, vogie said:

What part of the Governments comment of, "This is your decision, the government will impliment what you decide" don't you understand.

What part of "impliment what you decide" don't you understand. Unless you had a different ballot paper the decision was to leave the EU, any other interpretation does not factor in "what you decide".

If the government had attempted to implement the referendum decision it is unlikely that we would be in this mess, but from day one the referendum was pushed to one side as TM embarked on a personal crusade.

I am not in favour of referendums but if the leavers are so convinced that they knew exactly what Joe Public wanted, then they should have no problem asking the question again in a more specific manner. Not that it is going to happen with TM in control, not going to let anything interfere with her own agenda, although at this point in time I fail to see what she is actually going to gain. Certainly no favourable passages in the history books.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

I fail to see where the 'big disaster' is if Britain is out. 

It is not all about who wants what in terms of goods. There are a multitude of legislative agreements that will come to an end and cause utter chaos in their absence. It is not going to happen, deals will be struck to ensure that the UK keeps functioning, if not before the end of March then under some panic temporary extension.

Shakespeare may well emerge as the original brexit guru, "Beware the Ides of March"

[ChidlomDweller]

13 hours ago, nauseus said:

If you want to accuse anyone with that "traitorous" word, you can start with Heath, who purposely conned the people into believing that there would be "no essential loss of national sovereignty". And then you can continue on with Major and Blair before insulting the 52%. That is what is truly shocking.  

I'm Belgian and looking on more sympathetic to the remain site, but it's true that political leaders across Europe have done this.  They knew if they openly announced the end destination (the US of Europe in Verhofstadt's case, to name one), there wouldn't have been sufficient political support for it.  I don't see it so much as skullduggery though.  You might as well call it "leadership", and reading the Ivan Rogers speech gives me some renewed respect for "experts" and "technocrats" (which have become a sneers in some circles), and makes me think that sometimes elites are elites for a reason.  

 

A Dutch comedian once did a routine where his argument went: "Politics?!  Keep that mess boring!"  I'm happy to have my vote every couple of years, and then let hopefully capable, deep, wise, intellectually curious leaders lead.

 

How you think about this will of course depend on how satisfied you are with the end result.  Personally, I like a strong EU and steong governments because in the past few decades a lot of power has shifted from national governments to corporations.  This is especially the case with e-businesses which tend to tip to dominance towards the biggest player.  Then there's the rise of China, a country I completely mistrust.  Those are the biggest threats I see, and I want a EU strong enough to stand up to them, or at least to counterbalance them.  In comparison, at best the UK will gain some feelgood symbolism about regained sovereignty.  At worst, you hand over the country to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg.  Good luck with that.  

[david555]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

So model each scenario. Tell me, what tangible or quantifiable  benefits do we get from a clean break for example?

 

We already opted out of Euro and Schengen and could continue to do so ad infinitum by staying on the periphery but just inside.

 "Before they (the British) were in with a lot of opt-outs; now they are out and want a lot of opt-ins". The difference of course is that the opt-outs were controlled by the UK, whereas any opt-ins are under the control of the EU. (Juncker..)

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Depends on how you define "tangible". Do you mean quantifiable? The effect of leaving cannot be quantified until we know what kind of leaving we are committing to, what kind of post-leave government we will have, and who will be running it.

 

I would guess that many people voted leave for intangible reasons.

 

Putting the boot on the other foot. Given the EU project of "ever closer union", does any remainer actually know what they are voting for by voting remain. Of course they don't! 

Bravo. 

[citybiker]

To be honest, I think that for the UK to profit most from EU membership they actually should have adopted the Euro and Schengen.

The UK were always a bit of half-in, half-out. Not a good long term strategy.

To be honest, Staying clear of the Euro & Schengen was the UK'S very best strategy.

 

It was Blair mission to get GB into the Euro, thankfully he failed, especially when you consider Greece & Italy serious fiscal issues, and the EU woes are far from over.

 

As for Schengen, just ask Merkel how her open borders has helped her recent & ongoing domestic political survival.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[nauseus]

50 minutes ago, ChidlomDweller said:

I'm Belgian and looking on more sympathetic to the remain site, but it's true that political leaders across Europe have done this.  They knew if they openly announced the end destination (the US of Europe in Verhofstadt's case, to name one), there wouldn't have been sufficient political support for it.  I don't see it so much as skullduggery though.  You might as well call it "leadership", and reading the Ivan Rogers speech gives me some renewed respect for "experts" and "technocrats" (which have become a sneers in some circles), and makes me think that sometimes elites are elites for a reason.  

 

A Dutch comedian once did a routine where his argument went: "Politics?!  Keep that mess boring!"  I'm happy to have my vote every couple of years, and then let hopefully capable, deep, wise, intellectually curious leaders lead.

 

How you think about this will of course depend on how satisfied you are with the end result.  Personally, I like a strong EU and steong governments because in the past few decades a lot of power has shifted from national governments to corporations.  This is especially the case with e-businesses which tend to tip to dominance towards the biggest player.  Then there's the rise of China, a country I completely mistrust.  Those are the biggest threats I see, and I want a EU strong enough to stand up to them, or at least to counterbalance them.  In comparison, at best the UK will gain some feelgood symbolism about regained sovereignty.  At worst, you hand over the country to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg.  Good luck with that.  

Nice post but personally I would trust Rees-Mogg over China and the EU. After listening to a lot of what he has to say, I think he has a lot more interest in the well-being of the country than a lot of people (especially on here) give him credit for. Plus, he could be voted out by us if he turns out to be a bad Old Etonian! 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

To be honest, I think that for the UK to profit most from EU membership they actually should have adopted the Euro and Schengen.

The UK were always a bit of half-in, half-out. Not a good long term strategy.

Quite so, we should never have been in, even half way.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, ChidlomDweller said:

I'm Belgian and looking on more sympathetic to the remain site, but it's true that political leaders across Europe have done this.  They knew if they openly announced the end destination (the US of Europe in Verhofstadt's case, to name one), there wouldn't have been sufficient political support for it.  I don't see it so much as skullduggery though.  You might as well call it "leadership", and reading the Ivan Rogers speech gives me some renewed respect for "experts" and "technocrats" (which have become a sneers in some circles), and makes me think that sometimes elites are elites for a reason.  

 

A Dutch comedian once did a routine where his argument went: "Politics?!  Keep that mess boring!"  I'm happy to have my vote every couple of years, and then let hopefully capable, deep, wise, intellectually curious leaders lead.

 

How you think about this will of course depend on how satisfied you are with the end result.  Personally, I like a strong EU and steong governments because in the past few decades a lot of power has shifted from national governments to corporations.  This is especially the case with e-businesses which tend to tip to dominance towards the biggest player.  Then there's the rise of China, a country I completely mistrust.  Those are the biggest threats I see, and I want a EU strong enough to stand up to them, or at least to counterbalance them.  In comparison, at best the UK will gain some feelgood symbolism about regained sovereignty.  At worst, you hand over the country to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg.  Good luck with that.  

"I'm happy to have my vote every couple of years, and then let hopefully capable, deep, wise, intellectually curious leaders lead."

 

I apologise in advance for being facetious, but he was undoubtedly a comedian ?!

 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Stupooey said:

...and there you go again as well, claiming that everything I post is wrong without ever saying what you think is the correct version. Anyone who thinks that freedom of movement/immigration was not the main issue leading up to the referendum clearly did not read the Mail, Express or the Sun, who were the true architects of the result (no doubt you will take issue with this, but it is no coincidence that every General Election since 1970 - and also the Referendum - has been won by the party the Sun told its readers to vote for). It is also true that since the referendum the emphasis shifted towards "Sovereignty" as being the major issue, as evidenced by TV threads for a start. I have my own opinion of the reason for this shift, you clearly have others

So what else is "gash" (apologies, I had to look up your usage of the word, which I hope is the military slang version and not the urban dictionary one!)? That MPs are on the whole better educated and informed than Joe Public? If they are not, it rather makes a farce of parliamentary democracy. Their attitude towards Brexit? All the statistics I have seen show that about 57% of Conservative MPs 97% of Labour and 100% of SNP and Lib/Dems would have voted to remain. Or is that "gash" (or worse) as well?

You said: "people realised that it made them look like isolationist racists (which many of them are)" - I both disagree with that and resent this assumption and accusation. The r word is becoming used far too easily these days.

 

And you said : "it suddenly became all about sovereignty" - no - sovereignty never suddenly became the issue. 

 

So I say the above comments are gash, yes, as the military version.

 

And some non-gash:

1. I agree that immigration was the other main issue - I've always said that - but sovereignty first.

2. I do not take or read The Sun, Mail or Express. I like the Telewag. 

3. It seems that the majority of the Commons voted remain but perhaps not as overwhelmingly as you estimate. However, bearing in mind the Lab and Con 2017 GE manifestos,  it seems that our "better educated and informed" members have actually succeeded in creating the farce that you speak of by effectively supporting a reverse of their individual votes. But hey that's politics and that farce was created in hindsight, of course (post referendum result panic).

[Stupooey]

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

I didn't make any assumptions. Luxembourg PM? Oh another Juncker! Very good. Great!

 

OK yes we can agree.. to disagree. 

What are the first two sentences of your last paragraph if not assumptions? If you actually think a fully committed UK would have been too weak to stand up against Germany and France, then what hope will it have trying to survive on its own?

As for the quote, it is irrelevant who made it, it could have been Mickey Mouse for all I care. It just happens to be correct, as is my response to it.

[whatsupdoc]

1 hour ago, citybiker said:

To be honest, Staying clear of the Euro & Schengen was the UK'S very best strategy.

 

It was Blair mission to get GB into the Euro, thankfully he failed, especially when you consider Greece & Italy serious fiscal issues, and the EU woes are far from over.

 

As for Schengen, just ask Merkel how her open borders has helped her recent & ongoing domestic political survival.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Why mention Italy and Greece and not Germany and France??? Northern Europe is doing very well thanks to (or despite) the Euro. Why would the UK be different?

 

Schengen is for free movement within the region and has nothing to do Merkels open borders.

 

Personally, I like Schengen: no borders or passport controls if you go on holiday to Italy or Spain or... (and don't need to change money either ?).

[nauseus]

34 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Why mention Italy and Greece and not Germany and France??? Northern Europe is doing very well thanks to (or despite) the Euro. Why would the UK be different?

 

Schengen is for free movement within the region and has nothing to do Merkels open borders.

 

Personally, I like Schengen: no borders or passport controls if you go on holiday to Italy or Spain or... (and don't need to change money either ?).

So the EU should be just the "Northern EU" after all?

 

Schengen has allowed anyone already in the that area to move freely so the Merkel millions can do the same! A lot of people in Europe now see what a disaster this has been. Time to wake up.

 

 

[mommysboy]

Yes, why on earth not?  We believe in democracy don't we?

 

It is necessary because the original referendum did not prescribe how it should be done, and the courts refused to rule saying it was out of their remit.

 

Note though, the vote is to leave and that must be respected.

[whatsupdoc]

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

So the EU should be just the "Northern EU" after all?

 

Schengen has allowed anyone already in the that area to move freely so the Merkel millions can do the same! A lot of people in Europe now see what a disaster this has been. Time to wake up.

 

 

The single market benefits all countries. But if they are internally messed up it is for their government to tackle these problems first. If they can't, then the EU might help. The better organized and prosperous the countries are, the more beneficial the single market becomes. 

If Romania gets more prosperous it will benefit Germany as well because it gives more business opportunities.

 

Your comment about Schengen being a disaster is nonsense. I think you mix up the ability of EU citizens in the Schengen/EU area to move around freely with (illegal) immigration from outside of the EU.

 

After Brexit, the UK might miss the workforce from the EU and I very much doubt whether there will be any changes with regard to immigration from outside Europe.

 

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

You said: "people realised that it made them look like isolationist racists (which many of them are)" - I both disagree with that and resent this assumption and accusation. The r word is becoming used far too easily these days.

 

And you said : "it suddenly became all about sovereignty" - no - sovereignty never suddenly became the issue. 

 

So I say the above comments are gash, yes, as the military version.

 

And some non-gash:

1. I agree that immigration was the other main issue - I've always said that - but sovereignty first.

2. I do not take or read The Sun, Mail or Express. I like the Telewag. 

3. It seems that the majority of the Commons voted remain but perhaps not as overwhelmingly as you estimate. However, bearing in mind the Lab and Con 2017 GE manifestos,  it seems that our "better educated and informed" members have actually succeeded in creating the farce that you speak of by effectively supporting a reverse of their individual votes. But hey that's politics and that farce was created in hindsight, of course (post referendum result panic).

I apologise if you saw my first comment as an accusation; the point I was trying to get across was that the majority of Brexit voters (who are not racists) didn't want to be tarred by the racist brush, and I added an afterthought in brackets when I remembered the 'I am a racist and proud of it' comments I had seen on social media. My conclusion had been based on personal experience of what people were posting on the internet leading up to the referendum, which seemed to principally relate to immigration (leavers) and the economy (remainers), so it came as a surprise to see post-referendum reactions such as a video someone posted on TV (Hello Angry Losers by Pat Condell) claiming that it had all been about sovereignty. Incidentally, a MORI poll before voting showed 48% identifying immigration as the most important issue, whilst Lord Ashcroft's poll had just 33% giving it as their main reason for voting as they did, so my experience did have some factual basis.

To answer your last three points:

1) I've always seen the sovereignty and immigration issues as two sides of the same coin, in that they both relate to nationalism. I personally think that it is good for nations to have a higher authority to keep them in check. 

2) I also take the Telegraph when in the UK (admittedly mainly for the sports coverage), but they do tend to present both sides of the argument. They make no secret as to which side of the fence they stand, but allowances can always be made for that by the readership. On the other hand, the three newspapers I quoted, particularly the Express, were very blinkered in their coverage and tended to engage in scaremongering such as the supposed imminent entry of Turkey into the EU. I must admit, though, that the Mirror was similarly biased in the opposite direction.

3) The figures I quoted were not my estimate, they were the MPs own admissions as to how they voted, less the very few who were not prepared to divulge the information. They were then betrayed by their leaders, who should have united to say that the support of 37% of the electorate in an advisory plebiscite was not sufficient to trigger such a monumental constitutional change. Instead we have the current chaotic situation, in which everyone is a loser.

[nauseus]

34 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

The single market benefits all countries. But if they are internally messed up it is for their government to tackle these problems first. If they can't, then the EU might help. The better organized and prosperous the countries are, the more beneficial the single market becomes. 

If Romania gets more prosperous it will benefit Germany as well because it gives more business opportunities.

 

Your comment about Schengen being a disaster is nonsense. I think you mix up the ability of EU citizens in the Schengen/EU area to move around freely with (illegal) immigration from outside of the EU.

 

After Brexit, the UK might miss the workforce from the EU and I very much doubt whether there will be any changes with regard to immigration from outside Europe.

 

Not sure why you introduce the single market here. I'm aware of the Schengen theory but the reality is that almost all people presently within the zone are moving around Europe freely, whether they are bona fide EU/Schengen citizens or not. Now more and more EU/Schengen countries are defying the Schengen agreement and applying border checks due to this mess. 

 

Extra workforces can be arranged if needed. Work permits/visas are common throughout the world. No reason why this should not happen but registration and adherence to the rules are key. How many people are in the UK illegally now? Nobody has a clue! Ridiculous.

 

 

[citybiker]

Why mention Italy and Greece and not Germany and France??? Northern Europe is doing very well thanks to (or despite) the Euro. Why would the UK be different?
 
Schengen is for free movement within the region and has nothing to do Merkels open borders.
 
Personally, I like Schengen: no borders or passport controls if you go on holiday to Italy or Spain or... (and don't need to change money either [emoji3]).

@nauseus summary more or less nails it.



Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

[Chomper Higgot]

Oops!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain

[My Thai Life]

11 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

I personally think that it is good for nations to have a higher authority to keep them in check. 

You've made a well-written post, but maybe your enthusiasm prompted this bizarre statement.

 

The EU has no remit to keep member nations in check (other than the obvious conformance to EU regulations). 

 

And if it did have such a remit, to follow your logic, who would keep the EU in check?

[My Thai Life]

I think it's only fair that if we were to have a second referendum, we should have a prior referendum to determine whether there's a majority in favour of a second referendum.

 

In both cases there should be a minimum of 66% of the electorate in favour, as suggested by several posters here.

 

I also believe we should invite John Cleese to return from the Caribbean to preside over the entire fiasco.