Thanks for the replies. Seems like an interesting situation. The idea of there being no deal sounds pretty terrifying from an English perspective though!
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Thanks for the replies. Seems like an interesting situation. The idea of there being no deal sounds pretty terrifying from an English perspective though!
Dominic Grieve would probably be up for it.
The state of it.
I’ll be charitable and say that she must be absolutely exhausted after the last few weeks. Still, it’s basic stuff.
She also thinks the UK will get frictionless trade without being in the SM/CU.
Any other job and she would be sacked for gross incompetence.
What did we do to deserve these people?
Makes me almost miss David Cameron
I think at a certain level people interpret “leave without a deal” as carry on as normal, as though “the deal” is something in addition to what we currently have now. If it gets to Referendum 2, I don’t know how you would get through to those people. I would only be confident of Remain winning if they allow UK citizens in the EU to vote (100% justifiable as they are the people in the frontline of this decision) and lower the voting age to 16 (unusual but fair in that younger voters have to live with the consequences of this decision more than the OAP Leavers).
Yeah this simply hasn't been enough movement towards remain to justify another referendum. If it was clear and consistent polling of remain getting big leads, fine, but there's not. All the evidence is merely that most people would vote the same as they did, with a small amount of swap over between remain and leave voters.
It's also a huge risk that makes the mistakes of the previous referendum. Offering no deal on a referendum would be absolutely insane. What if it gets voted for? No deal has the exact same things in its favour as the previous referendum - namely the can promise everything because there's no deal and inherently everything is up in the air.
If May's deal gets voted down by far the simplest solution is an EEA+ deal, it achieves Brexit, it doesn't destroy the country, we move on. With a view to moving back into the EU in 20 years when enough people have died off.
The EU referendum showed the fundamental flaws of referendums, namely that you need an educated population, and in an in/out referendum one side can promise the world with no consequence.
Voted for them.
An EEA+ deal, whatever that means is actually worse than May's deal (the EU offer)
The Uk still have no say, still pay contributions, still have freedom of movement, but don't have a customs union so does not solve NI and still creates chaos at the ports. At least with the current offer the UK stays in the CU/SM for the foreseeable future.
Not me
Feck sakes
It's much easier to fudge the Customs Union like May's deal offers in the EEA.
May's deal is very fanciful, its all based on the UK negotiating wonderful trade deals very quickly which is likely to be far more damaging to the UK than just staying in the EEA.
Enuff did, some whining in this thread did. The irony.
Yes , the political declaration is meaningless and the wonderful trade deals are flights of fancy but that's not a deal.
The withdrawal agreement is the "deal" and it is vital that the UK stay in the single market and the Customs Union, there's no fudge and the UK have to realise this is so important. I think May has finally realised it but somehow thinks the UK can later get out of it or she's lying to the people or both.
May seems to be on some Thanos like crusade and is utterly hell bent on wiping out half the economy whatever the costs.
She's completely neglecting her duty to look after the country's best interests, it's mind-boggling.
I think EEA+ means either EEA plus customs union. In other words, an utterly pointless Brexit.
There are two unavoidable horns of the Brexit dilemma:
1. Outside of the Customs Union, Liam Fox can negotiate these fantastic trade deals (because in unicorn land a country of 65m does of course hold a stronger hand than a bloc of 500m). Unfortunately this wrecks the Good Friday Agreement.
2. We can stop EU immigration by leaving the single market. Unfortunately, we need those immigrants, and, more critically, leaving the single market (i.e. not going to the EEA fallback) causes serious damage to our economy.
Sadly, these arguments are probably useless in terms of convincing Leavers. After all, we’ve heard a lot about fishing (0.2% of the economy) while services (67%, if we include financial services) can, to use a phrase, go and whistle.
If you were a fisherman, how would you think about things?
Yes, unfortunately the genie has been let out of the bottle and whatever happens now, there's no real satisfactory answer and no way of putting the genie back in.
I find the fishing argument hilarious, when the majority of cod and haddock for fish and chips is imported.
Every man for himself and all that.
You mean like this?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...d-strike-by-icelandic-fishermen-a3464621.html
Don't think there's many
I’d probably vote leave. But I’m curious why the 99+% of the population who don’t work in fishing are more concerned about this extremely marginal industry rather than our key services sector.
Yes, also remember the cod wars with Iceland in the 1970s
Anyone watching Question Time? Mr Wetherspoons promoting unicorns.
1000 is fair for the UK, new pollster since the last election though so no track record. Most polls have remain in the lead for what it's worth.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...m-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/?removed
Check the QT thread.
Ah i see. For the first referendum nobody had a clue what they were voting for. A 2nd would be an majority remain imo. EU may not be easy to deal with though if it was possible for us to go back on our decision.
1000 is a tiny sample size for any country. Every single vote counts for 0.1%. Every 10 votes a single percentage point. How can you expect any accuracy with that?
I’ve never understood those things anyway. I remember pissing the maths teacher off in school because I just wasn’t having it that you could poll a tiny percentage of people, get their opinions and extrapolate them to cover 100%. I still think it’s bullshit now even though I know I’m wrong.
1,000 with a good sample is far better than 50,000 with a bad one. The national polls in the US in 2016, for instance, were more accurate than the state level ones, despite having similar overall sample sizes. I'd like to see a YouGov one done with their newfangled MRP methodology though.
Well, since the 60’s we have rewarded mediocrity and placed equality above ingenuity. So you end up with loads of idiots instead of some plebs and some clever cloggs
I don't think you can get through to them.
As for a 2nd referendum, there would be a lot of young people voting this time around who weren't eligible in 2016 and some old people who voted last time who would not be eligible now.
Don't know if it would be enough to swing the vote, but it's bound to make at least some difference.
Aside from rewarding mediocrity, any country that buys into the “project fear” line as a mantra definitely rewards mediocrity, the rest doesn’t make sense.