View Poll Results: Brext Bets?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • As Planned on March 29th

    2 5.26%
  • No Deal on March 29th

    12 31.58%
  • Delayed to 2021

    9 23.68%
  • Other...

    15 39.47%
Like Tree327Likes

Brexit Bets - Delay, Hard Exit or Last Minute Deal?

Closed Thread
Page 72 of 75 FirstFirst ... 64 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 LastLast
  1. #711

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18,637
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast
    Perhaps, a general election would probably be the best way to do this but that sounds a terrible idea.
    Sounds like a great idea to me. In fact it sounds like the only way forward.

    This putative customs-union deal stinks too. If we're going to be in the customs union we might as well not leave the EU. It's absolutely a worse situation than what we have now.

    Better to revoke Article 50 then press on with MV4 or a deal involving remaining in the Customs Union.

    Revoke, call an election and let's see where we stand in a few months time.

  2. #712

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    7,355
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast
    Not abiding by a referendum because you don't like the answer is bad for democracy.
    Not as bad as people changing their minds and being prevented from voting again.
    Even though you don't agree, many feel misinformed.
    It is a complex subject with significant implications and it was a narrow vote.
    If referendums are so sacred, what's wrong with having another one?
    It's been 3 almost years and people will still have their (arguably more informed) say and it'll still be democratic.
    Last edited by TigerSun; 08-04-2019 at 04:47 PM.
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  3. #713

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast
    One argument I recall is that there is greater awareness now of the difficulty in leaving. I agree that is now known where people had just argued that it would be difficult to unravel 50 years of shared history before the vote. I still do not see this as a reason to re-run a vote. Something that was speculated as being probable actually happened.
    There's been spending of 2bn GBP, with a similar amount budgeted, the pound has lost 15% of its value, UK economy is 2.5% smaller than predicted if vote went the other way. There's also demographic change in the background as younger, more pro-European youth become eligible to vote, and older people die.

    Before the referendum, brexiters said no vote would lead to a lot of good things, remainers said it would lead to a lot of bad things. So far it looks like the remainers are right - lots of bad things happening, not a lot of good things.

    Other than everyone knowing a lot more about the facts and reality of brexit, what would you possibly expect "new" to happen that would justify running a vote?

    I'm not saying that any of this means there definitely should be another referendum, but I'm unclear why you think we definitely shouldn't. The amount of time and money that has been spent seems a reasonable response to the initial referendum, and it seems to me that everyone is a lot clearer on the options available.

    If the leave side are confident in their case, then there is nothing for them to fear from a referendum. If anything, it would provide better bargaining power to the UK against the EU, and for leave politicians versus the remainers. As it is, it just looks like leave have a weak case.

    It also seems to me that the reason the EU is difficult to leave is because it's a pretty good deal for its members. The UK has already negotiated all sorts of opt-outs and exceptions, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the EU to impose some conditions. The alternative is that the EU itself falls apart. Maybe what some people want, but not really what I think would be good for Europe.

  4. #714

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit
    Sounds like a great idea to me. In fact it sounds like the only way forward.

    This putative customs-union deal stinks too. If we're going to be in the customs union we might as well not leave the EU. It's absolutely a worse situation than what we have now.
    I assume for some brexiters, the reasoning would be you get a bad deal because it's a shorter distance from there to no deal. Showing you're willing to walk away might be what it takes to magic up a mythical good brexit deal.

    In reality, I suspect the UK will return in ten years, chastened, to rejoin the EU on worse terms than we have now. Might be worth it if it shuts up the brexiters and removes any perceived unfairness from the EU regarding UK exceptionality.

  5. #715

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit
    Better to revoke Article 50 then press on with MV4 or a deal involving remaining in the Customs Union.

    Revoke, call an election and let's see where we stand in a few months time.
    Apart from the fact that the agreement negotiated between the European Union and the UK government will not be reopened just to accommodate the Tories with extra sweeteners, that's a fine plan.

    Cancelling the divorce aka revoking Article 50 has some conditions too.

    BBC Reality Check:
    Article 50: Can the UK revoke Brexit?

    The EU is also, rightly, very wary of the possibility that the likes of Boris, Rees-Mogg and Gove take control over the Tory government.


    Conservative MP and Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg called on Friday on the U.K. government to be "as difficult as possible" with the EU on a range of issues including the long-term budget if Brexit is delayed for an extended period.

    "If a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible," Rees-Mogg tweeted.

    "We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron's integrationist schemes," he added, referring to French President Emmanuel Macron's vision for the future of the bloc.

  6. #716

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ??
    Posts
    16,351
    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    There's been spending of 2bn GBP, with a similar amount budgeted
    On what?

    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    the pound has lost 15% of its value
    It is about the same as it was 10 years ago. It did go up against the Euro in 2016 a little but against the basket of currencies the UK trades with the swings have not been that extra-ordinary

    https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?f...o=EUR&view=10Y

    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    UK economy is 2.5% smaller than predicted if vote went the other way.
    It was predicted to be much much lower. Hasn't the EU has under performed by a similar anount. But yes staying in the EU would probably be better for the UK. The no deal inventory overhang will unravel soon making the figures look worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    There's also demographic change in the background as younger, more pro-European youth become eligible to vote, and older people die.
    In 1975 the UK voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU. Many of the idealistic young voters who voted to remain then voter leave this time. As people get older they become more Eurosceptic. Given the age profile of the UK this argument seems severely flawed.



    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    If the leave side are confident in their case, then there is nothing for them to fear from a referendum. If anything, it would provide better bargaining power to the UK against the EU, and for leave politicians versus the remainers. As it is, it just looks like leave have a weak case.
    At the moment the country is collectively suffering from the uncertainty of change.



    I would argue at least 3 years possibly longer should be allowed to remove the calamity of the current unfinished negotiations affecting the result. My worst fear would be the pro-Brexit camp abstaining and remain winning with a lower total number of votes. More confusion and deeper division.

    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    It also seems to me that the reason the EU is difficult to leave is because it's a pretty good deal for its members. The UK has already negotiated all sorts of opt-outs and exceptions, it doesn't seem unreasonable for the EU to impose some conditions. The alternative is that the EU itself falls apart. Maybe what some people want, but not really what I think would be good for Europe.
    The negotiation is not difficult because the EU is such a lovely club it is difficult because Mrs May is wanting and the EU is belligerent

    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    Other than everyone knowing a lot more about the facts and reality of brexit, what would you possibly expect "new" to happen that would justify running a vote?
    The remain camp lost as it didn't get the issue across successfully. The polls are about the same now as 3 years ago.

    Something needs to change. The only constitutional document in the UK (that I am aware of) that sets the framework for a specific regional plebiscite states a minimum of 7 years between votes on the same issue. That feels to short for me and should be at least 3 governments as well.
    Last edited by East_coast; 08-04-2019 at 05:38 PM.

  7. #717

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ??
    Posts
    16,351
    Quote Originally Posted by dengxi
    In reality, I suspect the UK will return in ten years, chastened, to rejoin the EU on worse terms than we have now. Might be worth it if it shuts up the brexiters and removes any perceived unfairness from the EU regarding UK exceptionality.
    That would probably be the best outcome for the UK and the EU as it is hard to imagine the UK getting a reasonable trade deal with the EU any time soon as it stands.

  8. #718

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ??
    Posts
    16,351
    Quote Originally Posted by TigerSun
    Not as bad as people changing their minds and being prevented from voting again.
    Even though you don't agree, many feel misinformed.
    It is a complex subject with significant implications and it was a narrow vote.
    If referendums are so sacred, what's wrong with having another one?
    It's been 3 almost years and people will still have their (arguably more informed) say and it'll still be democratic.
    The negotiations for the 2nd referendum aren't even 1/2 way through yet.

  9. #719

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Mefisto
    Apart from the fact that the agreement negotiated between the European Union and the UK government will not be reopened just to accommodate the Tories with extra sweeteners, that's a fine plan.
    I wasn't suggesting to reopen May's deal. It should be consigned to the dustbin of history. I doubt anyone would campaign in an election for that deal (or a sweetened version) - given how unpopular it has proved to be with the country and Parliament.

    A new Government would have a new mandate for Brexit from the people.

  10. #720

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast
    It was a very important decision and both sides should of brought their 'A' game. The remain campaign was not good and lost.
    Forgetting about other factors and concentrating on the campaigning by the two main parties only, surely you understand how the dynamics of UK's party politics watered down the pro-EU campaign.

    Cameron called the referendum specifically to deal with (or placate) the Tory right wing brexiteers. Campaining strongly for the Remain campaign would have damaged his party's "unity".

    Meanwhile, being in the opposition and therefore having to disagree with Tory policies as a principle, campaining for the Remain choice was toxic to Corbyn, despite Labour being predominantly pro-EU.

    With even the BBC aiming to be unbiased by giving equal coverage to the Leave campaign's false claims and the tabloids doing what they've always done, the pro-EU camp wasn't equipped to counter all the anti-EU claims by the UKIP types.

    Also note that while the brexiteers attacked the European Union of 28 member states with absolute impunity, the EU wasn't really able to defend itself because that would have constituted interference in the UK's "domestic politics".
    civil_servant likes this.