Brexit - Has anybody actually changed their minds?

[Benguin]

Voted leave, wouldn’t vote in a second referendum or any other election, as by holding a second referendum the country is officially announcing that voting is meaningless. 

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

Voted leave, wouldn’t vote in a second referendum or any other election, as by holding a second referendum the country is officially announcing that voting is meaningless. 

Only just noticed, you were given the vote to prevent a Russian revolution.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

I haven't changed my mind. One of the most interesting conversations I had about Brexit was in Madrid on match day (ah, happy days) with a very left wing idealist, married to a Muslim, who had voted Leave. She was as far removed from the lazy stereotype of a Leave voter as you could ask for. It was very stimulating and friendly.

 

Given it has been shown how illegally procured/influenced the result was, and how much noise from our Red Top press goes against the EU, playing on our desire to be shown to be patriotic, I could not consider voting Leave. However, I do not hold any grudge against those that vote differently to me, even if I think some are stark raving mad. Just as with LCFC, I can deal with anyone making a reasonable case, but I will dismiss those that speak with hatred and division, and that goes for people that vote the same way as me too.

A far too measured and sensible mindset for this forum and Britain in 2018.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

Voted leave, wouldn’t vote in a second referendum or any other election, as by holding a second referendum the country is officially announcing that voting is meaningless. 

I agree.  Whoever wins the next general election should be named president for life.

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

I have no idea why anyone thinks a second referendum will solve anything, it will be very close so the country will still be divided, if Leave wins we still don't know how or what deal gets through parliament, if Remain wins the issue stays on the table open in parliament and we probably have to have a third referendum.

Because at the moment nobody is happy with May’s deal as a deal a majority don’t want No deal and a majority voted to leave.

 

It is now time to choose the lesser of three evils. Of course there will be propaganda in a second referendum but there are 3 clear options on the table no having your cake and eat it option. The deal appears untenable so what do you do? The people want to leave the EU the people don’t want May’s deal the people don’t want no deal. How can you deliver the result of a referendum that broke down the most complex negotiation ever faced by the nation to a binary decision?  

 

There is no deal that will wholly satisfy a majority of voters so you have 3 options with an alternative transferable vote. In the unlikely event that one of the three options wins a majority that becomes binding and the issue is put to bed. If not you use the transferable votes to come to a temporary solution which will be revisited during the next parliamentary term.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Captain... said:

Because at the moment nobody is happy with May’s deal as a deal a majority don’t want No deal and a majority voted to leave.

 

It is now time to choose the lesser of three evils. Of course there will be propaganda in a second referendum but there are 3 clear options on the table no having your cake and eat it option. The deal appears untenable so what do you do? The people want to leave the EU the people don’t want May’s deal the people don’t want no deal. How can you deliver the result of a referendum that broke down the most complex negotiation ever faced by the nation to a binary decision?  

 

There is no deal that will wholly satisfy a majority of voters so you have 3 options with an alternative transferable vote. In the unlikely event that one of the three options wins a majority that becomes binding and the issue is put to bed. If not you use the transferable votes to come to a temporary solution which will be revisited during the next parliamentary term.

It's not my job to deliver the referendum result, that's the job of parliament - they gave us the vote, we gave the result and it's now their job to implement it, they have until March 31st to do so.

 

I'm not sure the electoral commission would allow a 3 option ballot given the first one was a 2 option one. May's deal will be dead by mid-January so that isn't going to be up for a vote whatever happens.

 

I also don't think a temporary solution is possible as I don't think there is going to be a desire to tear up an international treaty every election. 

[Captain...]

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's not my job to deliver the referendum result, that's the job of parliament - they gave us the vote, we gave the result and it's now their job to implement it, they have until March 31st to do so.

 

I'm not sure the electoral commission would allow a 3 option ballot given the first one was a 2 option one. May's deal will be dead by mid-January so that isn't going to be up for a vote whatever happens.

 

I also don't think a temporary solution is possible as I don't think there is going to be a desire to tear up an international treaty every election. 

If May’s deal gets defeated do you think any other deal will fair any better? Any deal is impossible to satisfy a majority. Let’s just say it gets to March 31st and the only deal on the table is May’s or something equally unpopular are you going to accept the deal? No leave campaigner offered up May’s deal as a solution and no leave campaigner campaigned on a no deal Brexit it was not on offer so neither honour the referendum, or they both do.

 

The main reason to have a referendum is to try and settle it once and for all the people voted to leave, but a referendum is not legally binding it is a mandate to do something. We spent two years trying to deliver and these are the options which one do you want?

 

It will still be a divided vote, so each outcome must be clearly defined. There needs to be a clear plan in place as to what will happen if either option wins on first choice votes or on the alternative vote so people know exactly what they are voting for.

 

Of course it doesn’t need to be that exact format, but if the people don’t get asked again it will never be settled.

Edited 17 December 2018 by Captain...

[Guest MattP]

Do you really think any Leave voter is going to trust you to accept the result of this if you lose again? Of course you won't - you'll want a third referendum then.

 

It will only be "settled" for some of the Remain side when they manage to edge one.

[Captain...]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Do you really think any Leave voter is going to trust you to accept the result of this if you lose again? Of course you won't - you'll want a third referendum then.

 

It will only be "settled" for some of the Remain side when they manage to edge one.

If there was a credible leave option on the table you would be hearing a lot less from remainers but May’s deal has been ripped to shreds by leavers after 2 years of absolute nonsense and incompetence from those tasked with delivering this.

 

The deal and the no deal options are both unpopular with leavers and remainers, there is evidence in this thread that minds have changed, some remainers will now vote leave, some leavers will now vote remain, some people who didn’t know and didn’t vote have now made up their mind. Some leavers would prefer to remain than have no deal, some remainers would prefer no deal than May’s deal.

 

It is the exact definition of democracy to give the people a voice and that is a continuous voice not a single one off voice, Enough has changed since the first referendum to ask the people again and I don’t understand why you would deny democracy? There are 2 shit options on the table how do you decide between them if you don’t ask the people?

[koop.]

As the 5th largest economy in the world, as a country that has a very strong say on the world scene, I am baffled as to why we didn't just leave and then tell the EU to come to us and we will decide if the deal they want is ok. Why have we gone into negotiations almost begging and losing all credibility. Absolute joke. 

 

Well actually I do know......government wanted to remain from the off.

[breadandcheese]

4 minutes ago, koop. said:

As the 5th largest economy in the world, as a country that has a very strong say on the world scene, I am baffled as to why we didn't just leave and then tell the EU to come to us and we will decide if the deal they want is ok. Why have we gone into negotiations almost begging and losing all credibility. Absolute joke. 

 

Well actually I do know......government wanted to remain from the off.

If we did that, we probably wouldn't be the fifth largest economy for long

[koop.]

25 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

If we did that, we probably wouldn't be the fifth largest economy for long

And you know this how?

[Kopfkino]

27 minutes ago, koop. said:

As the 5th largest economy in the world, as a country that has a very strong say on the world scene, I am baffled as to why we didn't just leave and then tell the EU to come to us and we will decide if the deal they want is ok. Why have we gone into negotiations almost begging and losing all credibility. Absolute joke. 

 

Well actually I do know......government wanted to remain from the off.

 

Probably because the EU27 includes the 4th, 7th, and 9th largest economies,band collectively they are the 2nd biggest economy in the world.

 

That and this is not THE deal, just an agreement on withdrawal and without it the EU is not going to be coming to us for a deal.

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

If there was a credible leave option on the table you would be hearing a lot less from remainers but May’s deal has been ripped to shreds by leavers after 2 years of absolute nonsense and incompetence from those tasked with delivering this.

 

The deal and the no deal options are both unpopular with leavers and remainers, there is evidence in this thread that minds have changed, some remainers will now vote leave, some leavers will now vote remain, some people who didn’t know and didn’t vote have now made up their mind. Some leavers would prefer to remain than have no deal, some remainers would prefer no deal than May’s deal.

 

It is the exact definition of democracy to give the people a voice and that is a continuous voice not a single one off voice, Enough has changed since the first referendum to ask the people again and I don’t understand why you would deny democracy? There are 2 shit options on the table how do you decide between them if you don’t ask the people?

You didn't answer my question - why would any leave voter trust Remain MP's to honour the result of a second referendum? 

 

You let parliament do its job - if May's deal is voted down it leads to all sorts of different scenarios.

 

How often do you think we should should be asking people about this to get a continued voice? Every 2 years? Every 5?

 

Do you think the EU would tolerate that?

[yorkie1999]

The government has had two years to take us out of the eu, did it say anywhere on the ballot paper about deals, no it was either stay in the eu or leave the eu, not leave with a bit of begging. The government has wasted two years trying to concoct something that the majority of British people didn’t vote for. Sack the government, they are not fit for purpose.

[ithuriel]

1 hour ago, koop. said:

As the 5th largest economy in the world, as a country that has a very strong say on the world scene, I am baffled as to why we didn't just leave and then tell the EU to come to us and we will decide if the deal they want is ok. Why have we gone into negotiations almost begging and losing all credibility. Absolute joke. 

 

Well actually I do know......government wanted to remain from the off.

May was a remainer wasn't she?

Advised behind the scenes by Cameron? who was also a remainer?

Looks to me that she has done everything in her power to keep us in, in a state of limbo, thus powerless until another vote is taken when all dissent has withered away.

The rest of the cowards party and the main opposition party, whose front bench I can only ever recall as Abbot and Corbyn, are doing a bang up job of holding Treasonous May to account for her shambles of a time in office .

 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

The government has had two years to take us out of the eu, did it say anywhere on the ballot paper about deals, no it was either stay in the eu or leave the eu, not leave with a bit of begging. The government has wasted two years trying to concoct something that the majority of British people didn’t vote for. Sack the government, they are not fit for purpose.

Definitely something in this. If the politicians of the country are incapable of implementing a decision given to them they should be dismissed. In any other field they probably would be.

 

It was always deeply worrying that 75-80% of the house backed Remain, our elected representatives should never be that out of touch with the public on any issue.

[ealingfox]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

Definitely something in this. If the politicians of the country are incapable of implementing a decision given to them they should be dismissed. In any other field they probably would be.

 

It was always deeply worrying that 75-80% of the house backed Remain, our elected representatives should never be that out of touch with the public on any issue.

 

But you don't know which way they voted. They might have campaigned one way or the other but it was a secret ballot and their public and private faces are very different. A huge amount of the MPs weren't prominent in the campaigns in any way.

 

People love to trot out these lines about Theresa May being a remainer but nothing about her voting record or tenure as Home Sec tells me that she'd have been likely to vote remain. She's a small-minded and insular nationalist. But she had to be seen to be backing remain because she was a) on the government payroll and b) thinking she'd back the winning horse.

 

That's just 1 example but I think that from the privacy of the booth it's no less likely that she voted to leave than Corbyn. She's probably just one of the many idiots that truly believed we could retain the benefits of membership without being in the union.

[Buce]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Definitely something in this. If the politicians of the country are incapable of implementing a decision given to them they should be dismissed. In any other field they probably would be.

 

It was always deeply worrying that 75-80% of the house backed Remain, our elected representatives should never be that out of touch with the public on any issue.

 

We don't elect MPs to enact public opinion, we elect them to act in our best interests.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

But you don't know which way they voted. They might have campaigned one way or the other but it was a secret ballot and their public and private faces are very different. A huge amount of the MPs weren't prominent in the campaigns in any way.

 

People love to trot out these lines about Theresa May being a remainer but nothing about her voting record or tenure as Home Sec tells me that she'd have been likely to vote remain. She's a small-minded and insular nationalist. But she had to be seen to be backing remain because she was a) on the government payroll and b) thinking she'd back the winning horse.

 

That's just 1 example but I think that from the privacy of the booth it's no less likely that she voted to leave than Corbyn. She's probably just one of the many idiots that truly believed we could retain the benefits of membership without being in the union.

In All Out War Tim Shipman actually describes May as privately one of the most passionate Remainers in the cabinet - but they take a decision to backseat her from debates as she would be cannon fodder when the subject got onto immigration as the Home Secretary. (Probably also because they knew already she was crap debater)

 

We'll never know for sure of course, but I'd be amazed if someone who voted Remain would seriously appoint Ollie Robbins as Brexit negotiator and block Eurosceptics from standing in places like Aldershot as she did with Dan Hannan. 

 

That's before we even start on the weirder things she's done like defending Sharia Law - which is very confusing if she is a British nationalist. 

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Definitely something in this. If the politicians of the country are incapable of implementing a decision given to them they should be dismissed. In any other field they probably would be.

 

It was always deeply worrying that 75-80% of the house backed Remain, our elected representatives should never be that out of touch with the public on any issue.

They couldn't have been any closer to the will of the public, they had offered a vote and got their answer. They're just a bunch of twisted, lying, cheating, conniving highwaymen who make their living from putting gloss on bare faced lies. What was the last thing any mp ever did for anyone?. This was always going to turn into a game of thrones, what should have happened was for them to have formed a joint committee to deal with leaving the eu. And the best thing is, because we haven't got a voice (if anyone thinkes they have they're an ostrich) they think we believe it all.

[what?]

The trajectory right now seems to be > Lab will be forced into bringing a no con vote, which May will win > She'll bring her deal to the house and it will be defeated > the grieve amendment will block a no deal and that will force a second referendum. Possible the proper Lab no con vote would come after May loses hers but whatever the case they won't topple her like that. Imo all the remain arguments for a people's vote are total bullshit except one, to break parliamentary deadlock and that is what will probably end up happening. Unfortunately I have seen zero indication that anyone on remain has leant any lessons from the first time round and I would say the chances are extremely high that leave would win a second vote.

Edited 18 December 2018 by what?

[Alf Bentley]

A sobering assessment from Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK Permanent Representative to the EU (Ollie Robbins' predecessor?): https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

 

It's a long, dry article - and not easy reading - but worth reading, not least as he seems to have a much better understanding of the EU and of global trade than most commentators.

 

It's not advocating any particular solution - and doesn't see any solutions that are good or easy, including a second referendum. It examines the complexity and massive difficulty of making any form of Brexit a success, but also makes clear just how badly the UK has played its hand - and what a strong position the EU will be in when negotiating the deal on future trade/relations. It explains why an orderly retreat to WTO terms would be bad news - and a disorderly No Deal even more disastrous.

 

Not an article for those who like easy optimism. 

 

Edited 18 December 2018 by Alf Bentley

[breadandcheese]

2 hours ago, koop. said:

And you know this how?

Whilst our economy would adapt over the longer term, in the short term we would see a down turn. I don't believe the down turn would be as severe as the Bank of England but it would be enough over a two year period that we would see France and India overtake us in terms of nominal GDP.

 

Even hardcore brexiteers realise that we have companies and businesses that have developed trading links and business models over the last 40 years using the benefits of EU trade movement. To leave without a transition deal would have costs.

[Alf Bentley]

Posted in wrong thread! 

Edited 18 December 2018 by Alf Bentley