Current Affairs EU In or Out

[scratchnsurf]

What I still cannot understand is the people who now don't want a referendum on 'what type of Brexit we should have?'

View attachment 56828

The government commitment was to honour the referendum and 'implement what you decide'. Government are actively trying to Leave, as are parliament broadly speaking, they just can't agree on what type of future relationship to have.

What's the issue with taking that back to the country? Remain doesn't have to even be an option (it should be, but it doesn't have to be).

I think the issue is that remain might win and then the smell of burning gammon will break EU clean air regulations.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I think the issue is that remain might win and then the smell of burning gammon will break EU clean air regulations.

Granted. But, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a referendum on Brexit options even with Remain off the ballot.

Parliament clearly cannot agree on the future relationship as they are having to guess the collective wishes of 17.4m people. Why not find out what the country wants by voting on the type of Brexit that 'the people' want?

 

[edge]

Granted. But, there seems to be absolutely no appetite for a referendum on Brexit options even with Remain off the ballot.

Parliament clearly cannot agree on the future relationship as they are having to guess the collective wishes of 17.4m people. Why not find out what the country wants by voting on the type of Brexit that 'the people' want?

not much point in referendum if they are not acted on.
sooner have a GE let the parties put there stance to the people ,.mps couldn't hide behind a .manifesto as there voting on the issues are is there to see and hopefully we get to clear the log jam in Westminster and the country could move on.
I would be in favour of revoking article 50 as the current status quo is just making the UK stagnate,and we are never leaving in good order the way things stand.

 

[Tubey]

What I still cannot understand is the people who now don't want a referendum on 'what type of Brexit we should have?'

View attachment 56828

The government commitment was to honour the referendum and 'implement what you decide'. Government are actively trying to Leave, as are parliament broadly speaking, they just can't agree on what type of future relationship to have.

What's the issue with taking that back to the country? Remain doesn't have to even be an option (it should be, but it doesn't have to be).

There's a few issues in terms of interpretation of that leaflet.

First and most obvious is, as you say, that the decision wasn't clearly defined. "Leave" wasn't as simple as the liars that campaigned made it out to be. Indeed, even that leaflet says the "uncertainty of leaving" as nobody had a clue how to do it or what it meant. So a second referendum provides clarity on how to leave and gives the option for the people to change their mind. It's more democracy; not a subversion of it.

Second, about the line "the Government will implement what you decide" - that was Cameron's government. It collapsed immediately. That promise was broken the day after the vote. Successive governments can't be bound by the decisions of the prior regime.

If the Brexiteers want a reason why everything has gone wrong, they need to blame two things - first, they need to blame Cameron for not defining the question properly. Second, they need to blame themselves for not having a clue what to do. They can blame May all they want, but when their alternative boils down to "leave with no deal", then that's simply not a plan a responsible government could advocate; that's basically extremism.

 

[Frang]

not much point in referendum if they are not acted on.
sooner have a GE let the parties put there stance to the people ,.mps couldn't hide behind a .manifesto as there voting on the issues are is there to see and hopefully we get to clear the log jam in Westminster and the country could move on.
I would be in favour of revoking article 50 as the current status quo is just making the UK stagnate,and we are never leaving in good order the way things stand.

bring a General election like you say.

let the parties make clear exactly where they stand regards Brexit and what deal or no deal etc they will push for and let us vote.

I think the country is so divided, and Corbyn is so niche , that the GE voting would surprise a few with the Brexit party and the like getting huge numbers.

people are fed up to the back teeth of weak labour and self centred tories.

I honestly think the next election would bring huge change to politics as we know it

 

[Tubey]

bring a Gebral election like you say.

let the parties make clear exactly where they stand regards Brexit and what deal or no deal etc they will push for and let us vote.

I think the country is so divided, and Corbyn is so niche , that the GE voting would surprise a few with the Brexit party and the like getting huge numbers.

people are fed up to the back teeth of weak labour and self centred tories.

I honestly think the next election would bring huge change to politics as we know it

I'd rather vote in a General Election based on things that matter locally and to people - healthcare, crime, housing and so on.

A GE on a single issue is one of the dumbest things imaginable, as you'd give a five year mandate to a party to do whatever they want on every issue except Brexit.

 

[Jebus_lives]

not much point in referendum if they are not acted on.
sooner have a GE let the parties put there stance to the people ,.mps couldn't hide behind a .manifesto as there voting on the issues are is there to see and hopefully we get to clear the log jam in Westminster and the country could move on.
I would be in favour of revoking article 50 as the current status quo is just making the UK stagnate,and we are never leaving in good order the way things stand.

I honestly don't think there would be an issue with implementing the referendum if people had given the Government the direction it needs. The problem is they are trying to interpret the full spectrum of 'Leave'. It's not an easy prospect, so it allows greater division and, to a certain degree, those wanting to Revoke A.50 with the option of saying 'the country can't decide'

That's a nonesense, the country could quite easily decide, it just hasn't been given the chance. Give the selected options for Brexit and go back to the country and get them to vote on it. Legally, make it binding, if it is derailed, as the last one was, by illegality and fraudulent behaviour, it will become void.

GE should really be about much broader things than simply EU membership. Im now of the view that you tarnish that process if it is of such a narrow scope.

 

[Frang]

I'd rather vote in a General Election based on things that matter locally and to people - healthcare, crime, housing and so on.

A GE on a single issue is one of the dumbest things imaginable, as you'd give a five year mandate to a party to do whatever they want on every issue except Brexit.

obviously mate. but its the biggest issue in this country right now.

 

[Tubey]

obviously mate. but its the biggest issue in this country right now.

Great, so referendum it.

Remain in the EU versus May's deal - the two deliverable outcomes available that can't command a majority in parliament. The very definition of a referendum is made for situations like this.

You voted in 2016 for what you want - now vote for how you want it, and at the same time give the opportunity to say if your mind has been changed in the last three years.

I don't see the problem - if Leave are convinced the British people still want to leave, what do they have to fear? The answer, of course, is they're terrified of losing after getting away with the biggest hoax in British political history in 2016.

 

[Jebus_lives]

There's a few issues in terms of interpretation of that leaflet.

First and most obvious is, as you say, that the decision wasn't clearly defined. "Leave" wasn't as simple as the liars that campaigned made it out to be. Indeed, even that leaflet says the "uncertainty of leaving" as nobody had a clue how to do it or what it meant. So a second referendum provides clarity on how to leave and gives the option for the people to change their mind. It's more democracy; not a subversion of it.

Second, about the line "the Government will implement what you decide" - that was Cameron's government. It collapsed immediately. That promise was broken the day after the vote. Successive governments can't be bound by the decisions of the prior regime.

If the Brexiteers want a reason why everything has gone wrong, they need to blame two things - first, they need to blame Cameron for not defining the question properly. Second, they need to blame themselves for not having a clue what to do. They can blame May all they want, but when their alternative boils down to "leave with no deal", then that's simply not a plan a responsible government could advocate; that's basically extremism.

On the first bit, that's prescisely my point. Give it back to the country and have them decide.

The second bit: it was promised in the GE 2017 manifesto's of both Labour and Conservative so there is an expectation that it is met.

The point I'm trying to make, possibly in a ham fisted way, is that the referendum indicated the intention to leave. Another would give you the intended future relationship.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Great, so referendum it.

Remain in the EU versus May's deal - the two deliverable outcomes available that can't command a majority in parliament. The very definition of a referendum is made for situations like this.

You voted in 2016 for what you want - now vote for how you want it, and at the same time give the opportunity to say if your mind has been changed in the last three years.

I don't see the problem - if Leave are convinced the British people still want to leave, what do they have to fear? The answer, of course, is they're terrified of losing after getting away with the biggest hoax in British political history in 2016.

They aren't the only options though. The Withdrawal Agreement is simply how to leave and the settlement of that process.

We still need to decide what relationship we will have afterwards.

 

[Tubey]

They aren't the only options though. The Withdrawal Agreement is simply how to leave and the settlement of that process.

We still need to decide what relationship we will have afterwards.

Because parliament can't command a majority for any given outcome, in a second referendum it would be for the government to propose a way forward that goes to the people instead of parliament. So at that point May's government, or whatever government exists at that time, would put forward that proposal and put it against remain.

May's deal is fairly clear in terms of what it wants - no customs union, strike trade agreements, end free movement, have a backstop on the island of Ireland until a revised solution is made.

Parliament has failed, so it can't dictate ten different options to the public - it has to be a simple, two way choice. And the only one on the table right now and agreed with the EU is May's deal. The only other realistic option is no deal, and neither the UK nor the EU will countenance that.

 

[Frang]

Great, so referendum it.

Remain in the EU versus May's deal - the two deliverable outcomes available that can't command a majority in parliament. The very definition of a referendum is made for situations like this.

You voted in 2016 for what you want - now vote for how you want it, and at the same time give the opportunity to say if your mind has been changed in the last three years.

I don't see the problem - if Leave are convinced the British people still want to leave, what do they have to fear? The answer, of course, is they're terrified of losing after getting away with the biggest hoax in British political history in 2016.

I don't want mays deal ….

your choices are remain in the EU … or remain in the EU with non of the benefits.

I want a no deal Brexit. - what the referendum was about.

this deal business has just been dreamt up to make sure we don't actually leave.

 

[MartSlinger]

I still maintain that we need to revoke Article 50 and sort the country out before we even trying and think of "going it alone" without the EU.

The Country, the Government is in the biggest mess its ever been in and needs sorting out. Swerve Brexit it for a bit and get it sorted.

 

[Frang]

I still maintain that we need to revoke Article 50 and sort the country out before we even trying and think of "going it alone" without the EU.

The Country, the Government is in the biggest mess its ever been in and needs sorting out. Swerve Brexit it for a bit and get it sorted.

its Brexit causing all the issues though... BREXIT needs sorting out... 3 bleeding years later