How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
In the 2016 referendum leave won with a clear majority. Do you know what 1.7 million people looks like?
What we actually have are those who only want to respect a democratic vote, if it goes they way `they' wanted it to. and consequently want go after go until or if the vote goes the way `they' wanted it to. After that they will probably call for referendums to be banned, like some of the elite in the EU suggested.
Oh for sure they will come with numerous and spurious reasons why the first vote should be ignored, but its only down to them throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get the result they wanted. people can easily see through that course of action.
Bad day?What we actually have are those who only want to respect a democratic vote, if it goes they way `they' wanted it to. and consequently want go after go until or if the vote goes the way `they' wanted it to. After that they will probably call for referendums to be banned, like some of the elite in the EU suggested.
Oh for sure they will come with numerous and spurious reasons why the first vote should be ignored, but its only down to them throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get the result they wanted. people can easily see through that course of action.
steve_k said:
Elysium said:
steve_k said:
If it goes to a second referendum with the same options leave or remain would a win by remain with a result 51% v 49% be void due to the previous referendum result been a higher majority?
Would the same remainers who are currently pushing for a second referendum ignore this result and ask for a third or say the job is done now the result has been overturned ?
The first referendum was a straight majority. Would the same remainers who are currently pushing for a second referendum ignore this result and ask for a third or say the job is done now the result has been overturned ?
If there is a second vote it should be on the same basis.
The only legitimate purpose for a second ref is to tell parliament how to get out of the current deadlock. It would not be a rerun of the first vote.
People will be unhappy whatever we do, but at least with a second referendum we can make sure it is what the majority decide.
It’s called democracy.
If you don’t like the result, you don’t have to accept it, you can fight to change the result.
Why should the referendum be any different? If remain had won no one was expecting Farage to disappear. The SNP are still pushing for another vote in Scotland.
It’s democracy in action, if you don’t like it there’s always North Korea.
steve_k said:
Nickgnome said:
steve_k said:
Nickgnome said:
steve_k said:
If it goes to a second referendum with the same options leave or remain would a win by remain with a result 51% v 49% be void due to the previous referendum result been a higher majority?
Would the same remainers who are currently pushing for a second referendum ignore this result and ask for a third or say the job is done now the result has been overturned ?
There is no second referendum in the offingWould the same remainers who are currently pushing for a second referendum ignore this result and ask for a third or say the job is done now the result has been overturned ?
The question however, would not be leave or remain as we are past that point and negotiations have taken place.
It is the losers that generally request a rerun.
All in all pretty pointless question.
I am asking about how the results of such a scenario would be accepted not if it will happen, sorry if this was not clear to you.
psi310398 said:
Elysium said:
Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?
Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?
Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
I think they have, repeatedly. Maybe, you just don't like the answer.Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
Simple: The no deal is the only one which honours the leave decision. The May deal is not a Leave in any meaningful sense and to suggest otherwise insults everybody's intelligence, and we have been told endlessly that there will be no renegotiation, so it's not an option.
You think leaving without a WA will be calamitous. Others don't.
As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
steve_k said:
Elysium said:
steve_k said:
If it goes to a second referendum with the same options leave or remain would a win by remain with a result 51% v 49% be void due to the previous referendum result been a higher majority?
Would the same remainers who are currently pushing for a second referendum ignore this result and ask for a third or say the job is done now the result has been overturned ?
The first referendum was a straight majority. Would the same remainers who are currently pushing for a second referendum ignore this result and ask for a third or say the job is done now the result has been overturned ?
If there is a second vote it should be on the same basis.
The only legitimate purpose for a second ref is to tell parliament how to get out of the current deadlock. It would not be a rerun of the first vote.
People will be unhappy whatever we do, but at least with a second referendum we can make sure it is what the majority decide.
steve_k said:
You example is not representative to the original question, using your example if the Tories get 100 and Labour refuse to let them in due to 100 not been enough in Labour eyes so a second election is called resulting in Labour getting 50 should this result stand or be void ?
I think anything other that a landslide victory for remain in a future referendum would cause more problems due to the first not getting delivered.
I am not in favour of a second referendum. I wasn’t in favour of the first either.I think anything other that a landslide victory for remain in a future referendum would cause more problems due to the first not getting delivered.
The current mess is a result of oversimplification of a complex situation.
I am hopeful that MPs are finally trying to get some consensus but I am not a fan of TM and through contacts understand her not to be a pleasant person from her time in the Home Office.
I suspect her WA deal may get through next week although I hope not.
Elysium said:
Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?
Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a stty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?
Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
If you didn't show your own views by calling no deal calamitous and gave the options in an even-handed manner people might consider it worth answering. Maybe... Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
Elysium said:
Who are ‘they’ and how have they ignored the referendum?
As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
'They' are the leavers here, per your question. They haven't ignored the referendum.As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
Does anyone here seriously and honestly believe that signing the WA honours the referendum result in any meaningful way beyond the legality that we would no longer be voting members?
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?
Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a stty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?
Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
If you didn't show your own views by calling no deal calamitous and gave the options in an even-handed manner people might consider it worth answering. Maybe... Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
Do you watch the news, or listen to every expert from every industry?
psi310398 said:
Elysium said:
Who are ‘they’ and how have they ignored the referendum?
As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
'They' are the leavers here, per your question. They haven't ignored the referendum.As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
Does anyone here seriously and honestly believe that signing the WA honours the referendum result in any meaningful way beyond the legality that we would no longer be voting members?
I'm of the opinion that no matter how many times you roll a turd in glitter and present it as a polished solution underneath it's still a turd
B'stard Child said:
psi310398 said:
Elysium said:
Who are ‘they’ and how have they ignored the referendum?
As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
'They' are the leavers here, per your question. They haven't ignored the referendum.As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
Does anyone here seriously and honestly believe that signing the WA honours the referendum result in any meaningful way beyond the legality that we would no longer be voting members?
I'm of the opinion that no matter how many times you roll a turd in glitter and present it as a polished solution underneath it's still a turd
Helicopter123 said:
B'stard Child said:
psi310398 said:
Does anyone here seriously and honestly believe that signing the WA honours the referendum result in any meaningful way beyond the legality that we would no longer be voting members?
I'm sure there are lots of people here that believe it is still "brexit"I'm of the opinion that no matter how many times you roll a turd in glitter and present it as a polished solution underneath it's still a turd
Your predictions haven't been that accurate so far
Helicopter123 said:
It is an utterly hopeless deal, but it is Brexit, and as things stand the only possible way that the UK can leave the EU on 29th March,
Not true.If nothing else happens, we leave with no deal. That is the current position and enshrined in law.
Parliament or the PM has to decide to do something to alter that, and then get it through in time, and beat any judicial review that might be thrown its way.
And if any EU MS vetoes an extension of time, the only alternatives are accepting the WA or leaving without a deal.
MPs waving their arms around and taking gesture votes alters nothing.
Helicopter123 said:
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?
Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a stty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?
Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
If you didn't show your own views by calling no deal calamitous and gave the options in an even-handed manner people might consider it worth answering. Maybe... Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
Do you watch the news, or listen to every expert from every industry?
Good job..
Elysium said:
psi310398 said:
Elysium said:
Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?
Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a stty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?
Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
I think they have, repeatedly. Maybe, you just don't like the answer.Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
Simple: The no deal is the only one which honours the leave decision. The May deal is not a Leave in any meaningful sense and to suggest otherwise insults everybody's intelligence, and we have been told endlessly that there will be no renegotiation, so it's not an option.
You think leaving without a WA will be calamitous. Others don't.
As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
As a result of more people choosing the option of 'Leave the European Union' than the opposing option the UK invoked Article 50 back in March 2017.
Article 50 mentions:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
No where in the above does it state that a deal must be arrived at in order for a member state to leave the European Union.
The Withdrawal Bill was given Queens assent in June 2018. Without studying the document in minutiae I don't believe the Bill contains any clauses/conditions that in order for the bill to be enforceable there has to be a deal in order for the UK to leave the EU on the 29th March, a fact that all the MP's who voted for the bill should have been aware of, if they didn't why did they vote for it?
The above begs the question, in what way was the ballot paper you were given different to the one I received?
I thought every ballot paper was the same, is that really not the case?
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?
Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a stty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?
Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
If you didn't show your own views by calling no deal calamitous and gave the options in an even-handed manner people might consider it worth answering. Maybe... Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
The deal
No deal
Extension and renegotiation.
None dishonour the referendum result as a matter of fact. So choosing the appropriate route is a matter of judgement.
Parliament are very obviously struggling to make that judgement.
So why not answer the question - what do we expect them to do?
At the moment they have gone for extension as the ‘least worst’ option and right on cue we have shouts that they are ‘not honouring the referendum’.
don'tbesilly said:
Elysium said:
psi310398 said:
Elysium said:
Who is ignoring the 2016 vote?
Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a stty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?
Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
I think they have, repeatedly. Maybe, you just don't like the answer.Brexit has been rammed down everyone’s throats for almost 3 years. Instead of blaming everyone else how about answering the big question.
How do you expect parliament to choose between a s
tty deal, a calamitous no-deal or a delay and attempted renegotiation?Which one of those honours the referendum?
Why can no leavers answer the question?
Simple: The no deal is the only one which honours the leave decision. The May deal is not a Leave in any meaningful sense and to suggest otherwise insults everybody's intelligence, and we have been told endlessly that there will be no renegotiation, so it's not an option.
You think leaving without a WA will be calamitous. Others don't.
As to ‘no deal’ being the only way to honour the vote - that is simply your opinion. It’s not what the referendum said and that won’t change. The shouting and the accusations don’t for one moment alter the fact that we would be leaving the EU if we accepted the withdrawal agreement.
As a result of more people choosing the option of 'Leave the European Union' than the opposing option the UK invoked Article 50 back in March 2017.
Article 50 mentions:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
No where in the above does it state that a deal must be arrived at in order for a member state to leave the European Union.
The Withdrawal Bill was given Queens assent in June 2018. Without studying the document in minutiae I don't believe the Bill contains any clauses/conditions that in order for the bill to be enforceable there has to be a deal in order for the UK to leave the EU on the 29th March, a fact that all the MP's who voted for the bill should have been aware of, if they didn't why did they vote for it?
The above begs the question, in what way was the ballot paper you were given different to the one I received?
I thought every ballot paper was the same, is that really not the case?
Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. We will take back the power to negotiate our own trade deals.
European Free Trade Zone. Doesn’t sound much like the WTO to me, sounds more like the EEA.
Pan Pan Pan said:
In the 2016 referendum leave won with a clear majority. Do you know what 1.7 million people looks like?
What we actually have are those who only want to respect a democratic vote, if it goes they way `they' wanted it to. and consequently want go after go until or if the vote goes the way `they' wanted it to. After that they will probably call for referendums to be banned, like some of the elite in the EU suggested.
Oh for sure they will come with numerous and spurious reasons why the first vote should be ignored, but its only down to them throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get the result they wanted. people can easily see through that course of action.
The majority was actually 1.27M not 1.7M. In my opinion that has been reduced significantly and if we voted again today, leave would probably just edge it. In 1 or 2 years, who knows.What we actually have are those who only want to respect a democratic vote, if it goes they way `they' wanted it to. and consequently want go after go until or if the vote goes the way `they' wanted it to. After that they will probably call for referendums to be banned, like some of the elite in the EU suggested.
Oh for sure they will come with numerous and spurious reasons why the first vote should be ignored, but its only down to them throwing a tantrum, because they didn't get the result they wanted. people can easily see through that course of action.
At that point remainers may arguably claim that for the foreseeable future the majority for Brexit has been lost before it could be implemented. Is that democratic or not, for sure it’s certainly not going to be a point that everyone agrees on.
If there is going to be a second vote it seems to me that it is in leave’s interest to hold it sooner rather than later.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff