How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)

[Tuna]

Elysium said:

ITP said:

No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?

Again your opinion. As an objective fact the withdrawal agreement is about leaving the EU. It is the terms of our withdrawal, as described in article 50.

Are parliament supposed to agree with your irrational argument?

The problem I have with your reply is that ITP lists a set of serious issues with Brexit that could have long term economic consequences on our country, and you choose to debate on whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is "about leaving the EU"? Yes there's hyperbole in there, but both the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration have been accused of (a) being originated by the EU and (b) committing the UK to an agreement where the EU controls our ability to trade independently.

That's a serious allegation and you choose to completely blank it? I can understand that many Remain supporters think the benefit (of access to the Customs Union) outweigh the consequences, but completely avoiding actually having the discussion about what compromise is being made appears devious and dishonest. From people who obsess about the other side's lies, that comes across very badly.

[Laurel Green]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

This is very interesting and worth the watch.

Interesting indeed.

ElUSIVEJIM said:

Factual or a smear campaign?

There was a time when I'd believe it without question. These days, however...

ETA: What happend, Jim? Do you want me to delete my post?

Edited by Laurel Green on Friday 15th March 23:43

[mike9009]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

This is very interesting and worth the watch.

Factual or a smear campaign?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht40yrt3VrY

I think I mentioned this very shortly after the referendum result, money markets were being directly driven by what Farage was saying with each statement. To me he personally must have made a killing that evening. I obviously did not know about the pollsters and hedge funds involvement.

[wc98]

B'stard Child said:

Slightly off topic now and also tongue in cheek but I really wonder why the SNP didn't lobby for a UK wide referendum on Scottish Independence - they would have easily won

they know that. that's why they didn't. you think they really want independence themselves ? they have it easy at the moment, full gravy train members without having to take much responsibility.

[wc98]

ITP said:

No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?

best analogy on the thread so far

[wc98]

ITP said:

No deal is not anyone’s first choice in an ideal world.
However, it is exactly what I expected from day 1, yes. This is because the EU was never going to agree to a nice smooth friendly deal that benefitted both sides.

Barnier even stated right at the start it was his job to come up with a deal so bad for us no one else would ever try to leave. Maybe someone can find the actual words, but it was pretty much along those lines.

We have known for years how the EU operates with other countries that have tried to leave. What is shocking to me is how so many people, even the allegedly much better educated remain voters, were unaware of this fact, and seem to actually think a ‘deal’ actually was ever going to be offered by the EU which wasn’t massively biased in their favour. It’s always been clear to see the stance they would take. And sure enough, they have. I can’t understand why people seem to be surprised, and why everyone keeps blaming May. It doesn’t matter who was in power, conservative or labour, any leader of any party, the EU offer would be the same.

What May has catastrophically failed to do since day 1 is plan for no deal, as this is the only way to leave the EU that they have no control over.

I don’t blame the EU for their stance, it’s their club we said we want to leave after all. But for the reasons above we would only ever be able to leave with no deal, followed by a trade deal discussion when the EU couldn’t hold a gun to our heads legally. The businesses of the EU will of course still want to trade with us, as we do with them, but there will always be a period of disruption of course, mainly because the EU politicians will probably try to be as obstructive as possible to ‘teach us a lesson’.

But the bottom line is, I personally believe the integrity of our democracy, which both parties are playing fast and loose with at the moment, is worth a lot more than a period of short term disruption.
Other people take the opposite view, which is fine for them.

And no, the current deal on offer is not enacting the pledge all parties gave the electorate to leave, that is not possible when the EU still holds legal control over what we can do.
In my opinion of course.

i think a lot of people are of that opinion.

[FiF]

Tuna said:

Elysium said:

ITP said:

No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?

Again your opinion. As an objective fact the withdrawal agreement is about leaving the EU. It is the terms of our withdrawal, as described in article 50.

Are parliament supposed to agree with your irrational argument?

The problem I have with your reply is that ITP lists a set of serious issues with Brexit that could have long term economic consequences on our country, and you choose to debate on whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is "about leaving the EU"? Yes there's hyperbole in there, but both the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration have been accused of (a) being originated by the EU and (b) committing the UK to an agreement where the EU controls our ability to trade independently.

That's a serious allegation and you choose to completely blank it? I can understand that many Remain supporters think the benefit (of access to the Customs Union) outweigh the consequences, but completely avoiding actually having the discussion about what compromise is being made appears devious and dishonest. From people who obsess about the other side's lies, that comes across very badly.

Yep, couple of good posts from ITP above which sum up the feelings of many.

Then then your short sharp put down of Elysium's response just underlines the issue Remain haven't and aren't listening. What happens next when one party just isn't listening, they become irrelevant or steps are taken to make them irrelevant.

[Red Devil]

crankedup said:

Given that it is a majority of constituencies that voted leave along with individual voters voting to exit it seems to me MPs have lost sight of thier responsibility to thier electorate.

As far as the referendum is concerned, you're making a fundamental error when saying that constituencies voted leave.

Constituencies are an artificial line on a map which groups people together for a GE to send an MP to the HoC under our parliamentary system and constitution.
It has no meaning in a referendum which is a concept at complete loggerheads with the aforementioned system. It is why, until very recently, we have had so few of them.
In a referendum there is only one 'constituency': all those eligible to vote. The existing parliamentary constituencies are merely used for administrative convenience;
Namely for counting the votes which are then aggregated to decide which of the two propositions on the ballot paper has gained a majority.

crankedup said:

Having looked at the voting record of ‘my own’ Tory MP it is pleasing that she is at least broadly supporting her constituents wish to leave the EU.

This perfectly encapsulate why referendums and the UK's (fundamentally two party) politics is such a divisive and unworkable combination.
Our entire system, both political and legal, is founded on an adversarial conttest. A throwback to the days of medieval jousting.
The parties are so entrenched in fighting each other with a eye to the next GE that they are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.
With the exception of the recent one of Dave and Nick, pretty much all of them have been when the UK has been fighting in a strategic European or World War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_coali...

Helicopter123 said:

Elysium said:

I just read a comment piece in today’s times that makes a lot of sense.

The people’s vote and labour second ref supporters referred to the Kyle Wilson amendment as a preferential route to a second ref.

This was supposed to be tabled on Tuesday when the EU deal was put to the second meaningful vote. However it was withdrawn. The amendment would see labour support the deal in return for an undertaking that it would go to a plebiscite (second ref) who would choose between ‘the deal’ and ‘remain’

The Times piece suggests that this could now reappear for the third meaningful vote as a high stakes manoeuvre for Corbyn and May.

It makes a lot of sense as it crystallises a number of things.

Good post, and this would work in that it gets May's deal through (I would think) subject to final approval by the people.

If 'the people' reject it, what then?

psi310398 said:

Nickgnome said:

Has he been resurrected? Descendant perhaps.

By the way the old one failed.

He came pretty damned close before he was arrested, however

His failed because James I repeatedly postponed summoning Parliament.
A substantial amount of the gunpowder deteriorated and the plotters had to replace it.
The King then got off the fence which meant the plotters had to accelerate purchase of the fresh explosive. This aroused suspicion.
Francis Tresham then made the fatal mistake of sending an anonymous warning to Lord Monteagle telling him not to attend.
Monteagle took the letter to Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, James's first minister. Game over.

Cecil was the son of Elizabeth I's spymaster William Cecil, Lord Burghley.

The divorce analogy mentioned by a previous poster is very apt. Article 50 is written in such a way that it favours the respondent to the petition.
It doesn't want a divorce but if it has to have one (which under the rules it can't prevent) it will use its collective muscle to make the terms of the petitioner obtaining one hard to swallow..
The latter then has a difficult choice. Walk away and accept that rebuilding your life will be challenging or live a separate life but still be married with many of the legal and financial obligations that entails.
The only other option is to abandon the petition and ask for forgiveness. Then wait to see on what terms the respondent will agree to resume the marriage. Which will for sure come at a cost.
You need to be very sure that their future plans are what you're prepared to tolerate. Especially when you have had plenty of warning over four decades what those are going to be..
Not only that but the signs of what kind of person you were getting into bed with were there to be seen before you got engaged.
You were just blind to them and, for their own reasons, your parents went out of their way to tell you it would all be wine and roses.

[FiF]

Red Devil said:

crankedup said:

Given that it is a majority of constituencies that voted leave along with individual voters voting to exit it seems to me MPs have lost sight of thier responsibility to thier electorate.

As far as the referendum is concerned, you're making a fundamental error when saying that constituencies voted leave.

Constituencies are an artificial line on a map which groups people together for a GE to send an MP to the HoC under our parliamentary system and constitution.
It has no meaning in a referendum which is a concept at complete loggerheads with the aforementioned system. It is why, until very recently, we have had so few of them.
In a referendum there is only one 'constituency': all those eligible to vote. The existing parliamentary constituencies are merely used for administrative convenience;
Namely for counting the votes which are then aggregated to decide which of the two propositions on the ballot paper has gained a majority.

crankedup said:

Having looked at the voting record of ‘my own’ Tory MP it is pleasing that she is at least broadly supporting her constituents wish to leave the EU.

This perfectly encapsulate why referendums and the UK's (fundamentally two party) politics is such a divisive and unworkable combination.
Our entire system, both political and legal, is founded on an adversarial conttest. A throwback to the days of medieval jousting.
The parties are so entrenched in fighting each other with a eye to the next GE that they are incapable of looking at the bigger picture.
With the exception of the recent one of Dave and Nick, pretty much all of them have been when the UK has been fighting in a strategic European or World War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_coali...

Firstly apologies for the selective quote but simply to save space and not interested in the Guy Fawkes bit nor chopper et al's ramblings.

There is another issue that needs to be mentioned in the difficulty MP's are having in the current setup and all the comments regarding a representative democracy.

You are absolutely correct to say that political system is adversarial. The reason for the few coalition governments has been the FPTP system generally produces what was initially referenced by Lord Hailsham as an elective dictatorship. That is where a government has a clear overall majority, and by the sheer weight if that majority together with use of discipline to keep unity, whip system, said government can then do pretty much as it likes when in power. Manifesto Pledge? Meh.

Of course the opposition can argue and make embarrassing noises, but really, they don't care. They will get their turn.

MPs are used to operating in this scenario, so this current lot are out of their depth when in a minority government only held up by a wafer thin confidence and supply agreement. Wind in a referendum which didn't, as they usually do, return the result the government wanted, but also returned a result that the majority of MPs personally didn't want. This is the first time that the public have given a direct instruction to MPs, the Establishment, their chums in the chattering classes, media, to do something that they don't want to do, and to coin a phrase, they don't like it up 'em.

Tough, there will be consequences, don't know yet what those consequences will be, but probably some regrets in all quarters in hindsight.

[Mrr T]

FiF said:

Tuna said:

Elysium said:

ITP said:

No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?

Again your opinion. As an objective fact the withdrawal agreement is about leaving the EU. It is the terms of our withdrawal, as described in article 50.

Are parliament supposed to agree with your irrational argument?

The problem I have with your reply is that ITP lists a set of serious issues with Brexit that could have long term economic consequences on our country, and you choose to debate on whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is "about leaving the EU"? Yes there's hyperbole in there, but both the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration have been accused of (a) being originated by the EU and (b) committing the UK to an agreement where the EU controls our ability to trade independently.

That's a serious allegation and you choose to completely blank it? I can understand that many Remain supporters think the benefit (of access to the Customs Union) outweigh the consequences, but completely avoiding actually having the discussion about what compromise is being made appears devious and dishonest. From people who obsess about the other side's lies, that comes across very badly.

Yep, couple of good posts from ITP above which sum up the feelings of many.

Then then your short sharp put down of Elysium's response just underlines the issue Remain haven't and aren't listening. What happens next when one party just isn't listening, they become irrelevant or steps are taken to make them irrelevant.

Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.

[Vanden Saab]

mike9009 said:

In fact, a 'No Deal' Brexit would be my preference now.... If we are gambling, why not go all in?

That will never happen because the Utter bullst about cliff edges, catastrophes and every other 'bad' thing that has been guaranteed for the UK population if we leave with a hard but smart brexit will be shown to be rubbish. And as you can see from these pages there is a large number of people on the remain side who don't take being wrong very well.
I as a leaver feel the opposite of you and am now hoping that we cancel brexit so the horrors of remaining will be there for all to see and we will leave properly after the next election.
Unfortunately I think there will be however some ridiculous half in half out mess also called May's deal that will utterly fk the country up and allow remainers to blame Brexiteers.

[jonnyb]

Mrr T said:

FiF said:

Tuna said:

Elysium said:

ITP said:

No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?

Again your opinion. As an objective fact the withdrawal agreement is about leaving the EU. It is the terms of our withdrawal, as described in article 50.

Are parliament supposed to agree with your irrational argument?

The problem I have with your reply is that ITP lists a set of serious issues with Brexit that could have long term economic consequences on our country, and you choose to debate on whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is "about leaving the EU"? Yes there's hyperbole in there, but both the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration have been accused of (a) being originated by the EU and (b) committing the UK to an agreement where the EU controls our ability to trade independently.

That's a serious allegation and you choose to completely blank it? I can understand that many Remain supporters think the benefit (of access to the Customs Union) outweigh the consequences, but completely avoiding actually having the discussion about what compromise is being made appears devious and dishonest. From people who obsess about the other side's lies, that comes across very badly.

Yep, couple of good posts from ITP above which sum up the feelings of many.

Then then your short sharp put down of Elysium's response just underlines the issue Remain haven't and aren't listening. What happens next when one party just isn't listening, they become irrelevant or steps are taken to make them irrelevant.

Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.

I would agree with that.

I have been looking through the official leave campaigns website recently and it’s so far from reality that it’s a total and utter fabrication.

How anyone can say that leaving without a deal was the intended result of the referendum is seriously mistaken. And large parts of the country would rightly be very angry if this was the outcome.

[Mrr T]

jonnyb said:

I would agree with that.

I have been looking through the official leave campaigns website recently and it’s so far from reality that it’s a total and utter fabrication.

How anyone can say that leaving without a deal was the intended result of the referendum is seriously mistaken. And large parts of the country would rightly be very angry if this was the outcome.

Traitor, quisling, we know all 50bn people who voted leave only wanted a no deal leave.

With people like you in charge we would never had rescued General Gordon.

[anonymous-user]

alfie2244 said:

Roman Rhodes said:

Bad day?

You'll get over it.

Even by your low standards that’s lame. Those Friday nights must fly by in the Alfie house...

[Elysium]

FiF said:

Tuna said:

Elysium said:

ITP said:

No deal is brexit.
The EU deal (dressed up as ‘May’s deal’) is not brexit.

It’s simple really, with the EU deal they get all they want, legally. It’s a dream for them, unsurprisingly since it’s their plan in reality. They can continue the progression of the federal dream without us being in Brussels to mess anything up. Plus they can hold us in a customs union hence their rules and restricting our ability to trade elsewhere. How is that brexit? Just not having a seat in Brussels doesn’t equal ‘brexit’ to anyone no matter how many times it’s quoted by remain voters.

It’s like getting divorced from your wife but she can legally stop you seeing other women for ever. Can’t change your mortgage lender or utilities providers either.
She can go off with anyone she wants though, you have no say. If it all goes wrong though, you will be obliged to contribute more money to her errors.
But hey, it’s a version of divorce. Isn’t it?

Again your opinion. As an objective fact the withdrawal agreement is about leaving the EU. It is the terms of our withdrawal, as described in article 50.

Are parliament supposed to agree with your irrational argument?

The problem I have with your reply is that ITP lists a set of serious issues with Brexit that could have long term economic consequences on our country, and you choose to debate on whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement is "about leaving the EU"? Yes there's hyperbole in there, but both the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration have been accused of (a) being originated by the EU and (b) committing the UK to an agreement where the EU controls our ability to trade independently.

That's a serious allegation and you choose to completely blank it? I can understand that many Remain supporters think the benefit (of access to the Customs Union) outweigh the consequences, but completely avoiding actually having the discussion about what compromise is being made appears devious and dishonest. From people who obsess about the other side's lies, that comes across very badly.

Yep, couple of good posts from ITP above which sum up the feelings of many.

Then then your short sharp put down of Elysium's response just underlines the issue Remain haven't and aren't listening. What happens next when one party just isn't listening, they become irrelevant or steps are taken to make them irrelevant.

A couple of interesting points in the above posts.

1. I did not engage with ITPs critique of the withdrawal agreement, because I do not disagree with it. In fact I have repeatedly described it as a ‘stty deal’.

2. I don’t think it is correct to describe the deal as ‘Brexit in name only’, but I can see why many think this. What is a step to far, at least in my opinion, is the argument that it is not leaving. That ignores objective fact, which is why I described it as an ‘irrational argument’.

3. I am not ‘remain’ and the suggestion that I am ‘not listening’ is wrong.

I am not debating the pros and cons of Brexit. That debate got stale 2 years ago. I understand why people are unhappy with the EU and I share many of their concerns. I also understand why people are prepared to take a risk on a no-deal exit in order to leave the EU.

I don’t think that risk is worth taking, but that does not mean I am blind to the reasons why others do.

However, i think it is time that we faced reality. There are three options open to Parliament, the deal, no-deal and extending article 50 to try to renegotiate.

They are all bad options for some people, but none of them are contrary to the referendum mandate. Choosing the ‘least bad’ is a judgement call and that is what we have laid at Parliaments door.

They can’t bring themselves to approve the deal, which many leavers on here seem to agree with. They also cannot bring themselves to allow no-deal, regardless of the previous approval of article 50 notification and the withdrawal agreement. So at present we are heading for an extension and renegotiation. I think that will fail, because the EU will insist that they have agreed a deal already. To that extent it is another ‘bad option’

There is a hysterical blaming of Parliament and much talk about remainers blocking Brexit and dishonouring the referendum mandate. I am asking the people who feel this way to explain how one option is demonstrably ‘correct’ as a response to the referendum. No-one can, because it is not a fact based decision.

To that extent, I feel the criticism of Parliament is misplaced. We are being unreasonable in expecting them to solve this. The Govt and Labour leaders have behaved appallingly, and incompetently, but there are individual acts of bravery and sacrifice amongst some MPs who are clearly following their beliefs.

The big question is what we do next and for some weeks I have been convinced that a referendum is the only way to break the deadlock. Particularly if people want to have the possibility of a no-deal exit.

Given the above, it is frustrating to read ill conceived posts that, based purely on bias, dismiss a second referendum as a remain ploy to thwart Brexit.

How else do people think this will get resolved?

Edited by Elysium on Saturday 16th March 08:36

[Dr Jekyll]

Mrr T said:

Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.

No, the referendum option was Leave, not Leave with a deal. You could possibly argue there is no mandate for a deal, but you can't say there is no mandate for only leaving with a deal.

[Mrr T]

Dr Jekyll said:

Mrr T said:

Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.

No, the referendum option was Leave, not Leave with a deal. You could possibly argue there is no mandate for a deal, but you can't say there is no mandate for only leaving with a deal.

So the WA is leaving the EU but is unaceptable. Brexit confuses me.

[jonnyb]

Dr Jekyll said:

Mrr T said:

Since the referendum promised a soft fluffly brexit surely the only option now is a new referendum. Remain or no deal. Should not be difficult for the EC to frame the question.

No deal supports can campaign on the benefits of sovereignty, trade agreement, blue passports, against the costs of a few jobs and cuts in the NHS.

I am sure no deal will get a decisive majorty on PH. Might lose badly in the real world.

No, the referendum option was Leave, not Leave with a deal. You could possibly argue there is no mandate for a deal, but you can't say there is no mandate for only leaving with a deal.

Nowhere were people told that leaving without a deal was even an option. People were promised an EAA type deal by the official leave campaign. It’s all over their website.

How you can say there’s any mandate for a no deal brexit is utterly delusional.

Ok, things change in the aftermath of the referendum, but let’s try and get vaguely close to what was actually promised.

[bitchstewie]

Mrr T said:

So the WA is leaving the EU but is unaceptable. Brexit confuses me.

It does make me wonder how people will cope when we're making trade deals with other countries and there may be terms and conditions attached that mean we may have to surrender some of our sovereignty.

[Mrr T]

bhstewie said:

Mrr T said:

So the WA is leaving the EU but is unaceptable. Brexit confuses me.

It does make me wonder how people will cope when we're making trade deals with other countries and there may be terms and conditions attached that mean we may have to surrender some of our sovereignty.

Based on the comments on PH I assumed most brexiters have no idea most standards are set at international level. Few seem to have heard of BIS, CODEX, ISO, IASB, etc, etc.

One of the important benefits of a EEA/EFTA option was to regain direct membership of these bodies. It would have meant the UK had more influence on most EU regulations than as a EU member.