Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Sharpattack]

As we're approaching the end game I think it's fair to say that the plan amongst the remain dominant parliament was to not leave the EU at all. I wouldn't mind so much if they were all as honest as the LibDems and SNP were from the outset. But they've all been playing a game to try and delude the electorate that they were actually upholding the referendum results.

If Labour insist on a confirmatory vote (and with it an almost certain remain win), which at this stage seems likely, then we won't find agreement on a deal before next weeks deadline. So parliament (who exactly I'm not sure) will approach the EU for an extended deadline. There are many Europeans who do not want the UK to take part in the EU elections and it only takes 1 of the 27 to veto the extension. We will then default to a no deal Brexit, despite all the efforts of Cooper & Co last night.

That would be irony.

That is wishful thinking. The only thing that is certain is that No Deal is off the table. Whilst you are correct that only one of the 27 can veto an extension, and the most vocal so far has been France, realistically there is no way that request would be vetoed when there is a prospect of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, a Second Referendum in the offing, or a General Election.

 

[Ruairi77]

A point which I conceded in my post. But surely you don't believe a referendum which alienates the wishes of maybe 15m people can in any way be considered democratic.?

It's why I don't think a referendum is the answer. If a compromise deal can't be agreed then we have to have an election.

but what good will a GE do if both main parties don't know what they want and will do anything to form a government.
There's a high chance you end up back where you started with some minority party in government with it's tiny coalition partner calling the shots.

Seems to me that these talks between May and Corbyn are the most likely way out of this mess.

 

[Jebus_lives]

A point which I conceded in my post. But surely you don't believe a referendum which alienates the wishes of maybe 15m people can in any way be considered democratic.?

It's why I don't think a referendum is the answer. If a compromise deal can't be agreed then we have to have an election.

I'm not suggesting you're saying this as I know you are far more considered in your viewpoint, but the suggestion of a No Deal scenario alienates the wishes of 16m people.

I don't see why, if people consider the will of the electorate to be sacrosanct, that a second vote would diminish that. I too can ultimately see merit in the call for a GE to alter the parliamentary democracy, but that completely undermines the General Election process, which should be far more broad than the question of leaving the EU.

 

[Joey66]

Thersea May's deal can't get through the Commons. So dear old Ken has to propose something different.

Which on today's explanations is worse!

 

[peteblue]

Can't you see though Pete that you were one of the most ardent advocates that the EU would blink first in this game of chicken. But the EU truck is still right in front of our car, not going anywhere. You may be insulated from the shock but there a loads of people at the front who won't be. This will cause harm to millions of people, kids already having it hard and then having it worse still. This isn't a game.

Indeed this is not a game. This is a farce, overseen by an elite who are doing everything they can to keep us in the EU. A sensible deal could have been done, but the Remainer plan was for it to be the worst deal possible so as to turn the result. However, we are now at a position where no deal is actually becoming attractive to those who want to leave. All the scare stories, all of the doomsday forecasts, have not changed minds but merely strengthened them. This is now a fight for our democracy and if the referendum is ignored or overturned by our elites then we are no better than the current Eu.....

 

[peteblue]

Right. The only problem with that is the facts that the majority of people who voted leave did not vote for No Deal, which you can evidence in polls, but now the narrative is being changed to suggest that was entirely the intention all along.

Almost every actor in the process on leave side was suggesting a type of Brexit that was undeliverable, which the public clearly took in good faith, again evidence is available in reviews and polling, and as such I'm not sure how you can legitimately say what 'honouring the initial referendum' looks like.

People did not vote for no deal. Nor did they expect their own civil servants and politicians to stab them in the back in order to remain. The Leave voters I know didn’t want a no deal, but to a man they do now........

 

[Barnfred 55]

That is wishful thinking. The only thing that is certain is that No Deal is off the table. Whilst you are correct that only one of the 27 can veto an extension, and the most vocal so far has been France, realistically there is no way that request would be vetoed when there is a prospect of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, a Second Referendum in the offing, or a General Election.

Why would that be wishful thinking mate? I've repeated in here countless times that I don't want a no deal Brexit.

But I happen to believe that the best way of avoiding this is to find a compromise deal acceptable to both sides. I fear this won't happen because of the red lines of the remain supporting MPs from all parties. They seem to be insisting on a confirmatory vote, knowing the way which this will be worded will ensure a remain outcome. In my opinion, this will stop May/Corbyn coming to an agreement and will then mean that any subsequent indicative vote could get a sufficient majority that you could comfortably take to the EU for a short extension.

No Deal may be off the table as far as we're concerned, but the EU is a different matter. They are in control here not us, despite your faith in them which I, sadly, don't share. By sticking to their red lines I fear that the remain MPs may be inadvertently putting us at risk of a no deal.

 

[Tubey]

People did not vote for no deal. Nor did they expect their own civil servants and politicians to stab them in the back in order to remain. The Leave voters I know didn’t want a no deal, but to a man they do now........

Here's the thing though Pete - because even you acknowledge here that, after all we were told, Brexit didn't mean Brexit, because Brexit wasn't defined in the referendum, then why would you be against putting two solidly defined, actionable options to the public in a referendum now?

I've said for months now - people voted to leave, but didn't vote on how to leave - that's why we have the impasse in parliament, why the second referendum is required and, while we're at it, give the option to remain in case the public have changed their mind.

No deal isn't an option. We wouldn't put the death penalty to a public referendum, because the evidence and common sense tells you it'd be a disaster, regardless of whether the people want it or not. So the choice has to be deliverable and not insane - it has to be May's deal.

 

[Barnfred 55]

but what good will a GE do if both main parties don't know what they want and will do anything to form a government.
There's a high chance you end up back where you started with some minority party in government with it's tiny coalition partner calling the shots.

Seems to me that these talks between May and Corbyn are the most likely way out of this mess.

I hope you are right mate. But if Corbyn plays the party line, which he may not do as he's a well know euro sceptic, then I can't see any agreement being carried by this lot. So it's a longer extension and you know my views on a second referendum. Election is the better option of the 2 for me.

 

[Barnfred 55]

I'm not suggesting you're saying this as I know you are far more considered in your viewpoint, but the suggestion of a No Deal scenario alienates the wishes of 16m people.

I don't see why, if people consider the will of the electorate to be sacrosanct, that a second vote would diminish that. I too can ultimately see merit in the call for a GE to alter the parliamentary democracy, but that completely undermines the General Election process, which should be far more broad than the question of leaving the EU.

I've given my views a few posts ago on why I'm against a referendum. I believe I was quite concise.

But I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly there. Are you saying that anybody who would accept a no deal Brexit should be refused the right to vote in a referendum on Brexit?

 

[TheBigIguana]

I find the group of people who say going against the initial referendum is so dangerous for democracy that it's better to just accept all of the problems that Brexit is going to bring to be the most loathsome of the bunch.

 

[peteblue]

Here's the thing though Pete - because even you acknowledge here that, after all we were told, Brexit didn't mean Brexit, because Brexit wasn't defined in the referendum, then why would you be against putting two solidly defined, actionable options to the public in a referendum now?

I've said for months now - people voted to leave, but didn't vote on how to leave - that's why we have the impasse in parliament, why the second referendum is required and, while we're at it, give the option to remain in case the public have changed their mind.

No deal isn't an option. We wouldn't put the death penalty to a public referendum, because the evidence and common sense tells you it'd be a disaster, regardless of whether the people want it or not. So the choice has to be deliverable and not insane - it has to be May's deal.

While Leave was not defined on the ballot paper, it most certainly was within the Government document sent to every household.

I don’t have any problem with a referendum that was between Mays deal and No Deal. We voted to leave, so I have no problem with a vote on which type of Leave we should have.

No deal only comes off the table once it becomes law. I certainly would put the death penalty to a referendum and the only reason it never will be is because once again the elite must be obeyed........

 

[The binman chronicles]

Election is the better option of the 2 for me.

Still have the exact same problem afterwards, they wouldn't be able to decide what to do. Imho the two main parties are not going to try and split their vote by saying we'll definitely go for a no deal or we're definitely revoking article 50.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I've given my views a few posts ago on why I'm against a referendum. I believe I was quite concise.

But I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly there. Are you saying that anybody who would accept a no deal Brexit should be refused the right to vote in a referendum on Brexit?

You were.

On the second point, no I'm not saying that at all, I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. I was talking about 'ignoring' remain voters in a decision to leave with No Deal. Likewise I don't think a No Deal is actually enfranchising the electorate, who I don't think voted for that.

 

[-Rob-]

The only thing that is certain is that No Deal is off the table.

The only thing that is certain is that the UK are either leaving or remaining in the UK. Until one of those things has been 100% decided then leaving with No Deal still remains an option. It's an option that nobody (with any brain cells) wants but that doesn't mean it can't still happen. All it takes is one nation to veto an extension then a deal to not agreed and we're either out with no deal or Article 50 is revoked.

Brexit can still take one of many possible paths.