How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
Elysium said:
MDMetal said:
Troubleatmill said:
Why does Leave have to win two referendums, but Remain just one.
I don’t recall hearing
And if Remain had won do we genuinely believe they would be entertaining a second referendum.
Or a compromise?
While that's true the real issue is that people supporting another vote have no answer for what happens if the we get the same outcome. The only reason they want another vote is because they think they'll win which is sort of fine if that's how they want to think, but if we get the same identical result with the current set of MPs then nothing changes. So another vote solves nothing because it's perfectly possible to get the same result.I don’t recall hearing
And if Remain had won do we genuinely believe they would be entertaining a second referendum.
Or a compromise?
Another vote solves everything. It’s simple, logical and democratic.
Elysium said:
You entirely miss the point. I am perfectly happy for us to leave the EU in an orderly way, as the majority voted to do in 2016.
Leavers want Brexit as a matter of political ideology. I think that the majority who oppose it do so as a matter of pragmatism. They are not going to defend the EU or make an inspirational case to remain, because they do not see the 'problem' in that way.
No-deal Brexit is even stupider, because there is absolutely no need for it and it is not mandated by the 2016 vote. This panic to leave at all costs by the EU's latest deadline, at the clear expense of our democracy, which leavers pretend to value, is the problem.
What bothers me is that Johnson is trying the same approach that led to May's failure, threatening no deal in the hope that the EU comes up with something better. It's not a sensible or effective way to negotiate and we are STILL not agreed on terms we would actually accept. On that basis, given May's experience, I think it will fail. That means our only option is to leave with no-deal, which is Brexit on the worst terms possible.
On point 1, incorrect, the majority voted for leave. As to how they thought this would happen it was clear that this was ambiguous and a significant factor for many people in how they voted.Leavers want Brexit as a matter of political ideology. I think that the majority who oppose it do so as a matter of pragmatism. They are not going to defend the EU or make an inspirational case to remain, because they do not see the 'problem' in that way.
No-deal Brexit is even stupider, because there is absolutely no need for it and it is not mandated by the 2016 vote. This panic to leave at all costs by the EU's latest deadline, at the clear expense of our democracy, which leavers pretend to value, is the problem.
What bothers me is that Johnson is trying the same approach that led to May's failure, threatening no deal in the hope that the EU comes up with something better. It's not a sensible or effective way to negotiate and we are STILL not agreed on terms we would actually accept. On that basis, given May's experience, I think it will fail. That means our only option is to leave with no-deal, which is Brexit on the worst terms possible.
On point 2 there are many people, who were not leavers, who have said, and continue to say, that we should leave because that's what we voted for rather than re-run the referendum
On point 3, this is purely your opinion. In my opinion it was clear that voting for article 50 meant triggering negotiation and it's equally clear that with all negotiations that they can break down and that the end result of this is no deal so there is a mandate.
On point 4, the failure with May's approach was that the EU didn't take her threat of no deal seriously. I think that negotiating from the point of view that says we're fine with no deal but think that we can come up with something better for both parties is eminently sensible, as you disagree what approach would you suggest?
SunsetZed said:
Elysium said:
You entirely miss the point. I am perfectly happy for us to leave the EU in an orderly way, as the majority voted to do in 2016.
Leavers want Brexit as a matter of political ideology. I think that the majority who oppose it do so as a matter of pragmatism. They are not going to defend the EU or make an inspirational case to remain, because they do not see the 'problem' in that way.
No-deal Brexit is even stupider, because there is absolutely no need for it and it is not mandated by the 2016 vote. This panic to leave at all costs by the EU's latest deadline, at the clear expense of our democracy, which leavers pretend to value, is the problem.
What bothers me is that Johnson is trying the same approach that led to May's failure, threatening no deal in the hope that the EU comes up with something better. It's not a sensible or effective way to negotiate and we are STILL not agreed on terms we would actually accept. On that basis, given May's experience, I think it will fail. That means our only option is to leave with no-deal, which is Brexit on the worst terms possible.
On point 1, incorrect, the majority voted for leave. As to how they thought this would happen it was clear that this was ambiguous and a significant factor for many people in how they voted.Leavers want Brexit as a matter of political ideology. I think that the majority who oppose it do so as a matter of pragmatism. They are not going to defend the EU or make an inspirational case to remain, because they do not see the 'problem' in that way.
No-deal Brexit is even stupider, because there is absolutely no need for it and it is not mandated by the 2016 vote. This panic to leave at all costs by the EU's latest deadline, at the clear expense of our democracy, which leavers pretend to value, is the problem.
What bothers me is that Johnson is trying the same approach that led to May's failure, threatening no deal in the hope that the EU comes up with something better. It's not a sensible or effective way to negotiate and we are STILL not agreed on terms we would actually accept. On that basis, given May's experience, I think it will fail. That means our only option is to leave with no-deal, which is Brexit on the worst terms possible.
SunsetZed said:
On point 2 there are many people, who were not leavers, who have said, and continue to say, that we should leave because that's what we voted for rather than re-run the referendum
Again, I have not suggested otherwise. SunsetZed said:
On point 3, this is purely your opinion. In my opinion it was clear that voting for article 50 meant triggering negotiation and it's equally clear that with all negotiations that they can break down and that the end result of this is no deal so there is a mandate.
No - we triggered article 50 after the 2016 vote. It was a decision by parliament, which does not create a mandate. SunsetZed said:
On point 4, the failure with May's approach was that the EU didn't take her threat of no deal seriously. I think that negotiating from the point of view that says we're fine with no deal but think that we can come up with something better for both parties is eminently sensible, as you disagree what approach would you suggest?
It's the same approach. The only question is if Boris seems less likely to be bluffing than May. I think its madness to repeat a failed strategy and that we should be learning from our mistakes. The first step is to work out what sort of Brexit we want. To identify a solution which can be approved by parliament. Once we have that, we can negotiate from a position of strength. Because if the EU tries to move us away from the cross party consensus, we can demonstrate it will not be approved.
I would seek a 6 month suspension of article 50 for the above process.
Failing that, we should seek a no-deal mandate through a second referendum and enact it if that is the majority wish.
Elysium said:
SunsetZed said:
Elysium said:
You entirely miss the point. I am perfectly happy for us to leave the EU in an orderly way, as the majority voted to do in 2016.
Leavers want Brexit as a matter of political ideology. I think that the majority who oppose it do so as a matter of pragmatism. They are not going to defend the EU or make an inspirational case to remain, because they do not see the 'problem' in that way.
No-deal Brexit is even stupider, because there is absolutely no need for it and it is not mandated by the 2016 vote. This panic to leave at all costs by the EU's latest deadline, at the clear expense of our democracy, which leavers pretend to value, is the problem.
What bothers me is that Johnson is trying the same approach that led to May's failure, threatening no deal in the hope that the EU comes up with something better. It's not a sensible or effective way to negotiate and we are STILL not agreed on terms we would actually accept. On that basis, given May's experience, I think it will fail. That means our only option is to leave with no-deal, which is Brexit on the worst terms possible.
On point 1, incorrect, the majority voted for leave. As to how they thought this would happen it was clear that this was ambiguous and a significant factor for many people in how they voted.Leavers want Brexit as a matter of political ideology. I think that the majority who oppose it do so as a matter of pragmatism. They are not going to defend the EU or make an inspirational case to remain, because they do not see the 'problem' in that way.
No-deal Brexit is even stupider, because there is absolutely no need for it and it is not mandated by the 2016 vote. This panic to leave at all costs by the EU's latest deadline, at the clear expense of our democracy, which leavers pretend to value, is the problem.
What bothers me is that Johnson is trying the same approach that led to May's failure, threatening no deal in the hope that the EU comes up with something better. It's not a sensible or effective way to negotiate and we are STILL not agreed on terms we would actually accept. On that basis, given May's experience, I think it will fail. That means our only option is to leave with no-deal, which is Brexit on the worst terms possible.
SunsetZed said:
Elysium said:
On point 2 there are many people, who were not leavers, who have said, and continue to say, that we should leave because that's what we voted for rather than re-run the referendum
Again, I have not suggested otherwise.SunsetZed said:
Elysium said:
On point 3, this is purely your opinion. In my opinion it was clear that voting for article 50 meant triggering negotiation and it's equally clear that with all negotiations that they can break down and that the end result of this is no deal so there is a mandate.
No - we triggered article 50 after the 2016 vote. It was a decision by parliament, which does not create a mandate.SunsetZed said:
Elysium said:
On point 4, the failure with May's approach was that the EU didn't take her threat of no deal seriously. I think that negotiating from the point of view that says we're fine with no deal but think that we can come up with something better for both parties is eminently sensible, as you disagree what approach would you suggest?
It's the same approach. The only question is if Boris seems less likely to be bluffing than May. I think its madness to repeat a failed strategy and that we should be learning from our mistakes. The first step is to work out what sort of Brexit we want. To identify a solution which can be approved by parliament. Once we have that, we can negotiate from a position of strength. Because if the EU tries to move us away from the cross party consensus, we can demonstrate it will not be approved.
I would seek a 6 month suspension of article 50 for the above process.
Failing that, we should seek a no-deal mandate through a second referendum and enact it if that is the majority wish.
I believe the no deal mandate already exists as per the explanation above.
Elysium said:
You entirely miss the point. I am perfectly happy for us to leave the EU in an orderly way, as the majority voted to do in 2016.
...
The question in the referendum was...
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
The majority voted "Leave the European Union".
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
C4ME said:
The question in the referendum was
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
The majority voted "Leave the European Union".
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
Exactly this! All this crap about we were promised a deal etc is utter rollox.Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union
The majority voted "Leave the European Union".
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
digimeistter said:
Exactly this! All this crap about we were promised a deal etc is utter rollox.
I'd place a reasonable bet that if we had a deal that parliament had accepted, a significant chunk of the Second Referendum posse would currently be saying "But we weren't told this would be the deal, we can't leave like this, we must have a Second Referendum".C4ME said:
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
So people voted for chaos? Surely the expectation was that the politicians would be competent enough that Brexit wouldn't even register with most people? This was clearly naive but to say the majority voted with the intent of doing themselves harm deserves another
I don't post in this thread often and I'm sat squarely on the fence about whether Brexit is good or bad, but:
The referendum was very badly thought out, proof that the UK isn't set up to handle referenda well - to see how it should work, maybe looking at Switzerland who regularly hold referenda (30 or so a year I believe) might help the government if this ever comes up again. However, the result came in, therefore in the case of this topic, the government stop being a decision-making entity and become project managers. Their sole function is to act at the will of the people, however flawed the measurement of that will was. I will therefore vote in any future election based on the track record of people to:
a. handle the function of government (which includes the effectiveness of how they measure the will of the people)
b. whether they're sticking to the democratic principles on which we understand this country is built.
(hint: doesn't look good for ANY existing politician, irrespective of their views, perhaps with one or two exceptions).
Now to Brexit itself. Irrespective of whether it is good or bad, what has been catastrophic is the limbo that all this wrangling has caused over the last few years. Whether we leave or whether we stay, we NEED to get a result so we can move onward. All this doom-mongering from both sides is egotistical bulls
t and is what is causing the real problem. Stay, on whatever terms a re-entry looks like? Fine (but be prepared to handle the political consequences, which will be extensive). Leave? Fine, but be prepared to handle the economic and logistical consequences). Either way, the people and the economy will adjust to take account of the different economic climate, so that the actual consequences will be far less than projections from either side. Some industries will grow, others will contract, just like any other situation (but possibly on a bigger scale). Keep faffing around and arguing and trying to pull ridiculous, ego-driven stunts and THAT will drive this country into the ground because no one can make any medium- or long-term decisions.
The one thing this whole debacle has shown me is that we have a totally incompetent bunch of politicians (and other interested parties like civil service) who have no concept of where their authority and responsibility starts and ends. I really hope the electorate start to take the selection of new politicians much more seriously, up to and including demanding electoral reform.
The referendum was very badly thought out, proof that the UK isn't set up to handle referenda well - to see how it should work, maybe looking at Switzerland who regularly hold referenda (30 or so a year I believe) might help the government if this ever comes up again. However, the result came in, therefore in the case of this topic, the government stop being a decision-making entity and become project managers. Their sole function is to act at the will of the people, however flawed the measurement of that will was. I will therefore vote in any future election based on the track record of people to:
a. handle the function of government (which includes the effectiveness of how they measure the will of the people)
b. whether they're sticking to the democratic principles on which we understand this country is built.
(hint: doesn't look good for ANY existing politician, irrespective of their views, perhaps with one or two exceptions).
Now to Brexit itself. Irrespective of whether it is good or bad, what has been catastrophic is the limbo that all this wrangling has caused over the last few years. Whether we leave or whether we stay, we NEED to get a result so we can move onward. All this doom-mongering from both sides is egotistical bulls
t and is what is causing the real problem. Stay, on whatever terms a re-entry looks like? Fine (but be prepared to handle the political consequences, which will be extensive). Leave? Fine, but be prepared to handle the economic and logistical consequences). Either way, the people and the economy will adjust to take account of the different economic climate, so that the actual consequences will be far less than projections from either side. Some industries will grow, others will contract, just like any other situation (but possibly on a bigger scale). Keep faffing around and arguing and trying to pull ridiculous, ego-driven stunts and THAT will drive this country into the ground because no one can make any medium- or long-term decisions. The one thing this whole debacle has shown me is that we have a totally incompetent bunch of politicians (and other interested parties like civil service) who have no concept of where their authority and responsibility starts and ends. I really hope the electorate start to take the selection of new politicians much more seriously, up to and including demanding electoral reform.
LeftmostAardvark said:
I don't post in this thread often and I'm sat squarely on the fence about whether Brexit is good or bad, but:
The referendum was very badly thought out, proof that the UK isn't set up to handle referenda well - to see how it should work, maybe looking at Switzerland who regularly hold referenda (30 or so a year I believe) might help the government if this ever comes up again. However, the result came in, therefore in the case of this topic, the government stop being a decision-making entity and become project managers. Their sole function is to act at the will of the people, however flawed the measurement of that will was. I will therefore vote in any future election based on the track record of people to:
a. handle the function of government (which includes the effectiveness of how they measure the will of the people)
b. whether they're sticking to the democratic principles on which we understand this country is built.
(hint: doesn't look good for ANY existing politician, irrespective of their views, perhaps with one or two exceptions).
Now to Brexit itself. Irrespective of whether it is good or bad, what has been catastrophic is the limbo that all this wrangling has caused over the last few years. Whether we leave or whether we stay, we NEED to get a result so we can move onward. All this doom-mongering from both sides is egotistical bullst and is what is causing the real problem. Stay, on whatever terms a re-entry looks like? Fine (but be prepared to handle the political consequences, which will be extensive). Leave? Fine, but be prepared to handle the economic and logistical consequences). Either way, the people and the economy will adjust to take account of the different economic climate, so that the actual consequences will be far less than projections from either side. Some industries will grow, others will contract, just like any other situation (but possibly on a bigger scale). Keep faffing around and arguing and trying to pull ridiculous, ego-driven stunts and THAT will drive this country into the ground because no one can make any medium- or long-term decisions.
The one thing this whole debacle has shown me is that we have a totally incompetent bunch of politicians (and other interested parties like civil service) who have no concept of where their authority and responsibility starts and ends. I really hope the electorate start to take the selection of new politicians much more seriously, up to and including demanding electoral reform.
Hear hear. Well said.The referendum was very badly thought out, proof that the UK isn't set up to handle referenda well - to see how it should work, maybe looking at Switzerland who regularly hold referenda (30 or so a year I believe) might help the government if this ever comes up again. However, the result came in, therefore in the case of this topic, the government stop being a decision-making entity and become project managers. Their sole function is to act at the will of the people, however flawed the measurement of that will was. I will therefore vote in any future election based on the track record of people to:
a. handle the function of government (which includes the effectiveness of how they measure the will of the people)
b. whether they're sticking to the democratic principles on which we understand this country is built.
(hint: doesn't look good for ANY existing politician, irrespective of their views, perhaps with one or two exceptions).
Now to Brexit itself. Irrespective of whether it is good or bad, what has been catastrophic is the limbo that all this wrangling has caused over the last few years. Whether we leave or whether we stay, we NEED to get a result so we can move onward. All this doom-mongering from both sides is egotistical bulls
t and is what is causing the real problem. Stay, on whatever terms a re-entry looks like? Fine (but be prepared to handle the political consequences, which will be extensive). Leave? Fine, but be prepared to handle the economic and logistical consequences). Either way, the people and the economy will adjust to take account of the different economic climate, so that the actual consequences will be far less than projections from either side. Some industries will grow, others will contract, just like any other situation (but possibly on a bigger scale). Keep faffing around and arguing and trying to pull ridiculous, ego-driven stunts and THAT will drive this country into the ground because no one can make any medium- or long-term decisions. The one thing this whole debacle has shown me is that we have a totally incompetent bunch of politicians (and other interested parties like civil service) who have no concept of where their authority and responsibility starts and ends. I really hope the electorate start to take the selection of new politicians much more seriously, up to and including demanding electoral reform.
Off all the ills, prolonged and unneccesarily protracted uncertainty is the worst.
jurbie said:
C4ME said:
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
So people voted for chaos? Surely the expectation was that the politicians would be competent enough that Brexit wouldn't even register with most people? This was clearly naive but to say the majority voted with the intent of doing themselves harm deserves another
Digga said:
LeftmostAardvark said:
I don't post in this thread often and I'm sat squarely on the fence about whether Brexit is good or bad, but:
The referendum was very badly thought out, proof that the UK isn't set up to handle referenda well - to see how it should work, maybe looking at Switzerland who regularly hold referenda (30 or so a year I believe) might help the government if this ever comes up again. However, the result came in, therefore in the case of this topic, the government stop being a decision-making entity and become project managers. Their sole function is to act at the will of the people, however flawed the measurement of that will was. I will therefore vote in any future election based on the track record of people to:
a. handle the function of government (which includes the effectiveness of how they measure the will of the people)
b. whether they're sticking to the democratic principles on which we understand this country is built.
(hint: doesn't look good for ANY existing politician, irrespective of their views, perhaps with one or two exceptions).
Now to Brexit itself. Irrespective of whether it is good or bad, what has been catastrophic is the limbo that all this wrangling has caused over the last few years. Whether we leave or whether we stay, we NEED to get a result so we can move onward. All this doom-mongering from both sides is egotistical bullst and is what is causing the real problem. Stay, on whatever terms a re-entry looks like? Fine (but be prepared to handle the political consequences, which will be extensive). Leave? Fine, but be prepared to handle the economic and logistical consequences). Either way, the people and the economy will adjust to take account of the different economic climate, so that the actual consequences will be far less than projections from either side. Some industries will grow, others will contract, just like any other situation (but possibly on a bigger scale). Keep faffing around and arguing and trying to pull ridiculous, ego-driven stunts and THAT will drive this country into the ground because no one can make any medium- or long-term decisions.
The one thing this whole debacle has shown me is that we have a totally incompetent bunch of politicians (and other interested parties like civil service) who have no concept of where their authority and responsibility starts and ends. I really hope the electorate start to take the selection of new politicians much more seriously, up to and including demanding electoral reform.
Hear hear. Well said.The referendum was very badly thought out, proof that the UK isn't set up to handle referenda well - to see how it should work, maybe looking at Switzerland who regularly hold referenda (30 or so a year I believe) might help the government if this ever comes up again. However, the result came in, therefore in the case of this topic, the government stop being a decision-making entity and become project managers. Their sole function is to act at the will of the people, however flawed the measurement of that will was. I will therefore vote in any future election based on the track record of people to:
a. handle the function of government (which includes the effectiveness of how they measure the will of the people)
b. whether they're sticking to the democratic principles on which we understand this country is built.
(hint: doesn't look good for ANY existing politician, irrespective of their views, perhaps with one or two exceptions).
Now to Brexit itself. Irrespective of whether it is good or bad, what has been catastrophic is the limbo that all this wrangling has caused over the last few years. Whether we leave or whether we stay, we NEED to get a result so we can move onward. All this doom-mongering from both sides is egotistical bulls
t and is what is causing the real problem. Stay, on whatever terms a re-entry looks like? Fine (but be prepared to handle the political consequences, which will be extensive). Leave? Fine, but be prepared to handle the economic and logistical consequences). Either way, the people and the economy will adjust to take account of the different economic climate, so that the actual consequences will be far less than projections from either side. Some industries will grow, others will contract, just like any other situation (but possibly on a bigger scale). Keep faffing around and arguing and trying to pull ridiculous, ego-driven stunts and THAT will drive this country into the ground because no one can make any medium- or long-term decisions. The one thing this whole debacle has shown me is that we have a totally incompetent bunch of politicians (and other interested parties like civil service) who have no concept of where their authority and responsibility starts and ends. I really hope the electorate start to take the selection of new politicians much more seriously, up to and including demanding electoral reform.
Off all the ills, prolonged and unneccesarily protracted uncertainty is the worst.
jurbie said:
C4ME said:
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
So people voted for chaos? Surely the expectation was that the politicians would be competent enough that Brexit wouldn't even register with most people? This was clearly naive but to say the majority voted with the intent of doing themselves harm deserves another
Elysium said:
Vanden Saab said:
Elysium said:
So no coherent argument from leavers.
It’s a sad and sorry moment for our country that a vocal minority of extremists are now willing to support an unprincipled Tory leaders attempts to circumvent parliamentary democracy, to force through a damaging and chaotic version of Brexit, in direct contradiction of everything that leave campaigners fought for in 2016.
Brexit is a failure. The conservatives screwed it up. Boris and his stupid ‘do or die’ no deal Brexit will make it even worse.
I wonder how many mistakes will be required before we start to learn from them.
We haven't left yet...So as not leaving is a failure the only option left is to leave....It’s a sad and sorry moment for our country that a vocal minority of extremists are now willing to support an unprincipled Tory leaders attempts to circumvent parliamentary democracy, to force through a damaging and chaotic version of Brexit, in direct contradiction of everything that leave campaigners fought for in 2016.
Brexit is a failure. The conservatives screwed it up. Boris and his stupid ‘do or die’ no deal Brexit will make it even worse.
I wonder how many mistakes will be required before we start to learn from them.
Not leaving seems to be going rather well. The economy is in decent shape regardless and most people are getting on wiith their lives. It almost seems that being shackled to the EU is not a problem after all.
jurbie said:
C4ME said:
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
So people voted for chaos? Surely the expectation was that the politicians would be competent enough that Brexit wouldn't even register with most people? This was clearly naive but to say the majority voted with the intent of doing themselves harm deserves another
I was pretty sure the politicians would f*ck it up and once May & Hammond were put in charge that was inevitable. But I was also sure businesses would work out the best way forward to a positive future however we left. This is what capitalist societies do well. As someone else has posted the real damage being done is dragging this out endlessly in limbo land.
Edited by C4ME on Wednesday 17th July 16:07
C4ME said:
I get people trying to guess what Leavers were thinking but the only answer we know from the referendum is "Leave the European Union" hence my question as to where people are getting these assertions as to what Leavers expected. And your expectation of the competence of politicians might be somewhat misguided :- )
Oh I have no expectations around the competence of politicians, I don't trust them to run a bath never mind a country hence why I voted to stay in as I fully expected them to fk this up. But I would argue many others voted expecting not to hear anything else about Brexit until it was all wrapped up and done with minimal disruption to their lives. There were also plenty who expected us to go down the EFTA/EEA route and I'm sure many who just wanted out at any cost. So you are right, it's wrong to assume to know what leavers wanted because it's painfully clear they didn't know themselves.
Dominic Cummings recognised this which is why he didn't base the Leave campaign on any kind of Leave Plan, he knew that would have been too divisive so he just left you all to dream up your own plans and as long as everyone voted the right way he didn't care.
C4ME said:
jurbie said:
C4ME said:
Can you explain where your proposition that the majority voted to leave in an orderly way comes from?
So people voted for chaos? Surely the expectation was that the politicians would be competent enough that Brexit wouldn't even register with most people? This was clearly naive but to say the majority voted with the intent of doing themselves harm deserves another
I was pretty sure the politicians would f*ck it up and once May & Hammond were put in charge that was inevitable. But I was also sure businesses would work out the best way forward to a positive future however we left. This is what capitalist societies do well. As someone else has posted the real damage being done is dragging this out endlessly in limbo land.
However, I think it is reasonable to conclude that most voters would have expected a degree of common sense and pragmatism from politicians when implementing the result.
I think it’s also reasonable to expect campaigners to keep basic promises. The leave campaign specifically said, in writing, that they would agree terms before we left and Brexiteers spoke with confidence about our ability to agree a deal with the EU.
The idea that we would mess around for three years, make zero progress and then decide to just jack it in and leave with no withdrawal terms is completely opposed to the Brexit we were promised.
There is an argument that by voting to leave people accepted this would include ‘any means necessary’. However, I don’t think that is a rational argument and I think it’s inexcusable that the same people who promised to take us out in an orderly way now want to do the opposite.
Tuna said:
I'd place a reasonable bet that if we had a deal that parliament had accepted, a significant chunk of the Second Referendum posse would currently be saying "But we weren't told this would be the deal, we can't leave like this, we must have a Second Referendum".
Perhaps, but they would be wrong and you would certainly not be hearing that from me. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff