Brexit negotiations

Some good news for brexit fans - Corbyn has confirmed that he would continue to pursue Brexit if Labour won a snap general election in 2019. This despite the fact that Labour voters overwhelmingly support remain.

I’m still undecided on a second referendum, were it to reverse the decision what would that say for democracy? Imagine the backlash.

Negotiating a good deal would be my favoured choice.

Since when has giving people a vote been undemocratic?

Only since brexit fans have been framing the debate in this way. The right wing media is very good at framing debate in this way.

To quote wki: The framing effect is an example of cognitive bias, in which people react to a particular choice in different ways depending on how it is presented; e.g. as a loss or as a gain. People tend to avoid risk when a positive frame is presented but seek risks when a negative frame is presented.

I’m not saying it would be undemocratic, in my view the referendum should never have happened - maybe that’s undemocratic?

But for me the fact it did happen means the result should be respected and upheld. Just not in the way the Tories want it too. Keeping close ties with the EU and limiting the economic impact would respect both sides.

I don't see how any deal at all will actually be done. Since the 27 parliaments of all the other EU states must ratify any deal unanimously it seems at best highly unlikely that any deal that even appears to be good for the UK will be shot down instantly. After all there are plenty of reasons why countries like Poland, Italy, Spain and Greece to name but a few might not want to do anything that appears to help us.

We can't find a better deal with the red lines Teresa May set down, but they were a nonsense when she did and a nonsense now - it was probably her biggest mistake trying to justify herself to leavers by advocating a hard Brexit. Had we spent the last 2 years chasing a Norway type deal though we'd probably have got one by now.

Interesting article on the BBC today dispelling the lie that "the EU needs us more than we need them". Looking at the trade figures, we're risking far more than the other 2 countries combined.
No wonder they won't roll over.

They are well aware that they have strength in numbers.

Don’t think we can blame the EU for sticking to the terms they expressed before the referendum. Our position changed, there’s never has.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Don’t think we can blame the EU for sticking to the terms they expressed before the referendum. Our position changed, there’s never has.

This is what I don’t get. The implied notion that we are being stitched up by the EU is a joke. They are simply following the rules of how you deal with a country that has activated article 50. If anything they are being far more open minded about it all than they needed to be. Meanwhile, our clueless government lead us closer to the edge of the cliff, whilst far less important things like stupid woman and dronegate get all the headlines.

But brexiteers view of the world is so distorted that the EU failing to let us have our cake and eat it is called bullying.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
We had a vote, a clear result was given, that is the end of the story.

The only people who are saying that are those who believe they will personally benefit from railroading Brexit through such as May, the foreign based billionaires who pushed the Tories into it and Leave voters who are desperately trying to defend their decision.

The rest of the world is saying that the Referendum was the biggest abuse of democracy in history and it was anything but a democratic decision.

Why? Because those voters who were allowed to vote were scared into voting leave by the lies told about the EU. 

Ironically, the people who told the lies have since admitted the campaign was nothing but lies and yet some leave voters still try to defend their decision despite being lied to. Worse still, the liars haven't even been prosecuted for treason and dragged off to the Tower of London for execution.

Loads of discussion about how undemocratic and anti-British the referendum was and although this particular organisation has an agenda (which I'm sure any grown up can see past) the key points are succinctly summarised here.

wanderlust wrote:The 17.4M who voted to leave the EU only make up approximately 34.7% of the total number of people entitled to vote. In other words, some 65% of the electorate did NOT vote to exit the EU.

You're getting desperate.

You could say that about any democratic election since the dawn of time. There are always people who don't vote, it's a fact of every single election in history.

You need to stop clutching at straws and embrace the change.

Sadly lusty facts are toxic to brexit fans.

Just scroll through this thread for example. How often do brexit fans even attempt to refute factual information? The only fact that they quote is that leave won the election with 52% of the votes cast.

Brexiteers don't want a second referendum because they are frightened they might lose it. If they were confident of winning again they would welcome a second referendum. In the event of a second vote for leaving the EU it really would be all over.

xmiles wrote:Brexiteers don't want a second referendum because they are frightened they might lose it. If they were confident of winning again they would welcome a second referendum. In the event of a second vote for leaving the EU it really would be all over.

I've never argued that another referendum might produce a different result, I agree it might.

But that isn't the point.

Let's say there was another referendum and the Remain vote won - wouldn't the "leavers" just make the same arguments that you're making now and insist on a "best of 3" referendum? It could go on for years.

Your argument isn't with the referendum, it's with democracy. I think a permanent move to North Korea might suit you and wanderlust.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:Brexiteers don't want a second referendum because they are frightened they might lose it. If they were confident of winning again they would welcome a second referendum. In the event of a second vote for leaving the EU it really would be all over.

I've never argued that another referendum might produce a different result, I agree it might.

But that isn't the point.

Let's say there was another referendum and the Remain vote won - wouldn't the "leavers" just make the same arguments that you're making now and insist on a "best of 3" referendum? It could go on for years.

Your argument isn't with the referendum, it's with democracy. I think a permanent move to North Korea might suit you and wanderlust.

If there was a second referendum and remain won I have no doubt leavers would argue for a third referendum. The argument against this is that we are now in a better position to know what leaving the EU actually means. For example it doesn't mean having £350m to spend on the NHS.

Farage famously said a 52/48 split in favour of remain wasn't sufficient to stop him asking for another referendum so why is it unreasonable for remainers to ask for one?

It's Boxing Day! Have a day off and go and enjoy yourself!

karlypants wrote:It's Boxing Day! Have a day off and go and enjoy yourself!

Well I was until Rotheram equalised.