Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
sun_tzu said:
If tagged on to the boris deal I suspect it would be
the boris deal (whatever name it has) vs remain ... and I suspect that would be agreed with the electoral commission tasked with testing the exact wording of the question
Click to expand...

I'm sure Cummings has already discussed a way to prorogue the electoral commission and go with "Freedom for EU Tyranny vs Go against the will of the people".
 
sun_tzu said:
the boris deal (whatever name it has) vs remain ..
Click to expand...

Not sure a second referendum will solve anything, especially as Swinson has already said she would reject another Leave vote!

However very much doubt the word remain will appear, it will be two options only, as the first one, with 'some deal' or 'no deal', possibly they might get to use the word revoke (referring to A50), the 'remain' option, as such, has already been rejected in the 2016 referendum. If they use the word 'remain' then they are effectively disavowing the first referendum result, without it being implemented. Dangerous road to travel with a country that has no written constitution and even worse has one that is based on precedence.

I'm not a lawyer but would envisage howls of protest from Leavers, followed by umpteen court cases, would definitely be staring at a 3rd referendum in due course.

This time they have to get the question worded right, and lawfully tested, before they ask the public...common sense you would think, but lets see!
 
diarm said:
I can't tell you how much I hate that the DUP are getting a platform from which to appear relevant in all of this. The idea of them getting paid off is abhorrent to me as well.

Surely there is a rock somewhere in the ocean between NI and Scotland we could cast them to and let them call it the New Northern Ireland?
Click to expand...

They are getting a lot of attention sure, I'm not sure its warrnted however, don't think there's feck all chance of anything getting through parliament with DUP support or not.

Tories needing DUP support to have a majority is a thing of the past.
 
Maticmaker said:
Not sure a second referendum will solve anything, especially as Swinson has already said she would reject another Leave vote!

However very much doubt the word remain will appear, it will be two options only, as the first one, with 'some deal' or 'no deal', possibly they might get to use the word revoke (referring to A50), the 'remain' option, as such, has already been rejected in the 2016 referendum. If they use the word 'remain' then they are effectively disavowing the first referendum result, without it being implemented. Dangerous road to travel with a country that has no written constitution and even worse has one that is based on precedence.

I'm not a lawyer but would envisage howls of protest from Leavers, followed by umpteen court cases, would definitely be staring at a 3rd referendum in due course.

This time they have to get the question worded right, and lawfully tested, before they ask the public...common sense you would think, but lets see!
Click to expand...

Only in the same way that 'Exiting the European Union' ignores that there's a process and agreements required before it can actually leave. You don't ask the public to take a view on legislation only direction.

Referendums are not worded as legalese they're carefully worded as the most easily understood. We haven't left, remain is the correct definition.
 
Maticmaker said:
Not sure a second referendum will solve anything, especially as Swinson has already said she would reject another Leave vote!

However very much doubt the word remain will appear, it will be two options only, as the first one, with 'some deal' or 'no deal', possibly they might get to use the word revoke (referring to A50), the 'remain' option, as such, has already been rejected in the 2016 referendum. If they use the word 'remain' then they are effectively disavowing the first referendum result, without it being implemented. Dangerous road to travel with a country that has no written constitution and even worse has one that is based on precedence.

I'm not a lawyer but would envisage howls of protest from Leavers, followed by umpteen court cases, would definitely be staring at a 3rd referendum in due course.

This time they have to get the question worded right, and lawfully tested, before they ask the public...common sense you would think, but lets see!
Click to expand...
they did that last time apparently - but yeah I suspect whatever the options and whatever the wording there is going to be legal action (from both sides) - suspect its going to get nasty
 
Smores said:
Referendums are not worded as legalese they're carefully worded as the most easily understood. We haven't left, remain is the correct definition.
Click to expand...

Then why is there so much emphasis on the 'misunderstanding' of what leave meant in the first referendum?

Personally I agree, the referendum question (as it was in 2016) should be kept simple. In the first referendum everyone knew Remain meant remain in the EU and Leave meant Leave the EU, the vote was to leave, so logically all that can happen now is a vote on the method of leaving, with a deal, any deal, or without one.
 
Maticmaker said:
Then why is there so much emphasis on the 'misunderstanding' of what leave meant in the first referendum?

Personally I agree, the referendum question (as it was in 2016) should be kept simple. In the first referendum everyone knew Remain meant remain in the EU and Leave meant Leave the EU, the vote was to leave, so logically all that can happen now is a vote on the method of leaving, with a deal, any deal, or without one.
Click to expand...

Because Brexit isn't something that you can actually easily define, it has pluridisciplinary consequences that can't be answered by a simple yes or no.
 
JPRouve said:
that can't be answered by a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it can, you either vote to stay or vote to leave, now once that result is known the method of leaving can be decided by a further ballot.

Yes, of course many people were not fully aware of the economic risks in leaving, but leavers it would seem voted mainly on political grounds rather than economic ones. However a lot of those voting remain had not thought about the political inference of remaining, the possibility of the UK being drawn towards a future United States of Europe, of losing the rebate, of eventually changing to the Euro and abandoning Sterling, of losing the UK's place on the UN Security Council, these were also risk's (political) in terms of remaining, which were not emphasised.

in my opinion there was a golden chance to revoke A50, when Mrs May's deal was voted down (3 times), she could have said "I've done my best, Parliament will only vote for what it doesn't want, therefore to end the stalemate I am revoking A50". That time has now past.
 
Maticmaker said:
Sorry but it can, you either vote to stay or vote to leave, now once that result is known the method of leaving can be decided by a further ballot.

Yes, of course many people were not fully aware of the economic risks in leaving, but leavers it would seem voted mainly on political grounds rather than economic ones. However a lot of those voting remain had not thought about the political inference of remaining, the possibility of the UK being drawn towards a future United States of Europe, of losing the rebate, of eventually changing to the Euro and abandoning Sterling, of losing the UK's place on the UN Security Council, these were also risk's (political) in terms of remaining, which were not emphasised.

in my opinion there was a golden chance to revoke A50, when Mrs May's deal was voted down (3 times), she could have said "I've done my best, Parliament will only vote for what it doesn't want, therefore to end the stalemate I am revoking A50". That time has now past.
Click to expand...

But "stay or leave" doesn't tell you what leave means. It's not a binary issue and it's fairly obvious to see that people are/were confused since they mixed the EU, the single market, the EUCU and the Council of Europe.
 
JPRouve said:
But "stay or leave" doesn't tell you what leave means.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't tell you what remain means either, that's the whole point of a simplified questions (see @Smores 60656 above).

Of course Remain/Leave are simple concepts, and neither gives the details or consequences of each choice. People voting leave may well have not understood in particular the economic risks and implications of their vote; equally those voting remain may have thought everything would stay as it is in the EU. There would be no accelerated moves towards further integration, the EU would continue to give us a rebate, in perpetuity, the veto system would remain forever, when clearly an enlarged EU cannot move forward/function effectively until it accepts majority voting across the board; that we could resist entering the euro zone forever, we could go on opting out of things as long as we wanted, etc.
 
Maticmaker said:
No, it doesn't tell you what remain means either, that's the whole point of a simplified questions (see @Smores 60656 above).

Of course Remain/Leave are simple concepts, and neither gives the details or consequences of each choice. People voting leave may well have not understood in particular the economic risks and implications of their vote; equally those voting remain may have thought everything would stay as it is in the EU. There would be no accelerated moves towards further integration, the EU would continue to give us a rebate, in perpetuity, the veto system would remain forever, when clearly an enlarged EU cannot move forward/function effectively until it accepts majority voting across the board; that we could resist entering the euro zone forever, we could go on opting out of things as long as we wanted, etc.
Click to expand...

Remain is the status quo, you don't need to define it, it's what you currently have. I'm not sure if you are being serious.
 
JPRouve said:
Remain is the status quo, you don't need to define it, it's what you currently have. I'm not sure if you are being serious.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, but it doesn't answer what could happen in the future, which the public probably wont get a say in (signing of any future treaties etc). There wont be a referendum to say whether we want to agree to anything that further binds us to the EU, itll just be done.

So in that sense, yes it does question what remain might mean in the future, same as leave does.
 
Brownie85 said:
Yes it is, but it doesn't answer what could happen in the future, which the public probably wont get a say in (signing of any future treaties etc). There wont be a referendum to say whether we want to agree to anything that further binds us to the EU, itll just be done.

So in that sense, yes it does question what remain might mean in the future, same as leave does.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Brexit or the EU. Every country is free to have a referendum for international treaties, that's something that only concerns british politicians and their electors.
 
golden_blunder said:
Why are people so afraid of collectives? EU needs to grow and adapt in order to compete with China, USA and the likes
Click to expand...
Lots of trading blocs around the word - NAFTA, ASEAN, SAFTA - which is fine. The EU however, is looking for ever closer political integration. If people are comfortable living in a federal Europe and eventually becoming a bit like Ohio then that's fine too. If however, you don't want that then the EU becomes a problem. As we can see.
 
JPRouve said:
Remain is the status quo, you don't need to define it, it's what you currently have. I'm not sure if you are being serious.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course the status quo... for now, or as it was in 2016! However the EU is going forward on a trajectory that many in the UK don't want to follow, its like finding yourself on the wrong bus and wanting getting off at the next stop, but there isn't one! That's what drove many leavers to take, what you might say is a 'leap of faith', in the one and only chance in forty years, that they had been given to make a difference.

This is why there is so much anger between both groups they are looking at something from completely different angles and guess what... they see things differently.

I am being serious, Brexit has become or will in my opinion, become a watershed, not only for our relations with the EU, but also within the UK. It looks as if the deal Boris seems to be wanting to achieve will float off NI towards an economic 'united Ireland' which actually may well turnout to be beneficial for the province... law of unintended consequences perhaps, wonder who will take the credit if that happens?
Great Britain can then reform itself as a constitutional entity of independent countries, if Scotland votes for independence and then realises its better off as an independent country in a constitutional arrangement with its nearest neighbour. Lots of ifs there, but we cannot turn the clock back now the Brexit genie is out of the bottle, well almost, and it will be dammed difficult, if not impossible, to get it back in.
 
Honest John said:
Lots of trading blocs around the word - NAFTA, ASEAN, SAFTA - which is fine. The EU however, is looking for ever closer political integration. If people are comfortable living in a federal Europe and eventually becoming a bit like Ohio then that's fine too. If however, you don't want that then the EU becomes a problem. As we can see.
Click to expand...

The only issue being that people wants to benefit of the EU. At the end of the day, if you don't want to be part of it you can easily leave but it has implications that people have to accept.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes, of course the status quo... for now, or as it was in 2016! However the EU is going forward on a trajectory that many in the UK don't want to follow, its like finding yourself on the wrong bus and wanting getting off at the next stop, but there isn't one! That's what drove many leavers to take, what you might say is a 'leap of faith', in the one and only chance in forty years, that they had been given to make a difference.

This is why there is so much anger between both groups they are looking at something from completely different angles and guess what... they see things differently.

I am being serious, Brexit has become or will in my opinion, become a watershed, not only for our relations with the EU, but also within the UK. It looks as if the deal Boris seems to be wanting to achieve will float off NI towards an economic 'united Ireland' which actually may well turnout to be beneficial for the province... law of unintended consequences perhaps, wonder who will take the credit if that happens?
Great Britain can then reform itself as a constitutional entity of independent countries, if Scotland votes for independence and then realises its better off as an independent country in a constitutional arrangement with its nearest neighbour. Lots of ifs there, but we cannot turn the clock back now the Brexit genie is out of the bottle, well almost, and it will be dammed difficult, if not impossible, to get it back in.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense, only leave has an immediate consequence. Remain is the current status quo, any future change at EU level is totally separated from the referendum and can/should be influenced by every british national elections.
 
JPRouve said:
Every country is free to have a referendum for international treaties, that's something that only concerns british politicians and their electors.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head there! UK electors did not get a vote on any new EU treaty since we joined, for forty years the UK Parliaments (of all shades) denied it, that's why its now reaping the whirl-wind.

Thatcher just might have asked the people, on Maastricht, but was distracted by the Falklands; Major had no intention, neither did any of the Labour PM's that followed him Blair, Brown etc. of asking the people anything about the EU. Cameron buoyed by his success in the Scottish Referendum thought he would bury the EU issue for good with a referendum in 2016...that went well David!

The truth is we cannot seem to escape our inept, incompetent politicians... Gaw'd help us!
 
Maticmaker said:
Then why is there so much emphasis on the 'misunderstanding' of what leave meant in the first referendum?

Personally I agree, the referendum question (as it was in 2016) should be kept simple. In the first referendum everyone knew Remain meant remain in the EU and Leave meant Leave the EU, the vote was to leave, so logically all that can happen now is a vote on the method of leaving, with a deal, any deal, or without one.
Click to expand...

Your argument is entirely predicated on the first vote being absolute and that people can't be allowed to change their minds, despite more information, because the first one provided enough ambiguity for it to be clear what they voted for?

Leave won, the governments have now reached what that means. The electorate signing off that they still want it in the reached state or deciding nah is just common sense given the magnitude of the decision. There isn't a go away and try again option.

The only reason leave wouldn't now win is if people changed their mind so leavers can try the "it's not fair i don't get what i want because others changed their mind" argument but it's transparent and foolish.
 
Smores said:
Your argument is entirely predicated on the first vote being absolute
Click to expand...

Sorry No! it was the first one in forty years to test public opinion on the EU, that's why it cannot be side-lined; but yes ask again in forty years, that would of course be consistent with our unwritten constitution, of following precedent. Wonder what the Supreme Court would think of that argument?
 
Maticmaker said:
Sorry No! it was the first one in forty years to test public opinion on the EU, that's why it cannot be side-lined; but yes ask again in forty years, that would of course be consistent with our unwritten constitution, of following precedent. Wonder what the Supreme Court would think of that argument?
Click to expand...

What has the length got to do with anything?

This isn't a new referendum as a 40 year term one is. It's quite obviously linked to the first in that the outcome of the first, a negotiated deal, is put back to the people.
 
Maticmaker said:
Sorry No! it was the first one in forty years to test public opinion on the EU, that's why it cannot be side-lined; but yes ask again in forty years, that would of course be consistent with our unwritten constitution, of following precedent. Wonder what the Supreme Court would think of that argument?
Click to expand...

I've read this multiple times and still haven't got a clue what you're on about.
 
Feck, the sterling is going up. I'm supposed to be spending £1000 on Amazon in the coming days. Do people think it's likely to go up much more?
 
JPRouve said:
Remain is the status quo, you don't need to define it, it's what you currently have. I'm not sure if you are being serious.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the point is that remaining in the EU has many unknown variables too. For example significant changes of EU policy could impact the UK etc.

However, you are correct, leaving NEEDS to be defined immediately because there are so many immediate options. In the short term leave can happen in so many different ways.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
To be fair, the point is that remaining in the EU has many unknown variables too. For example significant changes of EU policy could impact the UK etc.

However, you are correct, leaving NEEDS to be defined immediately because there are so many immediate options. In the short term leave can happen in so many different ways.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the referendum. The changes to EU policies are not linked to the result of the referendum and the UK are part of the decision making process anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.