Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[powerstroke]

///ajd said:

If it helps keep the UK ( wheels on their gravy train ) in, why wouldn't they?

EFA !!!

[alfie2244]

///ajd said:

alfie2244 said:

///ajd said:

Art 50 process paused, the two years is not cast in stone or irreversible.

With European elections going on all over the place in the next 18 months 27 EU countries + the Walloons will agree to an extension will they?

If it helps keep the UK in, why wouldn't they?

Marie might not want to.........don't forget the ungrateful barstewards (De Gaulle) didn't want us to join in the 1st place.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Various scenarios.

Art 50 process paused, the two years is not cast in stone or irreversible.

It might depend on how shambolic the deal is. If in 18 months you have banks, car manuf saying "that won't keep us here", then there could well be a wider debate on whether the Nation was lied to and sold a false promise on brexit utopia (it was of course).

Then ref 2, gobste lies exposed, we stay in, job jobbed. Economy saved - the bottom line for most.

The vote was very close, the kipper echo chamber here is not representative!

You've lost the referendum battle, you've lost the Article 50 battle, you've now made the leap to fighting the exit agreement battle. Great, 2 more years of your doom and gloom cut and pasting, I cant wait!

[BlackLabel]

Tax exile who doesn't even live in the UK or the EU still has hope of a U-turn.

Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson is calling for a second EU referendum, warning a hard Brexit will be a “shot in the foot” for Britain. The billionaire, who campaigned to remain in the EU in the lead-up to the vote, said Brexit was “one of the saddest things that has happened” to both the UK and Europe.

Sir Richard said:

I just pray and hope that when all the facts are there, or everything has been negotiated, then the British people can have the decision to decide because it was a complete false premise that the referendum was brought on in the first place.

Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 26th March 17:51

[///ajd]

BlackLabel said:

Tax exile who doesn't even live in the UK or the EU still has hope of a U-turn.

Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson is calling for a second EU referendum, warning a hard Brexit will be a “shot in the foot” for Britain. The billionaire, who campaigned to remain in the EU in the lead-up to the vote, said Brexit was “one of the saddest things that has happened” to both the UK and Europe.

Sir Richard said:

I just pray and hope that when all the facts are there, or everything has been negotiated, then the British people can have the decision to decide because it was a complete false premise that the referendum was brought on in the first place.

Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 26th March 17:51

He's a clever chap who is a successful entrepreneur and business man, having generated shed loads of jobs and GDP. Just what this country needs to be successful really.

He's also right on this point.

[grumbledoak]

Doesn't live here. Doesn't pay tax here. Can stick his opinion up his arse.

[don'tbesilly]

grumbledoak said:

Doesn't live here. Doesn't pay tax here. Can stick his opinion up his arse.

Doesn't believe in democracy either, unless of course democracy played in his/remains favour.

Another bitter loser, like Blair/Mandelson/Heseltine/Soubry/Farron/Clegg/Ashdown et al.

Edited by don'tbesilly on Sunday 26th March 18:33

[alfie2244]

Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, Michael Heseltine, Anna Soubry, Tim Farron, Nick Clegg, Paddy Ashdown, David Cameron, george Osborn - can you hear me Richard Branson - Your boys took a hell of a beating

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

Various scenarios.

Art 50 process paused, the two years is not cast in stone or irreversible.

It might depend on how shambolic the deal is. If in 18 months you have banks, car manuf saying "that won't keep us here", then there could well be a wider debate on whether the Nation was lied to and sold a false promise on brexit utopia (it was of course).

Then ref 2, gobste lies exposed, we stay in, job jobbed. Economy saved - the bottom line for most.

The vote was very close, the kipper echo chamber here is not representative!

The UK was "lied to" in 1975. Had it not been we would arguably not have been in the EU for 40yrs for you to have your whinge-fest over.

The electorate wasn't given the option to be lied to a number more times as the treaties changed since then (shamefully), and when that was promised the electorate was "lied to" again in having that opportunity withdrawn.

"Lies" happen all the time it seems. After all, we were told that the immediate aftermath of a vote to leave would be huge job losses, emergency budgets, collapse of the UK economy, collapse of house prices and general death and destruction across the nation. All "lies".

Aren't you convinced that banks and key players in the motor industry are leaving already? And yet...?

AIUI Art50 cannot be paused or extended unilaterally. If he EU feels it has us cornered (likely a "bad deal" for the UK and a good one for the EU), why would it allow us to halt the process?

The economy is not the bottom line for most, and even amongst those for whom it is, the opinion is not conclusively that being in the EU is a cut and dried good thing. As we have discussed many times, it is simply impossible to say that with any surety and there are equally compelling arguments on both sides (if you can unblinker yourself. Which you evidently cannot).

If you now feel the need to quote the 625 economists again, please let me see the results of a rerun of that poll (ideally weighted this time so we can at least try and tell something meaningful from it), and try not to ignore the reversed positions post 23rd June 2016 please. Please also examine the statements made in the run up to the vote and let me know which came to pass so that we can assess the accuracy of those making them

There is still very much the scope for subversion and political underhandedness. But I think those in charge know how dangerous this would be. The majority wasn't as big as I would have liked to have seen personally, but a 4% gap is still reasonable for a binary choice vote. And I really do not think events since 23rd June 2016 have reinforced Remains position. Quite the opposite. And people are seeing this.

[anonymous-user]

Just in case they try the old, it must be lost in the post trick.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/27/t...

[powerstroke]

jsf said:

Just in case they try the old, it must be lost in the post trick.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/27/t...

They should have held an auction for that job , how many of us would love to be in his position ,and be able to deliver the letter to that smug

[anonymous-user]

I think Nigel Farage would have won that auction

[powerstroke]

bmw535i said:

I think Nigel Farage would have won that auction

I would have made a donation

[anonymous-user]

powerstroke said:

bmw535i said:

I think Nigel Farage would have won that auction

I would have made a donation

I would certainly have paid him to once again deliver his 'you're not laughing any more' line.

[Elysium]

confused_buyer said:

There seems to be a (totally wrong in my opinion) assumption here that HMG didn't want Parliament to have a veto on any deal because they were worried about a few pro-EU Tories. They are not. They are worried about the anti ones.

What they are most worried about is coming back with a relatively sensible deal which still involves paying a bit to Brussels and still complying with some ECJ missives in return for decent market access and the "hard core" 140 or so anti-EU Tory MPs going ape st and blocking it or splitting the party.

The fact is, the less meaningful vote Parliament gets, the "softer" the Brexit is likely to be. Why pro-Remainers think getting Parliament more involved and handing more power and possible veto to a group of very hard core anti-EU backbench Tory MPs is likely to result in a softer Brexit I have never been able to work out.

I agree. For months the biggest risk to Brexit has been the hardcore Tory Brexiteers. However, the abject capitulation of labour has left them in control, for now.

[FN2TypeR]

Elysium said:

I agree. For months the biggest risk to Brexit has been the hardcore Tory Brexiteers. However, the abject capitulation of labour has left them in control, for now.

The Tories have a majority and May is brooking no descent on this one - apart from Ken Clarke who is a mild nuisance to her at worst, so what are Labour to do apart from make a load of noise from the sidelines??

[///ajd]

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

[0000]

Says Guardian journalist talking to EU diplomats.

[confused_buyer]

///ajd said:

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

In private, both the UK and EU recognise that a crash out would be bad for both of them. Before any negotiation, either side usually postures and bluffs, why should this be any different?

They all want a deal, who will be perceived as having got the best deal will be down to who blinks first.

[Dr Jekyll]

///ajd said:

So it seems the horsest no deal bluff was indeed a horsest no deal bluff.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/b...

That makes Davis look slick and in control. Oh dear.

These Brexiteers are making Thatchers handling of the Polltax look smooth with wide & comprehensive stakeholder buy in.....

So you reckon that even if the best deal on offer is something like £100bn a year into the EU coffers for ever more and no FTA even that would be preferable to reverting to WTO?