Brexit negotiations

A referendum on the deal would be a disaster. The last referendum was a simple yes/no decision but was obfuscated with lies, half truths, bigotry  and ignorance. How would Joe Public actually understand the nature of Mays deal with details of a customs union, with details of temporary backstops for the UK/republic border. 98% of the voters will simply not understand what the terms actually mean when they vote on  like tariffs,the CAP or fisheries policies or  opinions based on ignorance about who controls legislation. How many will understand what the Norway deal, or Norway plus, or the Canada deal or the Swiss deal, or WTO rules, or  EFTA rules actually mean for trade and the economy?
Goiving the voting public a vote on options  with transferable votes would be a nightmare as they won't have a clue what they are voting on. A large proportion  will go back to the same thing which they thought that they voted on last time- which option keeps the foreigners out. You might as well have a referendum on how to train race horses or how to do brain surgery.
If you want a referendum it has to be as straightforward as the last one in terms of a decision- do we stay or do we go

rammywhite wrote:
If you want a referendum it has to be as straightforward as the last one in terms of a decision- do we stay or do we go

I see no problem with that: a simple yes/no referendum with the question being do we leave the EU on May's terms or stay in the EU. Everyone apart from a few extremists recognises that a no deal exit would be a disaster.

This isn't the way to go about it. You are eliminating a major step in the process. The question should be,'Do we leave the EU on the PM's terms, or do we go out on WTO terms' 
The decision has already been made to leave. Anything else will be democratically unsafe, and if the politicians continue to promote their own agendas then they will have to face the anger of over 17 million voters. In the current climate, I genuinely believe that if we go back into the EU, then there will be substantial demonstrations, even violent actions, by many.
Myself, after nearly 60 years of voting every time I was asked, I wouldn't have the confidence that a legal, and lawful outcome would be guaranteed, therefore will have no intention of ever voting again.

That should have been 50 years 

gloswhite wrote:This isn't the way to go about it. You are eliminating a major step in the process. The question should be,'Do we leave the EU on the PM's terms, or do we go out on WTO terms' 
The decision has already been made to leave. Anything else will be democratically unsafe, and if the politicians continue to promote their own agendas then they will have to face the anger of over 17 million voters. In the current climate, I genuinely believe that if we go back into the EU, then there will be substantial demonstrations, even violent actions, by many.
Myself, after nearly 60 years of voting every time I was asked, I wouldn't have the confidence that a legal, and lawful outcome would be guaranteed, therefore will have no intention of ever voting again.

We wouldn't be going back into the EU as we have never left.

How is giving people a vote when they know the terms on offer "democratically unsafe"?

However being told we can't have a vote because right wing thugs threaten violence is actually democratically unsafe.

But the point is much simpler. 95% of the population will NOT understand May's terms- what they mean, the implications for trade tariffs, jobs and the economy, the issues around Irish politics and the border. People simply are not educated enough to see what all this means , to be cognisant of the implications of her deal.
You would be asking people to take a momentous decision on something they don't understand  and in most cases don't care about.
I think the turnout would be pitiful and unrepresentative- even more grist for duplicitous politicians to twist.
If its referendum it has to be like last time when 37% of the voting population said leave.
Make it stay or leave!

gloswhite wrote:This isn't the way to go about it. You are eliminating a major step in the process. The question should be,'Do we leave the EU on the PM's terms, or do we go out on WTO terms' 
The decision has already been made to leave. Anything else will be democratically unsafe, and if the politicians continue to promote their own agendas then they will have to face the anger of over 17 million voters. In the current climate, I genuinely believe that if we go back into the EU, then there will be substantial demonstrations, even violent actions, by many.
Myself, after nearly 60 years of voting every time I was asked, I wouldn't have the confidence that a legal, and lawful outcome would be guaranteed, therefore will have no intention of ever voting again.

Be honest Glos- how many of the 50 odd million voters out there understand the terms and implications of Mays deal compared with the implications of WTO terms? And who will explain it to them? Answer- f**king duplicitous politicians like Farage, Davis, Johnson,Thornbury  and Rees-Mogg. No-one will be the wiser. It would be an absolute can of worms.

All politicians are duplicitous. Including, shock horror, ones who backed remain!

Hipster_Nebula wrote:All politicians are duplicitous. Including, shock horror, ones who backed remain!

Agreed- that's why you can't leave it to them to decipher and explain the implications of different trading models and structures

Hipster_Nebula wrote:All politicians are duplicitous. Including, shock horror, ones who backed remain!

So what is the alternative?

xmiles wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:All politicians are duplicitous. Including, shock horror, ones who backed remain!

So what is the alternative?

The least worst option- whatever it is. If I knew I would suggest something. I would personally go for a Norway plus deal but that's not on the table at the moment.
Immigration, free movement of people doesn't bother me at all, nor does the European court of Justice. Its tariff free trade that's crucial to the UKs economic health. Anything that gives us that is what we should be aiming for.

So Joe Public doesn't fully understand what they are voting for but they are not happy to let people who do make the decision? That's the legacy of the referendum right there.

xmiles wrote:
Personally I would not trust Corbyn to negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He is even more stubborn than May but that is not the same thing as being a good negotiator.

Although being stubborn does help in certain situations. 
It's unfortunate that May wasn't as stubborn in the actual negotiations as she is in trying to railroad through her piss poor deal.

xmiles wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:All politicians are duplicitous. Including, shock horror, ones who backed remain!

So what is the alternative?

I won't be voting. 

Sad because I love politics but this is the end for me.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:All politicians are duplicitous. Including, shock horror, ones who backed remain!

So what is the alternative?

I won't be voting. 

Sad because I love politics but this is the end for me.

Excellent. Another one down....

wanderlust wrote:This made me laugh.

Sad but there is always somebody willing to make money out of other people suffering.

People like Rees-Mogg, Jim Ratcliffe and Crispin Odey for example.

The Norway deal will leave us with less influence than we have now, but still subject to the majority of EU rules. The current compromise is the Common Market 2.0 idea, which will throw away even more influence, al for the sake of shorter term benefits.
I don't believe May could be stubborn to any great degree when negotiating anything, she was in a very weak position to start with, and being undermined by various factions in the UK, with every step she took, was always pointing to an inconclusive outcome.
Just a thought, but everyone is saying that a no deal scenario will be catastrophic for the UK. I have yet to hear in what way, and how much. Yet again, no specifics, but politicians prepared to put the UK's future at risk on what they personally want to do.
Dominic Grieve is on the TV, talking about a second referendum. I'm surprised that no sensible person has recommended that we keep the referendum result, and get rid of the bungling politicians.

gloswhite wrote:The Norway deal will leave us with less influence than we have now, but still subject to the majority of EU rules. The current compromise is the Common Market 2.0 idea, which will throw away even more influence, al for the sake of shorter term benefits.
I don't believe May could be stubborn to any great degree when negotiating anything, she was in a very weak position to start with, and being undermined by various factions in the UK, with every step she took, was always pointing to an inconclusive outcome.
Just a thought, but everyone is saying that a no deal scenario will be catastrophic for the UK. I have yet to hear in what way, and how much. Yet again, no specifics, but politicians prepared to put the UK's future at risk on what they personally want to do.
Dominic Grieve is on the TV, talking about a second referendum. I'm surprised that no sensible person has recommended that we keep the referendum result, and get rid of the bungling politicians.

It is pretty easy to find information about the likely consequencies of a no deal brexit; for example this from Sky News: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=31&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwir_-e2oe3fAhWNGRQKHTVkCy8QFjAeegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Ffeature%2Fwhat-would-life-in-a-no-deal-brexit-uk-look-like-11584899&usg=AOvVaw2jj3gBSp2pXhdLqVUE4U5m

I don't know what specifics you are looking for but the leave campaign just made them up- £350m for the NHS, 70m Turks moving to the UK, bendy bananas being banned, etc.