Re Labour and a second referendum. It should be pointed out that if they are currently trying to put down amendments to make “No deal” impossible (whether or not you agree they can do that) then one thing is certain - there cannot be any referendum supported by them which includes “no deal” as an option.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
I don't see much doubt that if a specific Leave proposition is put to the people and accepted, that's the path we will take.
But we must leave before we start negotiating the future relationship. Brexit is by definition blind. The only way to discover what it means is to do it.
I don’t know why anyone thinks that a Scottish vote to leave the U.K. would do anything other than end up like Brexit on speed a couple of years down the line. I suppose the only difference is that it will be easier for Unionists to move to England than it is for remainers to move to the EU
Re Labour and a second referendum. It should be pointed out that if they are currently trying to put down amendments to make “No deal” impossible (whether or not you agree they can do that) then one thing is certain - there cannot be any referendum supported by them which includes “no deal” as an option.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
I think the SNP has been 180 degrees wrong on how to play Brexit.
They should have said, fine it has been a UK wide decision to Brexit. So we will support the Brexit process.
Then when Brexit has been enacted March 2019 with the help of their votes, they should say "....but Scotland never wanted to leave - and still wants to be an EU member. We will have a Referendum on that. If it passes, then Scotland will have to cede from the Union to implement that rejoin."
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
Anyone want to suggest any more spin off benefits?
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
True, but beside the point. There's no way in hell that May or anyone could go to the public and say you can have my crappy deal or you can remain. It's a cartoon booby trap we can all see a mile off. The scenario is an absolute remainer pipe dream. If that is their Machiavellian master plan, I feel sorry for them.
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Making any Remain option even more vanishingly unlikely.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
True, but beside the point. There's no way in hell that May or anyone could go to the public and say you can have my crappy deal or you can remain. It's a cartoon booby trap we can all see a mile off. The scenario is an absolute remainer pipe dream. If that is their Machiavellian master plan, I feel sorry for them.
The withdrawal agreement would be the same for any orderly Brexit, even if you tear up May's Chequers 2.0 political declaration.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
True, but beside the point. There's no way in hell that May or anyone could go to the public and say you can have my crappy deal or you can remain. It's a cartoon booby trap we can all see a mile off. The scenario is an absolute remainer pipe dream. If that is their Machiavellian master plan, I feel sorry for them.
Where would she get the HoC votes to put those two options on the ballot?
100 Tories + DUP will already have said no to her deal.
Labour will have said no to her deal. John McD is coming around to 2nd vote it seems, but bet he wont want May's deal on the ballot.
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
Mr. Taxman, calling the other side ignorant is unlikely to persuade them to change their mind, any more than calling them xenophobes and racists (or traitors, the other way).
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
+ 1
Our net membership fee without rebate would be entirely unjustifiable. Out of whack for any other EU country.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
True, but beside the point. There's no way in hell that May or anyone could go to the public and say you can have my crappy deal or you can remain. It's a cartoon booby trap we can all see a mile off. The scenario is an absolute remainer pipe dream. If that is their Machiavellian master plan, I feel sorry for them.
The withdrawal agreement would be the same for any orderly Brexit, even if you tear up May's Chequers 2.0 political declaration.
Neatly making the case for a so called 'disorderly' one, just as Cameron's faux negotiation made the case for Brexit. Though I hardly see what is disorderly about simply doing something we'll have been planning to do for several years.
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
We shouldn't be trying to 'mitigate EU integration'. The eurozone has some political imperatives it has to work through, and a UK, smug with its opt outs and rebate, attempting to frustrate those imperatives would be very damaging to the European project. As for immigration, most people want 'control', not necessarily 'less'. As long as people can contribute I don't gaf what colour they are.
I appreciate that this is a long chewed over and flavourless debate but you've struck a nerve .
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
True, but beside the point. There's no way in hell that May or anyone could go to the public and say you can have my crappy deal or you can remain. It's a cartoon booby trap we can all see a mile off. The scenario is an absolute remainer pipe dream. If that is their Machiavellian master plan, I feel sorry for them.
Where would she get the HoC votes to put those two options on the ballot?
100 Tories + DUP will already have said no to her deal.
Labour will have said no to her deal. John McD is coming around to 2nd vote it seems, but bet he wont want May's deal on the ballot.
Labour can’t go from “legislating to avoid no deal” to putting no deal as an option in a referendum. Labour’s position on the deal is nonsensical anyway, since the WA would be identical if they were in power. They might do something different post transition but that isn’t what the withdrawal agreement is about. With the exception of the backstop, and Labour’s position on that is permanent customs union anyway (ie they wouldn’t even require the Eu to grant “permission” to leave it, they would prevent us from even asking!
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
To believe this, you have to believe that the EU27 countries will still continue to treat us in every respect as if we are still a member in the days and weeks after we leave with no deal.
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
The film crew would go to the local corner shop, remove all the Mars Bars and say look "Disaster no Mars Bars."
Mr. Taxman, calling the other side ignorant is unlikely to persuade them to change their mind, any more than calling them xenophobes and racists (or traitors, the other way).
I have not called anyone a traitor, even the ones who call for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I have to say and the immigration figures released recently support the hypothesis that leaving the EU will result in higher immigration from non European countries. If people were voting to stop immigration, they were ignorant as they did not understand the implications of voting Leave. Likewise the ease of negotiating trade agreements was based on ignorance. Indeed, even the repatriation of powers has been deeply disappointing for the Brexit supporters in relation to the current deal on the table. Brexit is therefore based on naivety at the least but in my opinion more likely ignorance and downright stupidity. I do not expect to change minds on this forum...
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Can anyone clarify for me, assuming we take the deal, when would we leave the CFP and the CAP?
- 29th March 2019? - at the end of the transition period? - if/when we leave the temporary customs arrangement?
Thanks in anticipation
My understanding is we would be leaving CAP more or less instantly, except Northern Ireland.
We would however stay in the CFP for the transition period, and there is no very clear definition of what would happen after that at this time. However, the Declaration accepts the UK would be 'an independent coastal state.'
I think probably what will ultimately happen is that we will stay in a version of the CFP but instead of it being enforced (or rather, 'enforced') by officials in e.g. Spain or Holland it will be enforced by the UK, which on its own would end numerous abuses and criminal behaviours.
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
+ 1
But why not let the people decide in the 'people's vote'? Remain may not be the status quo we have now - so perhaps we also need to negotiate a remain deal before we vote in the people's vote.
Is it remain keeping the rebate - or remain with the loss of the rebate. Surely the people need to know all the facts before they vote?
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes, they could, and I don't think they would have a choice in the matter. Just as they would have no choice but to put Labour on the ballot for the next election despite the damage they would do if they won.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes citizens were really endangered before 1975....yawn
The world has changed. We joined the EEC with a long transition period. We didn't join all the institutions overnight just like we shouldn't leave all the institutions overnight.
Your avatar however suggests I will be unable to reason with you.
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
To believe this, you have to believe that the EU27 countries will still continue to treat us in every respect as if we are still a member in the days and weeks after we leave with no deal.
It's not really the EU27 countries though is it? We do relatively small amounts of trade with most of 'em (our exports to Guernsey are 3x our exports to Czechia).
People are very fond of pointing out the blindingly obvious about things like the gravity model of trade, but geography didn't change when the EU lurched into the sunlight. Our important partners are the usual suspects. Cyprus, Malta, Czechia, Slovakia et al, less so.
I don't want to see 'no deal Brexit', or at least not the NO-DEALS-WHATSOEVER worst case scenario, but we wouldn't need 27 plates spinning; just bilateral arrangements with said usual suspects - assuming they were willing ofc.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes, they could, and I don't think they would have a choice in the matter. Just as they would have no choice but to put Labour on the ballot for the next election despite the damage they would do if they won.
They couldn't because it doesn't mean anything. No deal at all? Only some deals? Only a few bilateral arrangements? It solves nothing.
Norway+Customs Union without a referendum *with* freedom of movement is the clear and only way forward after the Government is humiliated in Parliament.
Mr. Taxman, calling the other side ignorant is unlikely to persuade them to change their mind, any more than calling them xenophobes and racists (or traitors, the other way).
I have not called anyone a traitor, even the ones who call for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I have to say and the immigration figures released recently support the hypothesis that leaving the EU will result in higher immigration from non European countries. If people were voting to stop immigration, they were ignorant as they did not understand the implications of voting Leave. Likewise the ease of negotiating trade agreements was based on ignorance. Indeed, even the repatriation of powers has been deeply disappointing for the Brexit supporters in relation to the current deal on the table. Brexit is therefore based on naivety at the least but in my opinion more likely ignorance and downright stupidity. I do not expect to change minds on this forum...
Lower EU immigration doesn't automatically mean an increase in non-EU immigration. It's a nonsense argument.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes, they could, and I don't think they would have a choice in the matter. Just as they would have no choice but to put Labour on the ballot for the next election despite the damage they would do if they won.
They couldn't because it doesn't mean anything. No deal at all? Only some deals? Only a few bilateral arrangements? It solves nothing.
Norway+Customs Union without a referendum *with* freedom of movement is the clear and only way forward after the Government is humiliated in Parliament.
From 30th March 2019 or after a transition period?
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
To believe this, you have to believe that the EU27 countries will still continue to treat us in every respect as if we are still a member in the days and weeks after we leave with no deal.
It's not really the EU27 countries though is it? We do relatively small amounts of trade with most of 'em (our exports to Guernsey are 3x our exports to Czechia).
People are very fond of pointing out the blindingly obvious about things like the gravity model of trade, but geography didn't change when the EU lurched into the sunlight. Our important partners are the usual suspects. Cyprus, Malta, Czechia, Slovakia et al, less so.
I don't want to see 'no deal Brexit', or at least not the NO-DEALS-WHATSOEVER worst case scenario, but we wouldn't need 27 plates spinning; just bilateral arrangements with said usual suspects - assuming they were willing ofc.
If we need agreements with France, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc, then we need to work with the EU, because they rightly see it as the best way to protect their interests.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes, they could, and I don't think they would have a choice in the matter. Just as they would have no choice but to put Labour on the ballot for the next election despite the damage they would do if they won.
They couldn't because it doesn't mean anything. No deal at all? Only some deals? Only a few bilateral arrangements? It solves nothing.
Norway+Customs Union without a referendum *with* freedom of movement is the clear and only way forward after the Government is humiliated in Parliament.
From 30th March 2019 or after a transition period?
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
I have not called anyone a traitor, even the ones who call for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I have to say and the immigration figures released recently support the hypothesis that leaving the EU will result in higher immigration from non European countries. If people were voting to stop immigration, they were ignorant as they did not understand the implications of voting Leave. Likewise the ease of negotiating trade agreements was based on ignorance. Indeed, even the repatriation of powers has been deeply disappointing for the Brexit supporters in relation to the current deal on the table. Brexit is therefore based on naivety at the least but in my opinion more likely ignorance and downright stupidity. I do not expect to change minds on this forum...
It is possible to agree with this analysis but nevertheless feel it important that the 2016 referendum is respected and that we leave the EU.
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
+ 1
But why not let the people decide in the 'people's vote'? Remain may not be the status quo we have now - so perhaps we also need to negotiate a remain deal before we vote in the people's vote.
Is it remain keeping the rebate - or remain with the loss of the rebate. Surely the people need to know all the facts before they vote?
We managed to get ourselves into this mess without knowing what voting to Leave actually meant, somehow it would not be surprising if we supposedly got ourselves out of this mess by not knowing what a vote to Remain meant.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
Yawn, you happened to meet people who confirmed your own prejudice.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
To be honest those ultra brexiteers/ukippers in the party will not be missed by many of us
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes citizens were really endangered before 1975....yawn
The UK economy was not as intertwined pre 1975 as it is now. When the UK joined the EC, which evolved into the EU, its primary goal was to create a vast market for European countries to trade within without impediments to trade. Forty years of integration that suddenly unravels in a No deal is going to be catastrophic for some parts of the economy.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
The Brexit advocates on the board drone on about the will of the people and then sneer at the same people watching Mrs Brown’s Boys. You may draw your own conclusion about their selectivity.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.
The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.
There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.
Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...
1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.
2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.
3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.
The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.
They are in last chance saloon.
Quite the opposite. This is the Gammons' Last Stand. Every day that passes the electoral maths moves incrementally towards remain. If they don't achieve their beloved festival of mindless xenophobia right now, it will never happen. As it is, best case scenario the whole project will be overturned within the decade and the reactionary bigoted politics of deluded nostalgia that gave the whole disaster life will be despised for a generation, along with its dwindling proponents.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
Yawn, you happened to meet people who confirmed your own prejudice.
I don't say anything to them about their decision to vote for Brexit. Quite often they bring it up. The only yawning I see is the gap between reality and your dogmatic perception of how Trade, Immigration and the economy will work....
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
A lot of Tory members did not renew because of Brexit and the ERG loons within the Party, I am one such lapsed member. I won't renew again ever. I guess I am no loss to a Party bent on self harm.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
Yawn, you happened to meet people who confirmed your own prejudice.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
The Brexit advocates on the board drone on about the will of the people and then sneer at the same people watching Mrs Brown’s Boys. You may draw your own conclusion about their selectivity.
Can't say I have noticed any comments on Mrs Brown's boys here recently? I wonder what his/her views are about the backstop?
Its certainly a very sneered at show even though it tops the Xmas ratings every year now - although I expect that's probably more the case amongst the remain voting London chatterati than the average leave or remain voter.
Cannae see it masel'. Of course there's been lots of things happening recently which I didn't foresee, only for them to magically materialise before me (none of them good).
I can see it happening if the SNP receive over 50% of the popular vote, I think we'll be headed for a whole heap of mess if the SNP win a majority of seats on circa 37% of the vote.
Whilst I don't count yourself in the latter, I suspect quite a few Nats will get enraged if the latter threshold is met but not enacted on by the SNP which will make Scotland unpleasant.
Well, to put it another way, as long as Nicola Sturgeon is leader of the SNP and FM there won't be any leaps into the UDI mire.
If there's a no deal Brexit then we're all in a world of various kinds of pain. As someone else has pointed out below there's already currently a Holyrood majority for the right to call Indy ref II, and Sturgeon also has the option of resigning to force a snap Holyrood election. I'd guess various scenarios have been wargamed.
Not the least pleasure of Indy ref II actually taking place would be the entire raison d'etre of Ruth and her dwarves being entirely dissolved.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Mr. Taxman, calling the other side ignorant is unlikely to persuade them to change their mind, any more than calling them xenophobes and racists (or traitors, the other way).
I have not called anyone a traitor, even the ones who call for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I have to say and the immigration figures released recently support the hypothesis that leaving the EU will result in higher immigration from non European countries. If people were voting to stop immigration, they were ignorant as they did not understand the implications of voting Leave. Likewise the ease of negotiating trade agreements was based on ignorance. Indeed, even the repatriation of powers has been deeply disappointing for the Brexit supporters in relation to the current deal on the table. Brexit is therefore based on naivety at the least but in my opinion more likely ignorance and downright stupidity. I do not expect to change minds on this forum...
Lower EU immigration doesn't automatically mean an increase in non-EU immigration. It's a nonsense argument.
Have you not seen the latest immigration figures from the Office of National Statistics. I think you are in denial or being obtuse about it. I am not going to get the figures for you but if you look at the ONS data you will see European Immigration has fallen, only to be offset by a rise in Non-European Immigration. Whether you like it or not, skill shortages in the UK economy are still inherently visible and the Immigration is only meeting a need.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
I might re-join the Conservative Party and get others who are Conservative inclined voters who look upon Brexit as severely damaging to join or re-join as well. We cannot understand Brexit people who want lower economic growth, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
In east London many Asians also voted for Brexit as they assumed it would mean fewer eastern Europeans and therefore make Commonwealth immigration easier. Leave nearly won boroughs like Redbridge and Newham. Barking and Dagenham voted 63% leave - but barely 40% of the population now is white British. Its never that simple to box people!
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes, they could, and I don't think they would have a choice in the matter. Just as they would have no choice but to put Labour on the ballot for the next election despite the damage they would do if they won.
They couldn't because it doesn't mean anything. No deal at all? Only some deals? Only a few bilateral arrangements? It solves nothing.
Norway+Customs Union without a referendum *with* freedom of movement is the clear and only way forward after the Government is humiliated in Parliament.
There is no clear way forward at all. If there was we wouldn't be where we are. I prefer Norway but that is not without it's problems. You cannot just say Norway and it happens, especially as legislation has to pass the HOC by the 29th March or we leave on no deal
Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.
The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.
There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.
Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...
1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.
2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.
3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.
The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.
They are in last chance saloon.
Quite the opposite. This is the Gammons' Last Stand. Every day that passes the electoral maths moves incrementally towards remain. If they don't achieve their beloved festival of mindless xenophobia right now, it will never happen. As it is, best case scenario the whole project will be overturned within the decade and the reactionary bigoted politics of deluded nostalgia that gave the whole disaster life will be despised for a generation, along with its dwindling proponents.
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
To believe this, you have to believe that the EU27 countries will still continue to treat us in every respect as if we are still a member in the days and weeks after we leave with no deal.
It's not really the EU27 countries though is it? We do relatively small amounts of trade with most of 'em (our exports to Guernsey are 3x our exports to Czechia).
People are very fond of pointing out the blindingly obvious about things like the gravity model of trade, but geography didn't change when the EU lurched into the sunlight. Our important partners are the usual suspects. Cyprus, Malta, Czechia, Slovakia et al, less so.
I don't want to see 'no deal Brexit', or at least not the NO-DEALS-WHATSOEVER worst case scenario, but we wouldn't need 27 plates spinning; just bilateral arrangements with said usual suspects - assuming they were willing ofc.
If we need agreements with France, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc, then we need to work with the EU, because they rightly see it as the best way to protect their interests.
We need to bulk buy some extra water cleaner, and whatever the NHS thinks it needs to continue the rather below par job it does of putting people back on the road to recovery.
Beyond that, it's just people and countries acting as the economic units they are. It is foolish for remainers to overplay the 'no deal' hand, but they have not shown an awful lot of common sense up till now, so what should we expect?
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Yes, they could, and I don't think they would have a choice in the matter. Just as they would have no choice but to put Labour on the ballot for the next election despite the damage they would do if they won.
They couldn't because it doesn't mean anything. No deal at all? Only some deals? Only a few bilateral arrangements? It solves nothing.
Norway+Customs Union without a referendum *with* freedom of movement is the clear and only way forward after the Government is humiliated in Parliament.
From 30th March 2019 or after a transition period?
After an extension of Article 50.
OK. Please explain the process to arrive at an extension of A50 when the EU have said they would only agree a short extension for a referendum or a GE but not at all for further negotiations. As they confirmed in Argentina this weekend, the deal has passed the EU and will not be re-opened
Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.
The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.
There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.
Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...
1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.
2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.
3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.
The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.
They are in last chance saloon.
Quite the opposite. This is the Gammons' Last Stand. Every day that passes the electoral maths moves incrementally towards remain. If they don't achieve their beloved festival of mindless xenophobia right now, it will never happen. As it is, best case scenario the whole project will be overturned within the decade and the reactionary bigoted politics of deluded nostalgia that gave the whole disaster life will be despised for a generation, along with its dwindling proponents.
Did you vote Remain by any chance?
Whenever someone uses a racist slur in the first sentence, it's a good sign you can ignore the rest of the post.
There won't be a 'deal vs remain' referendum. Even the BBC would smell that rat.
We could have multiple leave options - May's deal, no deal, negotiated WTO.
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate? remain even if we lose the rebate? remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
Remaining without the rebate is a hugely smaller price than the leavers will force upon us for following through with their lifelong obsession. Anything else is for the future.
+ 1
Our net membership fee without rebate would be entirely unjustifiable. Out of whack for any other EU country.
With tongue firmly in cheek: one could say that if we Remain after all, after The Bus and its claims, we can be judged as willing to pay the gross membership fee without rebate.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
Any 3 way referendum really has to be in two stages - an “AV” type scenario has the problem that people might be forced to vote against their preferred option to avert their most disliked option.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no? 2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave 2) if leave, deal or no deal
A second referendum would be a disgrace in these circumstances. It would be Remainers deliberately sinking a deal so they could say a deal isn't possible.
EU rings Parliament: "OMG! We simply cannot have this. Tell you what, you can have the deal of the century then. Eat the whole cake today and eat it again tomorrow and every day for ever and ever amen. How's that?"
Parliament: "Sorry. It's No Deal. The People have spoken."
EU: "Oh alright then. But look, how about at least we strike a few quick and dirties to keep the show on the road. Just the essentials. You know, air space, medicines, no mass deportations, travel rights, security, stuff like that. You're cool with that surely to goodness?"
Parliament: "Nope. On yer bike. The people have spoken in a referendum and said it's No Deal. No way will we dishonour a referendum. It would be a scandal. No Deal means No Deal."
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
To believe this, you have to believe that the EU27 countries will still continue to treat us in every respect as if we are still a member in the days and weeks after we leave with no deal.
It's not really the EU27 countries though is it? We do relatively small amounts of trade with most of 'em (our exports to Guernsey are 3x our exports to Czechia).
People are very fond of pointing out the blindingly obvious about things like the gravity model of trade, but geography didn't change when the EU lurched into the sunlight. Our important partners are the usual suspects. Cyprus, Malta, Czechia, Slovakia et al, less so.
I don't want to see 'no deal Brexit', or at least not the NO-DEALS-WHATSOEVER worst case scenario, but we wouldn't need 27 plates spinning; just bilateral arrangements with said usual suspects - assuming they were willing ofc.
If we need agreements with France, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc, then we need to work with the EU, because they rightly see it as the best way to protect their interests.
We need to bulk buy some extra water cleaner, and whatever the NHS thinks it needs to continue the rather below par job it does of putting people back on the road to recovery. Beyond that, it's just people and countries acting as the economic units they are. It is foolish for remainers to overplay the 'no deal' hand, but they have not shown an awful lot of common sense up till now, so what should we expect?
This is a pretty good blog from the perspective of a libertarian Brexiteer which explains why you're wrong. Which bit of it do you disagree with?
There was nothing inevitable about our current predicament and you wouldn't start from here, but now that we're here it would be irresponsible to jump from the frying pan to the fire. The European Commission and the British establishment have won. The Brexiteers have been outmaneuvered. We have lost and it is not worth wrecking the economy and opening the door to socialism to make a point. The only realistic choice now is between remaining in the EU and accepting May's deal. No deal is a no go.
Mr. Taxman, calling the other side ignorant is unlikely to persuade them to change their mind, any more than calling them xenophobes and racists (or traitors, the other way).
I have not called anyone a traitor, even the ones who call for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I have to say and the immigration figures released recently support the hypothesis that leaving the EU will result in higher immigration from non European countries. If people were voting to stop immigration, they were ignorant as they did not understand the implications of voting Leave. Likewise the ease of negotiating trade agreements was based on ignorance. Indeed, even the repatriation of powers has been deeply disappointing for the Brexit supporters in relation to the current deal on the table. Brexit is therefore based on naivety at the least but in my opinion more likely ignorance and downright stupidity. I do not expect to change minds on this forum...
Lower EU immigration doesn't automatically mean an increase in non-EU immigration. It's a nonsense argument.
Have you not seen the latest immigration figures from the Office of National Statistics. I think you are in denial or being obtuse about it. I am not going to get the figures for you but if you look at the ONS data you will see European Immigration has fallen, only to be offset by a rise in Non-European Immigration. Whether you like it or not, skill shortages in the UK economy are still inherently visible and the Immigration is only meeting a need.
It's possible to run a country without adding 300k people every year. It's not a law of nature, it's current government policy which could be changed.
Mr. Taxman, the 'traitor' line is one more commonly used against Remainers by some Leavers. I don't think it's helpful, likewise the stupid/xenophobe line the other way (I only included it in an attempt to make plain I don't think it's a one-way street).
Yeah, that's not going to happen. If we do leave the EU we will be rejoining in absolute max ten years (and probably less than 5). And the backlash from the younger generations against the dying political forces that brought us there is going to resound for a generation at least.
The ratchet will only realistically turn one way post-exit and it isn't going to towards the EU.
There is going to be electoral gold in promising to right perceived wrongs in the deal even if they are of little economic consequence.
Conversely the pathways for rejoining are going to be limited...
1. No Conservative leader is ever going to be elected by the membership/party on a platform of rejoining.
2. A new Labour leader might but my feeling is that the downsides electorally of campaigning on a manifesto of another referendum/direct entry will outweigh the gains from the ever dwindling band of remainers who would still be making the subject a priority.
3. The Lib Dems will in all likelihood become the net gainers from disaffected remainers who cannot reconcile themselves to the result.
The reason remainers in parliament are fighting so hard is that they realise that once we're out the chances of persuading the public to rejoin are very, very slim.
They are in last chance saloon.
Quite the opposite. This is the Gammons' Last Stand. Every day that passes the electoral maths moves incrementally towards remain. If they don't achieve their beloved festival of mindless xenophobia right now, it will never happen. As it is, best case scenario the whole project will be overturned within the decade and the reactionary bigoted politics of deluded nostalgia that gave the whole disaster life will be despised for a generation, along with its dwindling proponents.
Did you vote Remain by any chance?
Whenever someone uses a racist slur in the first sentence, it's a good sign you can ignore the rest of the post.
The thing is, the word ‘gammon’ ticks all the boxes that would normally constitute a racist epitaph and as such, the people using it would be horrified in other circumstance.
A charcheteristic that’s exclusive to a particular race, is used to humiliate and imply a set of views are a consequence of, and that the holder of this racial characteristic are (to use a left’s term) othered and their views are not worthy of taking seriously.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this could be applied in any other context. And what the consequences would be.
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
To believe this, you have to believe that the EU27 countries will still continue to treat us in every respect as if we are still a member in the days and weeks after we leave with no deal.
It's not really the EU27 countries though is it? We do relatively small amounts of trade with most of 'em (our exports to Guernsey are 3x our exports to Czechia).
People are very fond of pointing out the blindingly obvious about things like the gravity model of trade, but geography didn't change when the EU lurched into the sunlight. Our important partners are the usual suspects. Cyprus, Malta, Czechia, Slovakia et al, less so.
I don't want to see 'no deal Brexit', or at least not the NO-DEALS-WHATSOEVER worst case scenario, but we wouldn't need 27 plates spinning; just bilateral arrangements with said usual suspects - assuming they were willing ofc.
If we need agreements with France, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc, then we need to work with the EU, because they rightly see it as the best way to protect their interests.
nse up till now, so what should we expect?
This is a pretty good blog from the perspective of a libertarian Brexiteer which explains why you're wrong. Which bit of it do you disagree with?
There was nothing inevitable about our current predicament and you wouldn't start from here, but now that we're here it would be irresponsible to jump from the frying pan to the fire. The European Commission and the British establishment have won. The Brexiteers have been outmaneuvered. We have lost and it is not worth wrecking the economy and opening the door to socialism to make a point. The only realistic choice now is between remaining in the EU and accepting May's deal. No deal is a no go.
I take issue with him not knowing that the BoE published the criteria for stress testing the banks not a forecast of what would happen. I also take issue with him accepting the Treasury forecasts of the regional hits to GDP whilst they have refused to publish the calcs and assumptions that created the forecast.
Mr. Taxman, the 'traitor' line is one more commonly used against Remainers by some Leavers. I don't think it's helpful, likewise the stupid/xenophobe line the other way (I only included it in an attempt to make plain I don't think it's a one-way street).
EU rings Parliament: "OMG! We simply cannot have this. Tell you what, you can have the deal of the century then. Eat the whole cake today and eat it again tomorrow and every day for ever and ever amen. How's that?"
Parliament: "Sorry. It's No Deal. The People have spoken."
EU: "Oh alright then. But look, how about at least we strike a few quick and dirties to keep the show on the road. Just the essentials. You know, air space, medicines, no mass deportations, travel rights, security, stuff like that. You're cool with that surely to goodness?"
Parliament: "Nope. On yer bike. The people have spoken in a referendum and said it's No Deal. No way will we dishonour a referendum. It would be a scandal. No Deal means No Deal."
:-)
C'mon. Hall of Mirrors.
Perhaps it should be "not this deal", rather than "no deal"
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
But what if it doesn't?
Then what does that look like? And if it does look like the UK somehow becoming a cross between Gin lane, Cherobyl, and downtown Somalia overnight, who is really going to be blamed, the people that wanted to leave the EU, or the people who've been running the country so disastrously that leaving a set of customs arrangements (with 3 years' notice) makes that happen?
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
But what if it doesn't?
What does that look like? And if it does look like the UK somehow becoming a cross between Gin lane, Cherobyl, and downtown Somalia overnight, who is really going to be blamed, the people that wanted to leave the EU, or the people who've been running the country so disastrously that leaving a set of customs arrangements (with 3 years' notice) makes that happen?
Why the f does it matter who “gets the blame” in those circumstances?
EU rings Parliament: "OMG! We simply cannot have this. Tell you what, you can have the deal of the century then. Eat the whole cake today and eat it again tomorrow and every day for ever and ever amen. How's that?"
Parliament: "Sorry. It's No Deal. The People have spoken."
EU: "Oh alright then. But look, how about at least we strike a few quick and dirties to keep the show on the road. Just the essentials. You know, air space, medicines, no mass deportations, travel rights, security, stuff like that. You're cool with that surely to goodness?"
Parliament: "Nope. On yer bike. The people have spoken in a referendum and said it's No Deal. No way will we dishonour a referendum. It would be a scandal. No Deal means No Deal."
:-)
C'mon. Hall of Mirrors.
Perhaps it should be "not this deal", rather than "no deal"
At this point there is no other deal left. It's this deal or no deal, that's been made very clear by the EU. I don't see how a new PM or government will change that. They may be able to shape the long terms deal to be much more favourable than the WA, however, the WA is set in stone. Anyone claiming they can change it is selling a pack of lies.
Mr. Taxman, calling the other side ignorant is unlikely to persuade them to change their mind, any more than calling them xenophobes and racists (or traitors, the other way).
I have not called anyone a traitor, even the ones who call for the breakup of the United Kingdom. I have to say and the immigration figures released recently support the hypothesis that leaving the EU will result in higher immigration from non European countries. If people were voting to stop immigration, they were ignorant as they did not understand the implications of voting Leave. Likewise the ease of negotiating trade agreements was based on ignorance. Indeed, even the repatriation of powers has been deeply disappointing for the Brexit supporters in relation to the current deal on the table. Brexit is therefore based on naivety at the least but in my opinion more likely ignorance and downright stupidity. I do not expect to change minds on this forum...
Lower EU immigration doesn't automatically mean an increase in non-EU immigration. It's a nonsense argument.
Have you not seen the latest immigration figures from the Office of National Statistics. I think you are in denial or being obtuse about it. I am not going to get the figures for you but if you look at the ONS data you will see European Immigration has fallen, only to be offset by a rise in Non-European Immigration. Whether you like it or not, skill shortages in the UK economy are still inherently visible and the Immigration is only meeting a need.
It's possible to run a country without adding 300k people every year. It's not a law of nature, it's current government policy which could be changed.
The best way would be to crash the economy, but it would probably need to crash to African standards to put off the migrants. I am not suggesting we would need to go full South Sudan, Kenya would probably do...
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
, less influence for the country in international relations and the diminution of the UKs ability to mitigate European integration and hence power over the UK. Brexit is based on ignorance, non European Immigration will replace European Immigration, far from getting your country back ever more people are going to arrive and they may well establish diasporas that do not integrate as well as Europeans....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
The Brexit advocates on the board drone on about the will of the people and then sneer at the same people watching Mrs Brown’s Boys. You may draw your own conclusion about their selectivity.
My father, who has since died, voted Leave. He knew little of current affairs but was (before the onset of his dementia) very sharp, having successfully run his own business for many years. He had zero knowledge of what the EU did beyond what he read in the Daily Mail.
On the morning after the referendum I patiently explained that Brexit could (and still unfortunately could) lead to a recession which would threaten my business which employs about 70 people. Not surprisingly he was appalled at what he had helped to make happen.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
EU rings Parliament: "OMG! We simply cannot have this. Tell you what, you can have the deal of the century then. Eat the whole cake today and eat it again tomorrow and every day for ever and ever amen. How's that?"
Parliament: "Sorry. It's No Deal. The People have spoken."
EU: "Oh alright then. But look, how about at least we strike a few quick and dirties to keep the show on the road. Just the essentials. You know, air space, medicines, no mass deportations, travel rights, security, stuff like that. You're cool with that surely to goodness?"
Parliament: "Nope. On yer bike. The people have spoken in a referendum and said it's No Deal. No way will we dishonour a referendum. It would be a scandal. No Deal means No Deal."
:-)
C'mon. Hall of Mirrors.
Perhaps it should be "not this deal", rather than "no deal"
At this point there is no other deal left. It's this deal or no deal, that's been made very clear by the EU. I don't see how a new PM or government will change that. They may be able to shape the long terms deal to be much more favourable than the WA, however, the WA is set in stone. Anyone claiming they can change it is selling a pack of lies.
Agreed, but I was thinking in terms of kinabalu's hypothetical.
No UK Government could, with good conscious, endanger their citizens by putting 'No Deal' on a ballot paper. To suggest otherwise is just dangerous.
Gina Miller said this morning that if a referendum is held it has to be a choice of - deal - no deal - remain
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
I hope in that same interview she was asked to apologise for the continuing risk of No Deal Brexit? Without her intervention, May's Deal would be May's Agreement, signed, sealed, delivered.
EU rings Parliament: "OMG! We simply cannot have this. Tell you what, you can have the deal of the century then. Eat the whole cake today and eat it again tomorrow and every day for ever and ever amen. How's that?"
Parliament: "Sorry. It's No Deal. The People have spoken."
EU: "Oh alright then. But look, how about at least we strike a few quick and dirties to keep the show on the road. Just the essentials. You know, air space, medicines, no mass deportations, travel rights, security, stuff like that. You're cool with that surely to goodness?"
Parliament: "Nope. On yer bike. The people have spoken in a referendum and said it's No Deal. No way will we dishonour a referendum. It would be a scandal. No Deal means No Deal."
:-)
C'mon. Hall of Mirrors.
Perhaps it should be "not this deal", rather than "no deal"
At this point there is no other deal left. It's this deal or no deal, that's been made very clear by the EU. I don't see how a new PM or government will change that. They may be able to shape the long terms deal to be much more favourable than the WA, however, the WA is set in stone. Anyone claiming they can change it is selling a pack of lies.
Agreed, but I was thinking in terms of kinabalu's hypothetical.
Well that would basically give the Govt the power to agree ANY deal that wasn’t precisely the deal already agreed. Which then wouldn’t pass the HoC which means another referendum...
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
On the day after the referendum one of the vox pops from a pub somewhere showed an old man with tears in his eyes saying, "I've got my country back!" It was very poignant but I remember feeling such anger towards the people who made him feel that he'd lost his country in the first place.
A second vote looks unlikely, but still possible. If it proceeds it will, however, and despite the desperate posts from the leave headbangers on this site, be deal v Remain.
Yes.
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
And about 50,000 Tory members burn their memberships......
, ....
When I was in East London it was the "non Europeans" that many leavers seemed to think that Brexit would get rid of. At the same time as the Leave campaign was telling local Asian voters that Brexit would allow lots more of their relatives to arrive.
Indeed, I spoke to one bloke who thought Brexit would mean all the non Europeans would "go home". I have encountered many people who voted for Brexit and simply did not understand what they were voting on, they thought it was like a decision to exit a building, they simply do not understand the institutions, obligations and benefits of being in the EU. The profoundly depressing thing is I have met some people who voted for Brexit and are now complaining about the effects on their lives of Brexit. I realise Brexit advocates on this board are more sophisticated than the examples I cite but for many their decision to support Brexit was based on ignorance.
The Brexit advocates on the board drone on about the will of the people and then sneer at the same people watching Mrs Brown’s Boys. You may draw your own conclusion about their selectivity.
My father, who has since died, voted Leave. He knew little of current affairs but was (before the onset of his dementia) very sharp, having successfully run his own business for many years. He had zero knowledge of what the EU did beyond what he read in the Daily Mail.
On the morning after the referendum I patiently explained that Brexit could (and still unfortunately could) lead to a recession which would threaten my business which employs about 70 people. Not surprisingly he was appalled at what he had helped to make happen.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
On the day after the referendum one of the vox pops from a pub somewhere showed an old man with tears in his eyes saying, "I've got my country back!" It was very poignant but I remember feeling such anger towards the people who made him feel that he'd lost his country in the first place.
Agreed. Signing the Lisbon Treaty without the promised referendum was a disgrace.
Following the at best questionable logic behind the lamentable campaign for a second EU referendum, any second Scottish independence referendum resulting in a vote for independence would have to be backed by a second referendum on the deal negotiated by the Scottish Government.
My father, who has since died, voted Leave. He knew little of current affairs but was (before the onset of his dementia) very sharp, having successfully run his own business for many years. He had zero knowledge of what the EU did beyond what he read in the Daily Mail.
On the morning after the referendum I patiently explained that Brexit could (and still unfortunately could) lead to a recession which would threaten my business which employs about 70 people. Not surprisingly he was appalled at what he had helped to make happen.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
He was also clearly an immensely tolerant, wise and forgiving father, in a way that perhaps you have yet to understand or appreciate.
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
The film crew would go to the local corner shop, remove all the Mars Bars and say look "Disaster no Mars Bars."
I think Mars Bars are made in Slough....tha disaster would probably be down to the no-change-there railways being buggered....
Perhaps it should be "not this deal", rather than "no deal"
But 'Not This Deal' winning does not resolve the impasse.
Also 'The Deal' is just the Withdrawal Agreement. It does not define the all important future relationship.
Which brings me back to my recurring point. No Deal is not suitable for a public vote and neither is The Deal.
So no 2nd referendum. It's superficially attractive but collapses on scrutiny.
Only way to have another EU referendum before we leave that is both defensible and practical is to enter the Tardis, jump back to 2016, and get it done before Cameron bags the slot for his.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
On the day after the referendum one of the vox pops from a pub somewhere showed an old man with tears in his eyes saying, "I've got my country back!" It was very poignant but I remember feeling such anger towards the people who made him feel that he'd lost his country in the first place.
Perhaps it should be "not this deal", rather than "no deal"
But 'Not This Deal' winning does not resolve the impasse.
Also 'The Deal' is just the Withdrawal Agreement. It does not define the all important future relationship.
Which brings me back to my recurring point. No Deal is not suitable for a public vote and neither is The Deal.
So no 2nd referendum. It's superficially attractive but collapses on scrutiny.
Only way to have another EU referendum before we leave that is both defensible and practical is to enter the Tardis, jump back to 2016, and get it done before Cameron bags the slot for his.
There won’t be a vote.
The default is no deal. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal, or some side deals, if they want to avoid that.
My father, who has since died, voted Leave. He knew little of current affairs but was (before the onset of his dementia) very sharp, having successfully run his own business for many years. He had zero knowledge of what the EU did beyond what he read in the Daily Mail.
On the morning after the referendum I patiently explained that Brexit could (and still unfortunately could) lead to a recession which would threaten my business which employs about 70 people. Not surprisingly he was appalled at what he had helped to make happen.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
He was also clearly an immensely tolerant, wise and forgiving father, in a way that perhaps you have yet to understand or appreciate.
Comments
I am opposed to a 2nd ref but if it does somehow come to pass then the binary 'Deal vs Remain' question is the only one that I can see being put.
They should have said, fine it has been a UK wide decision to Brexit. So we will support the Brexit process.
Then when Brexit has been enacted March 2019 with the help of their votes, they should say "....but Scotland never wanted to leave - and still wants to be an EU member. We will have a Referendum on that. If it passes, then Scotland will have to cede from the Union to implement that rejoin."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/28/emmanuel-macron-populism-french-president
The metropolitan Paris elite vs the poor and those living in rural France. Remind us of anything?
But why do we assume remain is the status quo and there is only one remain option? After putting them through two and a half years of hassle why do we assume in our hour of humiliation when we go crawling back to stay in won't the EU seek their pound of flesh - ending the rebate at the next budget round for a start.
We have debated what leave means - but was does remain on the ballot mean? Should we have
remain as long as we keep the rebate?
remain even if we lose the rebate?
remain plus join Schengen and the Euro - full EU?
Because I wouldn't be surprise if we did go back cap in hand that some price might well be exacted?
- 29th March 2019?
- at the end of the transition period?
- if/when we leave the temporary customs arrangement?
Thanks in anticipation
100 Tories + DUP will already have said no to her deal.
Labour will have said no to her deal. John McD is coming around to 2nd vote it seems, but bet he wont want May's deal on the ballot.
https://twitter.com/eha_news/status/1069245420126257158
What if no deal turns out to be another millenium bug? BBC film crews on the day after desperately trying to find some distressed no deal victims. What if the drinking water remains drinkable, and watery?
I appreciate that this is a long chewed over and flavourless debate but you've struck a nerve
We would however stay in the CFP for the transition period, and there is no very clear definition of what would happen after that at this time. However, the Declaration accepts the UK would be 'an independent coastal state.'
I think probably what will ultimately happen is that we will stay in a version of the CFP but instead of it being enforced (or rather, 'enforced') by officials in e.g. Spain or Holland it will be enforced by the UK, which on its own would end numerous abuses and criminal behaviours.
Is it remain keeping the rebate - or remain with the loss of the rebate. Surely the people need to know all the facts before they vote?
Your avatar however suggests I will be unable to reason with you.
People are very fond of pointing out the blindingly obvious about things like the gravity model of trade, but geography didn't change when the EU lurched into the sunlight. Our important partners are the usual suspects. Cyprus, Malta, Czechia, Slovakia et al, less so.
I don't want to see 'no deal Brexit', or at least not the NO-DEALS-WHATSOEVER worst case scenario, but we wouldn't need 27 plates spinning; just bilateral arrangements with said usual suspects - assuming they were willing ofc.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21
Norway+Customs Union without a referendum *with* freedom of movement is the clear and only way forward after the Government is humiliated in Parliament.
Furthermore the HOC is split almost 33% to each choice
I would also state, yet again, it is in law and is default unless the HOC comes to it senses
The easiest way of closing all this down is to pass TM deal but of coursevno deal goes on any ballot
I know for a fact it's possible.
We all know the amount of disinformation 'fake news' that would be used in favour of a 'no deal' in a referendum of that nature.
Why are we still talking about May's deal like it will pass? It clearly wont.
Its certainly a very sneered at show even though it tops the Xmas ratings every year now - although I expect that's probably more the case amongst the remain voting London chatterati than the average leave or remain voter.
If there's a no deal Brexit then we're all in a world of various kinds of pain. As someone else has pointed out below there's already currently a Holyrood majority for the right to call Indy ref II, and Sturgeon also has the option of resigning to force a snap Holyrood election. I'd guess various scenarios have been wargamed.
Not the least pleasure of Indy ref II actually taking place would be the entire raison d'etre of Ruth and her dwarves being entirely dissolved.
So should be eg.
1) deal yes or no?
2) if no, remain or leave (with no deal)
Or
1) remain or leave
2) if leave, deal or no deal
You seem to think no deal can be deleted from the equation. It simple cannot
Beyond that, it's just people and countries acting as the economic units they are. It is foolish for remainers to overplay the 'no deal' hand, but they have not shown an awful lot of common sense up till now, so what should we expect?
Ok, so it's there and shock horror it wins.
EU rings Parliament: "OMG! We simply cannot have this. Tell you what, you can have the deal of the century then. Eat the whole cake today and eat it again tomorrow and every day for ever and ever amen. How's that?"
Parliament: "Sorry. It's No Deal. The People have spoken."
EU: "Oh alright then. But look, how about at least we strike a few quick and dirties to keep the show on the road. Just the essentials. You know, air space, medicines, no mass deportations, travel rights, security, stuff like that. You're cool with that surely to goodness?"
Parliament: "Nope. On yer bike. The people have spoken in a referendum and said it's No Deal. No way will we dishonour a referendum. It would be a scandal. No Deal means No Deal."
:-)
C'mon. Hall of Mirrors.
https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2018/12/deal-or-no-deal.html
The conclusion is:
There was nothing inevitable about our current predicament and you wouldn't start from here, but now that we're here it would be irresponsible to jump from the frying pan to the fire. The European Commission and the British establishment have won. The Brexiteers have been outmaneuvered. We have lost and it is not worth wrecking the economy and opening the door to socialism to make a point. The only realistic choice now is between remaining in the EU and accepting May's deal. No deal is a no go.
A charcheteristic that’s exclusive to a particular race, is used to humiliate and imply a set of views are a consequence of, and that the holder of this racial characteristic are (to use a left’s term) othered and their views are not worthy of taking seriously.
It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this could be applied in any other context. And what the consequences would be.
On the morning after the referendum I patiently explained that Brexit could (and still unfortunately could) lead to a recession which would threaten my business which employs about 70 people. Not surprisingly he was appalled at what he had helped to make happen.
I don’t blame him in any way, but will never forgive the Tory bastards who wilfully mislead him and abused his lack of knowledge.
Also 'The Deal' is just the Withdrawal Agreement. It does not define the all important future relationship.
Which brings me back to my recurring point. No Deal is not suitable for a public vote and neither is The Deal.
So no 2nd referendum. It's superficially attractive but collapses on scrutiny.
Only way to have another EU referendum before we leave that is both defensible and practical is to enter the Tardis, jump back to 2016, and get it done before Cameron bags the slot for his.
The default is no deal. Politicians need to grow up and agree a deal, or some side deals, if they want to avoid that.