Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

Surely it comes down to three options.

1) We leave the EU, so called Hard Brexit, 

2) We leave the EU in name only, so called Soft Brexit, a fudge that no one voted for.

3) We hold another referendum and make it crystal clear to the electorate exactly what they are voting for.

Pretty much the only way out of this mess is 3, I think it is slowly dawning on most intelligent folk that this is the only way forward, as the alternatives no one clearly voted for, and simply mean a fudge either way.

 

[rollover]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Surely it comes down to three options.

1) We leave the EU, so called Hard Brexit, 

2) We leave the EU in name only, so called Soft Brexit, a fudge that no one voted for.

3) We hold another referendum and make it crystal clear to the electorate exactly what they are voting for.

 

4) extend and pretend

5) revoke A50

[ccc]

11 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

That's utter BS ccc, you're clearly making that up.  You had no idea what Brexit entailed, you had no idea of each and every ramification and to sit there and say you know what it all meant is trite nonsense.  

But I know precisely what you'll say, as you're binary; You will say, in 1, 2, 3: I voted to leave the EU.

Did that mean EFTA?  You've no idea.

Did that mean to leave the EEA?  You've no idea

Did that mean to leave EURATOM?  You've no idea.

I could go on, but you'll blithely lie and state you knew you would be leaving all of these institutions and hundreds more.

No one knew, not even the politicians involved in it.

 

People weren't voting for the details of any negotiation. They were voting to leave the EU and all that entails. 

This is black and white. There is no debate. 

[miguel]

Yes, Black and White:

We could be like Norway! - N. Farage. 

No one is talking about leaving the single market. - D. Hannan. 

[ABZ_RVK]

Time for  N  Farage to take Davis's role now? lol it has become a joke. 

[miguel]

It's been a joke for a very long time. People talk of the EU collapsing. Britain looks far more in danger of collapsing than the EU. 

[thehowler]

18 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

3) We hold another referendum and make it crystal clear to the electorate exactly what they are voting for.

Crystal clear? I'd like to see the wording you'd propose. And what do you tell the people who thought they'd already voted?

I'm afraid you were lied to and it's all been terribly complex. So we're going to have another go at it. And this time we really mean it, we'll do what you tell us. We think.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, thehowler said:

Crystal clear? I'd like to see the wording you'd propose. And what do you tell the people who thought they'd already voted?

I'm afraid you were lied to and it's all been terribly complex. So we're going to have another go at it. And this time we really mean it, we'll do what you tell us. We think.

Perhaps a three choice referendum?

1) Hard Brexit.

2) Soft Brexit and leave it to the government to sort out the details.

3) Stay in the EU.

[thehowler]

3 minutes ago, miguel said:

Britain looks far more in danger of collapsing than the EU. 

Yes, the UK is changing. The EU is trying to stay the same.

One snippet from the Davis resignation letter - remember that "it'll be the row of the summer" line from him about the schedule of the talks, how it ended with capitulation and humiliation for him? Turns out it was a direct order from No.10.

“As you know there have been a significant number of occasions in the last year or so on which I have disagreed with the Number 10 policy line, ranging from accepting the Commission’s sequencing of negotiations through to the language on Northern Ireland in the December Joint Report.

[miguel]

Changing. For the better? In what way? What do you see as the prize, the mechanism and how will it be achieved? 

[thehowler]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Perhaps a three choice referendum?

A three-way split? And what if you don't get a majority for one choice? Would we go to run-offs...

[HairyOb1]

10 minutes ago, miguel said:

It's been a joke for a very long time. People talk of the EU collapsing. Britain looks far more in danger of collapsing than the EU. 

It looks like this

21 minutes ago, ccc said:

People weren't voting for the details of any negotiation. They were voting to leave the EU and all that entails. 

This is black and white. There is no debate. 

It isn't black and white, it's the antithesis of black and white, this is as grey as you could possibly imagine and sorry ccc, I don't believe you voted for all of this, as no one knew what all of this was 25 months, no one.

[Bruce Banner]

4 minutes ago, thehowler said:

A three-way split? And what if you don't get a majority for one choice? Would we go to run-offs...

Possible, but highly unlikely!

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, thehowler said:

A three-way split? And what if you don't get a majority for one choice? Would we go to run-offs...

I think a supplementary question based on the first:

Do you want to remain or still leave?

If you want to leave, accept deal of hard Brexit.  

If still leave wins, you then choose your Brexit option, inevitably 'the deal (softer than Mr Whippy)' or 'no deal (harder than Taylor Swifts heart)'.  That way, remainers also get a choice on the Brexit they get if they don't win.

[thehowler]

12 minutes ago, miguel said:

Changing. For the better? In what way? What do you see as the prize, the mechanism and how will it be achieved? 

If we enact the ref decision, we will have to accept a deal with the EU that is worse than the current one.

Unfortunately, and perhaps reasonably, a lot of MPs are unable to compute this. They will not vote for something that results in the UK being in a weaker, more parlous position - thus they cannot vote in support of the ref decision.

I see no prize. I guess over coming decades there might be unforeseen benefits of leaving, with the UK changing its economy to adjust and the shock perhaps giving us some impetus to address some of the many problems we have as a nation. Maybe.

But I have been consistent in my posts that I think going back on the ref vote will be more damaging and destructive than enacting it - just my take.

The mechanism is simple. May's deal looks like a suitable compromise to me. If MPs all got behind it they might be able to achieve something with the EU over the two years of transition - I think the agreement covering this implementation period is about 80% done.

Whether it will be achieved is another thing. I don't think Labour are any less divided than the Tories on this issue. Very hard to see how we get any unified parliamentary position over coming months. Yet May's deal looks OK to me.

Edited July 9, 2018 by thehowler

[thehowler]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

8 minutes ago, thehowler said:

A three-way split? And what if you don't get a majority for one choice? Would we go to run-offs...

Possible, but highly unlikely!

Interesting...I'd say the soft Brexit option might split the other camps a bit.

45% stay in

30% soft Brexit

25% hard Brexit

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, ccc said:

Another completely made up 'fact' to add to the long list from the remain camp. Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for. Utter complete 100% ludicrous nonsense.

The leave campaign intentionally kept things vague in order to maximise the vote. So what you've just said above is untrue. It's not even subjectively, debatably untrue, it is just simply untrue.

You don't need to take my word for it. The director for the official leave campaign, Cummings, describes to you here why what you're saying is false:
https://dominiccummings.com/2015/06/23/on-the-referendum-6-exit-plans-and-a-second-referendum/

Explained more here:

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by dugsbody

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, thehowler said:

If we enact the ref decision, we will have to accept a deal with the EU that is worse than the current one.

Unfortunately, and perhaps reasonably, a lot of MPs are unable to compute this. They will not vote for something that results in the UK being in a weaker, more parlous position - thus they cannot vote in support of the ref decision.

I see no prize. I guess over coming decades there might be unforeseen benefits of leaving, with the UK changing its economy to adjust and the shock perhaps giving us some impetus to address some of the many problems we have as a nation. Maybe.

But I have been consistent in my posts that I thin going back on the ref vote will be more damaging and destructive than enacting it - lust my take.

The mechanism is simple. May's deal looks like a suitable compromise to me. If MPs all got behind it they might be able to achieve something with the EU over the two years of transition - I think the agreement covering this implementation period is about 80% done.

Whether it will be achieved is another thing. I don't think Labour are any less divided than the Tories on this issue. Very hard to see how we get any unified parliamentary position over coming months. Yet May's deal looks OK to me.

That's the Brexit paradox; we know we'll be worse off out, but MP's have been mandated to vote for it, yet they take an oath to work in the country's best interest over party ideology.  

You have been consistent, and many aren't here, so I applaud you for that.  I have too, in that we'll not leave in any meaningful way, if we do actually leave which is the way it is going.  May's deal is BRINO, make no mistake and it's about to be diluted down too, in the up coming Trade bill.

I can't see how, now May has laid her cards on the table (an extremely soft Brexit), the EU will not get her more supine and take a lot more out of it.  FOM has already been accepted under the guise of a new name (comical that climb down) and I see more climb downs to come.  

After all, if we're going to be worse off as a nation, which I think everyone now accepts, I think people, a lot of people, are coming around to the idea we should actually just stay in and try and change from within.

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Interesting...I'd say the soft Brexit option might split the other camps a bit.

45% stay in

30% soft Brexit

25% hard Brexit

That's why there has to be 2 questions:

Stay in or leave.

Which type of deal do you accept.

Then it's still binary.  Leave or stay.  If leave, deal or no deal.  Very simple really.

That way, you get all sides included and I believe would bring the country a little bit closer together than it currently is.  At the moment, you have nigh on 17m people feeling disenfranchised.  I'd suggest it was now much more than 17m too.

Edited July 9, 2018 by HairyOb1

[GeneCernan]

37 minutes ago, ccc said:

People weren't voting for the details of any negotiation. They were voting to leave the EU and all that entails. 

This is black and white. There is no debate. 

Quite. Absolutely as clear as day.

To suggest that people didn't know what they were voting for is no different to agreeing to have a Chinese takeaway for dinner and then complaining that there should be another vote because it didn't contain egg foo yung.

[Bruce Banner]

8 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

That's why there has to be 2 questions:

Stay in or leave.

Which type of deal do you accept.

Then it's still binary.  Leave or stay.  If leave, deal or no deal.  Very simple really.

That way, you get all sides included and I believe would bring the country a little bit closer together than it currently is.  At the moment, you have nigh on 17m people feeling disenfranchised.  I'd suggest it was now much more than 17m too.

Yes, something along those lines would probably work.

 

[cashinmattress]

29 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Perhaps a three choice referendum?

1) Hard Brexit.

2) Soft Brexit and leave it to the government to sort out the details.

3) Stay in the EU.

There is only stay or hard brexit... option 2 is a non-starter.

Have you lot not figured that out yet?

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, GeneCernan said:

Quite. Absolutely as clear as day.

To suggest that people didn't know what they were voting for is no different to agreeing to have a Chinese takeaway for dinner and then complaining that there should be another vote because it didn't contain egg foo yung.

The analogy isn't quite right.

It would be people asking for a Chinese Takeaway, then finding out it was not a Chinese takeaway, but an Italian takeaway creating their version of Chinese food, suddenly being asked to pay 20 times more for it, saying they couldn't tell you when it would be delivered, and that the portion size would be smaller, for more money, but also you'd have to tip the deliveryman and pay for the removal of the cartons, then charged a fee for the next 5 years for continued access to the Italian restaurant that does Chinese deliveries.

[thehowler]

Jeez, Dom Raab is the new Brexit sec!

[Bruce Banner]

7 minutes ago, GeneCernan said:

Quite. Absolutely as clear as day.

To suggest that people didn't know what they were voting for is no different to agreeing to have a Chinese takeaway for dinner and then complaining that there should be another vote because it didn't contain egg foo yung.

Yes, but if nothing is done we will leave in name only which is not what anyone voted for.