Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
don4l said:
I bet that you laughed at Nigel Farage also.
You're not laughing now.
You would lose.You're not laughing now.
I have a certain respect for Farage. He had a goal and stuck doggedly at it.
What most don't realise though is that his true goal is not sovereignty for the UK, it is to bring down the whole EU and he has used the UK as a catalyst to try to do so.
Mrr T said:
You really think that?
You obvious have no idea how this will work,
The final deal is done by the Council which is this case will be all the PMs and Presidents as all major final decisions are made.You obvious have no idea how this will work,
Of course all the detail stuff will be done before that by others but there are always, always a list of sticking points which require a late night war of attrition.
Ever major EU decision has been taken that way.
WinstonWolf said:
Mrr T said:
confused_buyer said:
If we trigger Article 50 at 8.00am on Monday March 6 2017 then I can guarantee whatever final deal gets to be done will be done by 28 argumentative and tired people at 7.45am on March 6 2019. It is just the European way.
You really think that?You obvious have no idea how this will work,
For one thing there will not be 28 people there will be 2 sides the UK and the rEU representing the Council with I am sure observers from the commission and the parliament.
It will not be late nights and hard bargaining it will all be consultation.
So day one post Art 50 notice the UK delegate enters and presents the UK plan. A new treat which gives the UK everything it wants and nothing it does not.
rEU delegation says very interesting we shall inform all the effected parties of your presentation and consult with them before we answer. Shall we meet in a month.
UK delegates say they cannot wait a month. rEU delegates say sorry but we must consult with all 27 Governments the commission and the parliament.
A month later they all meet again. UK delegates asks if they have a reply. rEU delegates say while there has been many meeting no consensus has emerged and they will need another month.
A month later they all meet again and the same thing happens.
A month later they all meet again the rEU confirms they have consulted and are prepared to consider a separate treaty.
The UK delegate asks for comments on the points submitted at the first meeting. The rEU delegate confirms so far the consultations have only agreed that they will consider a special treaty no consideration has been give to its contents. they suggest meeting again in 3 months when they have consulted with all the interested parties. The UK delegates beg for a quicker response. The rEU delegates say they will try.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate confirms they have had many meeting with the interested parties and no consensus has been met. They suggest another meeting in 3 months.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say that while come agreement had been obtained 2 of those Governments had changed and the incoming Governments needed more time to consider the options.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say that 1 of those new Governments do not agree they can proceed with a separate treaty. Further the Belgum government has fallen and current no party can form a Government so its impossible to do anything at the moment.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say Belgum still has no party which can form a Government so its impossible to do anything at the moment. They are hopeful elections in 2 months time will resolve the delay.
Now this is the European way.
Mrr T said:
Jockman said:
Mrr T said:
Scenario stuff
Possible. Adds credence to don4l's viewpoint about it being a waste of time negotiating.
.B'stard Child said:
Well he's written something I agree with (or rather I can see happening) and it's probably why some toys will be thrown from the pram and we will end up exiting without agreement
Which is surely the worst case scenario, isn't it? It's at that point we need to be asked "Leave without agreement" or "Remain", isn't it? Of course, we as a country can't say we're going to ask that question as it may well become self fulfilling - but surely we do have to be asked the question at that point as an electorate, don't we? If I'm generous and say half of Leave voters wouldn't be happy with "Leave without agreement", then where is the mandate to leave under those circumstances?(P.S. I enjoyed a bit too much
at the weekend, hope you did too.)SilverSixer said:
B'stard Child said:
Well he's written something I agree with (or rather I can see happening) and it's probably why some toys will be thrown from the pram and we will end up exiting without agreement
Which is surely the worst case scenario, isn't it? It's at that point we need to be asked "Leave without agreement" or "Remain", isn't it? Of course, we as a country can't say we're going to ask that question as it may well become self fulfilling - but surely we do have to be asked the question at that point as an electorate, don't we? If I'm generous and say half of Leave voters wouldn't be happy with "Leave without agreement", then where is the mandate to leave under those circumstances?
SilverSixer said:
(P.S. I enjoyed a bit too much at the weekend, hope you did too.)
Good to hear that you had a fun weekend - I had very little beer unfortunately - but I did get the "daily" back from it's full respray so spent some time waxing it. Then some more time cleaning the "press ganged into daily - thank god it's not now cos fuel was killing me". Then Sunday took em both to a local car show and had a great day...... at the weekend, hope you did too.)oooops - probably a bit car related for this forum section - am I likely to get a ban?
PurpleMoonlight said:
don4l said:
I bet that you laughed at Nigel Farage also.
You're not laughing now.
You would lose.You're not laughing now.
I have a certain respect for Farage. He had a goal and stuck doggedly at it.
What most don't realise though is that his true goal is not sovereignty for the UK, it is to bring down the whole EU and he has used the UK as a catalyst to try to do so.
SilverSixer said:
Which is surely the worst case scenario, isn't it? It's at that point we need to be asked "Leave without agreement" or "Remain", isn't it?
Why do we need to be asked? SilverSixer said:
Of course, we as a country can't say we're going to ask that question as it may well become self fulfilling - but surely we do have to be asked the question at that point as an electorate, don't we?
Why? I don't understand this fixation you have. The country was asked leave or stay. It voted leave. You admit that the Government can't say it's going to ask that question anyway, but equally why would it? The people have given the Government a job to do - get us out of the EU. I can't see any reason to ask the people a second question as to the nature of the deal negotiated. (for all the reasons you already know) SilverSixer said:
If I'm generous and say half of Leave voters wouldn't be happy with "Leave without agreement", then where is the mandate to leave under those circumstances?
Generous? Mandate? You're just making stuff up to suit your own constructs and desires. All the polls I have seen suggest that if there were to be another vote tomorrow then Leave would have a far larger majority. If the EU play silly feckers with a deal then watch that margin grow further. (especially as other nations begin to line up to offer us trade deals) Mrr T said:
You really think that?
You obvious have no idea how this will work,
For one thing there will not be 28 people there will be 2 sides the UK and the rEU representing the Council with I am sure observers from the commission and the parliament.
It will not be late nights and hard bargaining it will all be consultation.
So day one post Art 50 notice the UK delegate enters and presents the UK plan. A new treat which gives the UK everything it wants and nothing it does not.
rEU delegation says very interesting we shall inform all the effected parties of your presentation and consult with them before we answer. Shall we meet in a month.
UK delegates say they cannot wait a month. rEU delegates say sorry but we must consult with all 27 Governments the commission and the parliament.
A month later they all meet again. UK delegates asks if they have a reply. rEU delegates say while there has been many meeting no consensus has emerged and they will need another month.
A month later they all meet again and the same thing happens.
A month later they all meet again the rEU confirms they have consulted and are prepared to consider a separate treaty.
The UK delegate asks for comments on the points submitted at the first meeting. The rEU delegate confirms so far the consultations have only agreed that they will consider a special treaty no consideration has been give to its contents. they suggest meeting again in 3 months when they have consulted with all the interested parties. The UK delegates beg for a quicker response. The rEU delegates say they will try.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate confirms they have had many meeting with the interested parties and no consensus has been met. They suggest another meeting in 3 months.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say that while come agreement had been obtained 2 of those Governments had changed and the incoming Governments needed more time to consider the options.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say that 1 of those new Governments do not agree they can proceed with a separate treaty. Further the Belgum government has fallen and current no party can form a Government so its impossible to do anything at the moment.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say Belgum still has no party which can form a Government so its impossible to do anything at the moment. They are hopeful elections in 2 months time will resolve the delay.
Now this is the European way.
My way is far less complicated.You obvious have no idea how this will work,
For one thing there will not be 28 people there will be 2 sides the UK and the rEU representing the Council with I am sure observers from the commission and the parliament.
It will not be late nights and hard bargaining it will all be consultation.
So day one post Art 50 notice the UK delegate enters and presents the UK plan. A new treat which gives the UK everything it wants and nothing it does not.
rEU delegation says very interesting we shall inform all the effected parties of your presentation and consult with them before we answer. Shall we meet in a month.
UK delegates say they cannot wait a month. rEU delegates say sorry but we must consult with all 27 Governments the commission and the parliament.
A month later they all meet again. UK delegates asks if they have a reply. rEU delegates say while there has been many meeting no consensus has emerged and they will need another month.
A month later they all meet again and the same thing happens.
A month later they all meet again the rEU confirms they have consulted and are prepared to consider a separate treaty.
The UK delegate asks for comments on the points submitted at the first meeting. The rEU delegate confirms so far the consultations have only agreed that they will consider a special treaty no consideration has been give to its contents. they suggest meeting again in 3 months when they have consulted with all the interested parties. The UK delegates beg for a quicker response. The rEU delegates say they will try.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate confirms they have had many meeting with the interested parties and no consensus has been met. They suggest another meeting in 3 months.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say that while come agreement had been obtained 2 of those Governments had changed and the incoming Governments needed more time to consider the options.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say that 1 of those new Governments do not agree they can proceed with a separate treaty. Further the Belgum government has fallen and current no party can form a Government so its impossible to do anything at the moment.
3 months later they meet again. rEU delegate say Belgum still has no party which can form a Government so its impossible to do anything at the moment. They are hopeful elections in 2 months time will resolve the delay.
Now this is the European way.
1) Article 50.
2) Hire new Border Agency staff and HMRC people.
3) Leave.
Or, to put it another way "Brexit means Brexit".
PurpleMoonlight said:
But he is dangerous and will do anything for his own best interests.
In other words he will do what he has always done. Johnson first and only.He now holds one of the great offices of state - a tragedy. Despite the fact that he's not part of the negotiations he's still pushing for what he sees as best for him. He should be foreign secretarying, not sticking his nose in the functions that are the responsibility of others.
One of the most politically astute MPs yet he is a waste of his expenses, let along his pay.
Yes but I'm not talking about tomorrow, andy. I'm talking about the moment in time when, 2 years after article 50 is notified, we have no agreement with the EU.
Yes, I know 'we' voted Leave. Just. But it was not "overwhelming", and it is fair to assume that much of the Leave vote was not for a 'hard' exit (B'stard Child and no doubt others on this thread excepted), and we would end up faced, in reality, with a situation which significantly less than 50% of the electorate wanted. It's only 1.9% over the 50 at the moment anyway.
I'm not sure that's how democracy is supposed to work (if it's wrong to ignore the result of a referendum, we must respect democracy and abide by the result of the first one in 1975, right?), and I'm fairly sure it should operate on the principle that the people should be allowed to consider changing their minds when circumstances materially change - which they have not yet done hence your reference to 'tomorrow' being pointless.
Here's a dispassionate, neutral, observational blog from a subject matter expert:
http://jackofkent.com/
His 19 'hurdles' seem to be the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, I know 'we' voted Leave. Just. But it was not "overwhelming", and it is fair to assume that much of the Leave vote was not for a 'hard' exit (B'stard Child and no doubt others on this thread excepted), and we would end up faced, in reality, with a situation which significantly less than 50% of the electorate wanted. It's only 1.9% over the 50 at the moment anyway.
I'm not sure that's how democracy is supposed to work (if it's wrong to ignore the result of a referendum, we must respect democracy and abide by the result of the first one in 1975, right?), and I'm fairly sure it should operate on the principle that the people should be allowed to consider changing their minds when circumstances materially change - which they have not yet done hence your reference to 'tomorrow' being pointless.
Here's a dispassionate, neutral, observational blog from a subject matter expert:
http://jackofkent.com/
His 19 'hurdles' seem to be the tip of the iceberg.
Edited by SilverSixer on Monday 26th September 16:00
B'stard Child said:
Good to hear that you had a fun weekend - I had very little beer unfortunately - but I did get the "daily" back from it's full respray so spent some time waxing it. Then some more time cleaning the "press ganged into daily - thank god it's not now cos fuel was killing me". Then Sunday took em both to a local car show and had a great day......
oooops - probably a bit car related for this forum section - am I likely to get a ban?
I managed to balls up the oil and filter change on my car by failing to notice the old oil filter's seal staying stuck to the engine, screwing the new one on, starting the engine and spraying 3l of fresh oil all over my drive. After that, I most certainly required a large amount of oooops - probably a bit car related for this forum section - am I likely to get a ban?
SilverSixer said:
I managed to balls up the oil and filter change on my car by failing to notice the old oil filter's seal staying stuck to the engine, screwing the new one on, starting the engine and spraying 3l of fresh oil all over my drive. After that, I most certainly required a large amount of
That's happening to a lot of people since Brexit.
(I did the same about a month back).
confused_buyer said:
SilverSixer said:
I managed to balls up the oil and filter change on my car by failing to notice the old oil filter's seal staying stuck to the engine, screwing the new one on, starting the engine and spraying 3l of fresh oil all over my drive. After that, I most certainly required a large amount of
That's happening to a lot of people since Brexit.(I did the same about a month back).
Funkycoldribena said:
don4l said:
My way is far less complicated.
1) Article 50.
2) Hire new Border Agency staff and HMRC people.
3) Leave.
Or, to put it another way "Brexit means Brexit".
Can we do it tomorrow?1) Article 50.
2) Hire new Border Agency staff and HMRC people.
3) Leave.
Or, to put it another way "Brexit means Brexit".
If anything,just to shut the whingers on here up.
Even with the ink is signed and a date is set the UK will not be an independent nation. EU legislation will still be felt over here. Was just talking earlier to a couple of friends at JLR about the new Euro 7 engine regulations and another friend said "none of that will matter to us when we are out" to which the reply came "We wont build an engine for one market so Euro 7 changes will be built into the UK cars too." infuriated the guy who made the statement but is the reality of international business.
SilverSixer said:
Yes but I'm not talking about tomorrow, andy. I'm talking about the moment in time when, 2 years after article 50 is notified, we have no agreement with the EU.
Yes, I know 'we' voted Leave. Just. But it was not "overwhelming", and it is fair to assume that much of the Leave vote was not for a 'hard' exit (B'stard Child and no doubt others on this thread), and we would end up faced, in reality, with a situation which significantly less than 50% of the electorate wanted. It's only 1.9% over the 50 at the moment anyway.
It's an interesting thought that by the time we leave the demographics of the voting population will be different to what voted leave. More younger and less older.Yes, I know 'we' voted Leave. Just. But it was not "overwhelming", and it is fair to assume that much of the Leave vote was not for a 'hard' exit (B'stard Child and no doubt others on this thread), and we would end up faced, in reality, with a situation which significantly less than 50% of the electorate wanted. It's only 1.9% over the 50 at the moment anyway.
Could be that the majority don't what to leave when we do.
SilverSixer said:
Yes but I'm not talking about tomorrow, andy. I'm talking about the moment in time when, 2 years after article 50 is notified, we have no agreement with the EU.
I don't know exactly. But my strong feeling is there will be an agreement. I also feel that if there is no agreement - the so-called Hard Brexit option - then UK will leave anyway. SilverSixer said:
Yes, I know 'we' voted Leave. Just. But it was not "overwhelming",
Ahh, the old "you only just won" argument again. Look, a decision was made. My point about "tomorrow" is well made though. If anything the margin of Leave is growing day by day. SilverSixer said:
and it is fair to assume that much of the Leave vote was not for a 'hard' exit (B'stard Child and no doubt others on this thread), and we would end up faced, in reality, with a situation which significantly less than 50% of the electorate wanted. It's only 1.9% over the 50 at the moment anyway.
It's not fair to assume anything. Really. You didn't even vote Leave so you're not exactly in a position to guess the feelings of 17.5million people. In any event, to address your specific point, I really don't think that very many people were considering Brexit in terms of hard, soft, medium, long, short, comfy, tasty, sleepy, Doc, bashful, cuddly toy or anything else. We were told to consider it in light of the consequences offered by Cameron, the Remain team and sundry European commentators, and in light of those consequences the country still voted out. To remind you of just a few of those consequences: We were told that Brexit would result in an immediate emergency budget, a stock market crash and an end of western civilisation etc. Scary stuff. Yet country still voted Leave.
Face it, if western civilisation survives (and it looks like it might just stagger on) then even the hardest of hard Brexits will be soft compared to what we were told would happen and against which the country nevertheless voted Leave.
You keep constructing these "if I imagine that people didn't vote for this, it means that Remain would win, so we must get another chance to vote etc etc etc...." Please, for the sake of your sanity stop this line of thought. I understand why you are doing it, but it's not helpful.
SilverSixer said:
I'm not sure that's how democracy is supposed to work (if it's wrong to ignore the result of a referendum, we must respect democracy and abide by the result of the first one in 1975, right?),
Crikey, you're reaching now eh? Well, you're assuming that what we voted for in 1975 is what we ended up with in 2016. It isn't and so a new Referendum was entirely justified. SilverSixer said:
and I'm fairly sure it should operate on the principle that the people should be allowed to consider changing their minds when circumstances materially change - which they have not yet done hence your reference to 'tomorrow' being pointless.
What circumstances have not changed? Oh yes, that's right, the doom laden prophecies that were to happen immediately after the vote that were predicted by Remain have failed to materialise. I wonder how many Remain voters would now actually like to change their vote to Leave? (See we can both do this, it's pointless!) The fact is that Remain predicted consequences that were far harder than the harshest of deals/hard Brexits and the vote was still to Leave. The only people likely to change their minds in the coming years will be Remainers.
SilverSixer said:
Here's a dispassionate, neutral, observational blog from a subject matter expert:
http://jackofkent.com/
His 19 'hurdles' seem to be the tip of the iceberg.
I have read that before. Hurdles or simply bits of housekeeping to deal with? Hurdles or just questions to be answered? Either way there is nothing there that should cause a sensible person to lose too much sleep - unless they're sleeping in a wet bed! (sorry, couldn't resist) http://jackofkent.com/
His 19 'hurdles' seem to be the tip of the iceberg.
Edited by andymadmak on Monday 26th September 16:06
Edited by andymadmak on Monday 26th September 16:08
SilverSixer said:
Yes but I'm not talking about tomorrow, andy. I'm talking about the moment in time when, 2 years after article 50 is notified, we have no agreement with the EU.
Yes, I know 'we' voted Leave. Just. But it was not "overwhelming", and it is fair to assume that much of the Leave vote was not for a 'hard' exit (B'stard Child and no doubt others on this thread), and we would end up faced, in reality, with a situation which significantly less than 50% of the electorate wanted. It's only 1.9% over the 50 at the moment anyway.
I'm not sure that's how democracy is supposed to work (if it's wrong to ignore the result of a referendum, we must respect democracy and abide by the result of the first one in 1975, right?), and I'm fairly sure it should operate on the principle that the people should be allowed to consider changing their minds when circumstances materially change - which they have not yet done hence your reference to 'tomorrow' being pointless.
Here's a dispassionate, neutral, observational blog from a subject matter expert:
http://jackofkent.com/
His 19 'hurdles' seem to be the tip of the iceberg.
They are not hurdles at all.Yes, I know 'we' voted Leave. Just. But it was not "overwhelming", and it is fair to assume that much of the Leave vote was not for a 'hard' exit (B'stard Child and no doubt others on this thread), and we would end up faced, in reality, with a situation which significantly less than 50% of the electorate wanted. It's only 1.9% over the 50 at the moment anyway.
I'm not sure that's how democracy is supposed to work (if it's wrong to ignore the result of a referendum, we must respect democracy and abide by the result of the first one in 1975, right?), and I'm fairly sure it should operate on the principle that the people should be allowed to consider changing their minds when circumstances materially change - which they have not yet done hence your reference to 'tomorrow' being pointless.
Here's a dispassionate, neutral, observational blog from a subject matter expert:
http://jackofkent.com/
His 19 'hurdles' seem to be the tip of the iceberg.
For example, he asks what to do if Gibralter doesn't want to leave the EU. The answer is incredibly simple.
If they want to remain a protectorate, then they are perfectly free to join us. Alternatively, Spain would be perfectly happy to look after them.
The Scottish question is even easier to answer. As Scotland would fail to meet EU entry standards, she has no choice but to come with us.
Most of the rest of the questions have a one word answer - "tough".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff