Brexit negotiations

A second referendum is very unlikely to happen. In other countries e.g. Canada re the Quebec independence referendum the side that was lucky enough to win the first vote pulled out the "keep going until you get the result you need" card and called it "neverendum"


Obviously it's a shit argument as over time, more facts about what is achievable come out, campaign lies are exposed, the situation and objectives change and therefore the public are voting on different issues with a different level of understanding so it's not the same vote, but those who edged it first time round will make the argument anyway.

However with 8 Tories having resigned since May came up with the soft Brexit Chequers plan, a 6% fall in support for the Tories in a month and a potential leadership challenge in the air, it's looking increasingly likely that Brexit will flounder and the worst of all worlds is a limbo situation where nothing can be achieved either way. And that is the real problem IMO.

As regards a referendum, I think that the only useful and moreover unquestionable one would be a referendum wherein ALL British citizens are allowed to vote on a specific plan or negotiated position rather than another airy fairy concept that nobody fully understands or has been agreed in principle by all parties including the EU. To achieve this, the Government would have to go to the EU and negotiate a position with the caveat that it would be run by the people.

The referendum would then list the agreed-in-principle points e.g. Customs Union, continued free movement etc - probably a list of a dozen or so bullet points and then ask the people to vote Yes or No on each point. 
Although it would be very unlikely that the whole plan would be accepted "as is" in it's entirety, it would provide a clear and unequivocal picture of what people want that the Government could take back to the EU.

When that is done, and the Government has attempted to renegotiate the points that us Brits don't agree with (the baby in the bathwater) - and only those points - and if the EU won't agree to them, then the Government would  rightly be able to say that they are not achievable and it's the EU's fault which the British public would be more likely to accept.

However, whilst they continue to bundle up lots of different aspects of the deal and give the people a choice of "all or nothing" then the limbo situation will continue as nobody will be happy with it.

Another referendum in the way that you suggest it Lusty would be a recipe for chaos. Most were fooled last time by a simple yes or no question. How would the mass of the population understand a series of questions about a customs union ( like Switzerland, Norway, Canada?) , a free trade zone, a walk away situation, freedom of labour,services or capital.  Most ,like last time ,would go back to their primary concern, the reason they previously voted  (like immigration ,the ECJ) etc.
.
The longer the impasse goes on ,the longer it looks like we walk away with no deal, or that sovereign elected governments  in the 27 other countries lean on Brussels based ,non elected bureaucrats to demand a solution that doesn't damage their own economies. The imposition of tariffs, given the balance of trade in physical goods would suggest that  a large number would see their own economies damaged by a no deal, deal.

xmiles wrote:I assume you are paraphrasing the brexit line which was that they will keep moaning about the EU until they get the result they want.

It's simply a fact. We had a referendum, just because you don't like the result doesn't mean we should have another.

What if we have another and the result goes the same way, will you want a third?

rammywhite wrote:Another referendum in the way that you suggest it Lusty would be a recipe for chaos. Most were fooled last time by a simple yes or no question. How would the mass of the population understand a series of questions about a customs union ( like Switzerland, Norway, Canada?) , a free trade zone, a walk away situation, freedom of labour,services or capital.  Most ,like last time ,would go back to their primary concern, the reason they previously voted  (like immigration ,the ECJ) etc.

I still think unbundling the offer is preferential though. 

The last referendum was like asking "would you like to end immigration, kill all puppies and make it compulsory to support Man United? yes or no?"

Jesus you could not make this up! May has now given in to the brexit loons. Of course she claims that nothing has changed just like she did when she completely changed her proposed dementia tax during the last election campaign.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44845933

She's weak and wobbly. Time she fucked off TBH.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:I assume you are paraphrasing the brexit line which was that they will keep moaning about the EU until they get the result they want.

It's simply a fact. We had a referendum, just because you don't like the result doesn't mean we should have another.

What if we have another and the result goes the same way, will you want a third?

Yes, correct, we had aa referendum in 1975.  That was a very more definite choice to remain.

But guess what the Leavers were never happy and campaigned for over 40 years to get their way to have a second referendum, with aa narrowest of results - which, as said above even Farage said if it was 48/52 it would be unfinished business.

Really what the Government should have said to the EU-moaners is what you are saying now - no to another referendum.  As it is Cameron was worried about members moving to UKIP and caved in, just as much as May has caved in at every turn to the hard-line leavers.  The UK is in a complete mess due to the second referendum, in 2016. The country is split, each political party (apart from LibDems and Greens) are split, the finances of Brexit are going over the top - now spending above £2billion/year just on Brexit - realisation that the grass is not greener more and more each day.

it is now time to exit Brexit and get back to a level playing field rather than looking forward to being "The sick man of Europe" once again, just as we were when we had to join the EEC/EU as no one would lend us any more money to keep the country afloat.

No surprise given the level of dishonesty in the leave campaign:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992

Had to laugh when Tory MP Andrea Jenkins asked May "at what point was it decided that Brexit means Remain?" in PMQs.

Tories have always been divided over Europe and when the pro-business Tories rebelled over the proposed amendment to set up a Customs Union if a trade deal isn't achieved they were only defeated by 6 votes.

And talking of Government majority, they were a bit naughty about that pairing arrangement with Swinson weren't they? Of course, nowt will be done about it.

And we now have the spectacle of Labour brexit rebels keeping May in power.

That's his first shots in trying to become leader, God help us all 

Could be worse, could be Corbyn.

Cajunboy wrote:Could be worse, could be Corbyn.

Exactly!

There’s nowt wrong with Boris, he would be far far better than May the weak and wobbly PM AND the idiotic Corbyn!

karlypants wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:Could be worse, could be Corbyn.

Exactly!

There’s nowt wrong with Boris, he would be far far better than May the weak and wobbly PM AND the idiotic Corbyn!

If you want a pathological liar and buffoon as PM by all means vote for Boris.

If Boris lived in a village populated only by village idiots from every other village in the country,he'd still be the village idiot.

Unless karly was there.

boltonbonce wrote:If Boris lived in a village populated only by village idiots from every other village in the country,he'd still be the village idiot.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Unless karly was there.

You never change do you.