Brexit - am I stupid or what?

Um...shouldn't that read 'the will of 52% of the % of the people that participated in the referendum'?

 

I think the government have released the the legal info they were holding back, as far as I heard on the News tonight.
Apparently it states we could be held back by this so called "back stop"? indefinitely by the EU, even if we wanted to get out of it.
So I can see why the DEAL is probably a bad one.

They had a bunch of ar*e holes on the radio today saying we need another referendum, one was that liberal, I call him only liberal as the dem bit doesn't enter into it, Vince Cable.
But they cant see that they are the ones that got us into this mess, buy using every chance to overturn us leaving, from day one.
Now they want another vote, which I'm sure they will go along with, but only if it goes their way, this time.

 

Liberal Democrats only want Knighthoods and Lordships for themselves end of. I live in a part of the country thats riddled with them. David Steel,Archie Kirkwood,beith,wallace etc etc.

They did nothing for the area just awarded themselves knighthoods and steel got his mansion built by pretending it was a gallery.

 

[QUOTE
[If there is another vote on Brexit though it will have betrayed a democratic vote and the party calling it will be pilloried.[/QUOTE]

I have never understood this view. First, some background, which I hope will demonstrate my neutrality - despite having been pro-EU, I had grown critical of the EU and voted Leave. It was a most agonizing decision, made more so by the threats from senior politicians that "this is a once in a lifetime decision." Though I take responsibility for my own decisions in life, I will never forgive the abrogation of Parliamentary responsibility the Referendum represented, and the disruption caused: relationships ended, friendships wrecked, workplaces and communities, not to mention families, divided, economic uncertainty. I will never forget those reports of violence against immigrant communities, attacks on Spanish restaurants, Polish people abused in the street - all of which made me realize in a second that no amount of ideological purity was worth it. To me, even though I still supported the cause, the morning of June 24th was nothing to celebrate. It was a hollow victory. We then began to learn that many promises made by the Leave campaign turned out to be false. Both campaigns lied, used fear, and dumbed down arguments based on emotion rather than facts. And since then, a volcano of hysteria and hate have erupted - on both sides.
I am not saying we would not face these problems if we had another vote. But considering how different the reality has been from what was promised, the unanswered questions about campaign finances, and the fact a successful exit plan has so far proved impossible, how can it be wrong to re-visit the debate? On no other issue would we be content to never have the chance to reconsider. By this logic, we would ban divorce, prevent people moving house, stay in one job all our lives, and never have had a General Election since the first one providing for Universal Suffrage in 1929. In fact, we would never have had the 2016 EU Referendum, since it would have been seen as the undemocratic cancelling out of the one in 1975. And in case anyone is tempted to point out the government pledge to "implement your decision," it is worth remembering that "the government" concerned ceased to exist the day after the vote. Any complaints about failing to implement the vote should be politely addressed to Mr D Cameron, not his successors.

It will be said that I am making these points because I am a "Remoaner" or "Bregrexiter" but this is simply not true. In all probability I would abstain in a second, binary Referendum. Even if I were delighted with the Brexit result, I see no reason for it to be forever binding, and would be eager for the vote to be repeated. I suspect many Remainers would not be pushing for a "Peoples' Vote" had they won, so please know that my view is not informed by favouritism, but by cold hard logic. Many people now eligible to vote were not old enough in 2016, yet will have to abide by the effects of the vote for the rest of their lives (unless a General Election sees a pro-EU party getting in) and this, to me, seems more unfair than simply double-checking public opinion.

My own view is that we should never have had a Referendum, unless firm and proper plans had been put in place for either outcome. We would have been better served by Referenda on individual aspects of membership or the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. But now we have gone down this route, I see no sensible way forward except a. a re-run every ten years or so to continually asses public opinion as the EU evolves, or b. Parliament to assert its sovereignty and find solutions to the question which address the concerns of both sides. Each of these options is fraught with difficulty - but such issues cannot be overcome with ease.
The worst case scenario, in my view, though, is a further binary Referendum. Not only is this totally inappropriate given the complexity if the issue, it would cause yet more social division and may well be the final nail in the coffin of this country. An AV Referendum, with multiple options such as Norway+, EEA, No Deal, WTO etc, and orders of preference, would be more intelligent.

 

[QUOTE

When the Tories were voted in at the last election, it was the will of the people - - [/QUOTE]

I have some time for this position - but we must not forget that we have regular elections, so you will get to try and reverse that decision within a few years at the very latest (probably somewhat sooner the way things are going...) No hint has been given to those who felt crushed and defeated by the 2016 Referendum as to when they will get to excercise their right to counter it - especially those who were not old enough to vote. As Nick Clegg has recently been arguing, in a civilized Democracy, there is always some consolation for the losers. This time, all they were told was "You lost - get over it." At the very least, now we have gone down the Referendum route, there should be a clearer framework so that we all know where the goal posts were.

On the other hand, I sympathise with your election analogy to some extent, as I say. I'd prefer it if we decided the issue over a longer period of time, via Parliament and General Elections. I saw the last election largely as a second Referendum in any case, and voted Lib Dem. I was stunned at how many people I knew who had said Brexit was the single biggest issue in British history - some said they wanted to leave the country and compared it to 1930's Germany, and one in fact did go so far as to emigrate ... then went and voted for Corbyn's Labour, whose manifesto was absolutely crystal clear that they were aiming to implement Brexit.

 

[ and courage to uphold a Referendum decision whether or not it was to stay or leave.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean he thinks they lack the courage to uphold it?

I understand that argument. But its a difficult one. We also elect MP's on the basis of what we know about them, so if your MP was, say, Anna Soubry or Ken Clarke, it would be a big ask to expect them to vote in favour of leaving the EU, just as it would be unrealistic to expect Dennis Skinner to vote to remain. However in general I agree with you. The majority of people in 2017 voted Conservative or Labour - both of whom as parties were very clear that they planned to enact Brexit, so two years in succession the British electorate could be said to have voted for this outcome, and as such there is little to complain about from a constitutional perspective. I just think it is absolutely incredible that the ref in its self being presented as a once-in-a-lifetime choice, and must be binary. Why?

 

[QUOTE="Mr Clegg is, according to Polls conducted over the years, not regarded as an effective leading Politician who has left his "mark" in UK, except of course by those of the Liberal "faith". So, along with Mr Blair, nobody but the converted, is either listening to him or puts any credibility in their speeches or thoughts.[/QUOTE]

This is where I would beg to differ. Clegg made many mistakes in government and has never struck me as particularly having the "nouse" required for front line politics or the nitty gritty of day to day issues, nor the ability to empathize with those on low incomes, and as such was never going to be terribly successful in a role demanding he connect with voters. But his professional experience and knowledge of the EU is vast, and in terms of sheer intellect I think he was streets ahead of many of his political contemporaries. I always find it well worth listening to people of different political creeds, especially those who have served in governments, and see him as one of the few who have really spoken sense about the Referendum. He says he has no quarrel with Leave voters and understands that it is the job of Remainers to build bridges and try to reform the institution rather than present it as perfect. Often when debating with Hard Brexiters I describe the EU as "a deeply flawed institution in urgent need of radical reform," and they are shocked to hear that these are Clegg's words.

As for Blair, I doubt we've time or space to enter into that particular debate, but I have got to say that I find him utterly compelling on the Brexit issue, and if he were running the Remain campaign he would probably win me over in a single speech. I think anyone who managed to turn a shambolic, in-fighting bunch like the Labour Party into an election-winning outfit three times in succession, and was PM for a decade, should always be listened to, even if only for the benefit of their experience alone.

 

Ok, so I've now read the advice of Geoffrey Cox (and the "Deal") and I'm thouroughly pee'd off with the Brexiteer opportunists and the media that is blowing this up out of all proportions. Whilst all the sensationalist quotes are indeed there, and clearly based on fact, not once have I heard his conclusion quoted. His advice is all good legal advice based on what was before him, his conclusion is good commonsense.......................

"
Conclusion
33. Finally, in considering any international agreement, it is important also to take into account the changing political context in which it is to operate and that the solution to any essentially political question is rarely wholly or even predominantly legal. In the absence of a right of termination, there is a legal risk that the United Kingdom might become subject to protracted and repeating rounds of negotiations. This risk must be weighed against the political and economic imperative on both sides to reach an agreement that constitutes a politically stable and permanent basis for their future relationship. This is a political decision for the Government."

The are two out and out facts in of all of this;

1. the world markets cannot handle this uncertainty.
   
2. if there is no deal we leave in March. End of. This scenario does nothing to address the issue of the border between NI and the ROI, as well as the sanctity of the Good Friday Agreement.

What the likes of Rees-Mogg, Boris et al choose to keep schtumm about is that the EU Court of Justice has no jurisdiction in the UK, that the lack of a hard border between the UK mainland and NI (and NI and the ROI) will effectively mean that there is a situation where a non-member state will effectively be controlling/enforcing an EU border/customs border.

So yes, in law there are gaps/potholes in the "Deal" but it is not a treaty. It is a legally binding agreement that has the clear aim of providing structure to a transition period in which hopefully a deal can be thrashed out. It is not the end of the world, nobody is sellng their soul to the devil. It is high time that we the people attempted to salvage something from this career enhancing free for all that it has now become for a select few.

 

I haven't read the yeahs and neehs on this forum, since the early days.
I honestly feel like a solution is not likely this Christmas
What I will suggest is a truse ?
The government may be falling apart.
Our beliefs are being tossed away.
Whatever you believe is open to discussion.
It may well be to late for that, but 'god loves trier'

 

Slightly tongue in cheek, but it demonstrates my contempt for the way that certain high profile individuals have behaved...............
Frankly if I were Theresa May (a woman whom I genuinely loathed I should add, but now admire even though our ideology remains poles apart) I would now have JRM, Johnson and a few others in The Tower awaiting their trial for treason!

 

As I see it from a blondes point of view that Millions of folk in this country voted (out)for something that they didn’t understand and I assume thought it was just a question of leaving by the back door because they were unhappy about being ruled by the EU all the money it was costing us being in the EU plus the movement of people trying to get into this country.Now we have all this palaver going on in the government and the masses who voted out still not having a clue what it is all about and as such don’t think will ever know what is going on.

I get the feeling that if there was another referendum vote the outcome will be a lot different than last time

I somehow get the feeling that this mess is going to continue to drag on for the rest of my life and for many years after that when I am already pushing up the daisies

 

As far as I'm concerned the "blonde" got it right