National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

[Essexyellows]

This might look familiar to some folk (stolen from Wiki)

"The first referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 12 June 2008 was rejected by the Irish electorate, by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%, with a turnout of 53%..

The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 2 October 2009 and the proposal was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%, with a turnout of 59%"

We are currently "in between" those two places. What comes next I have no idea, maybe a few years of economic pain just to whip us back into line, then a promise of a land of milk & honey and another vote.

 

[pooshooter]

May will almost certainty lose the parliamentary vote on the current deal, which seemingly leaves two choices - leave with no deal or revoke our Article 51 withdrawal. The first will either see us returned to the stone age or herald in a new world of opportunity; the second is likely to see a backlash against parliament for failing to deliver on the populist vote.

But the one outcome that the EU cannot gamble upon is for the UK leave on a "No Deal" basis. They need to have a deal which continues to tie the UK to the EU in some form or shape, so that credit for any post-Brexit success can be apportioned to the links with the EU. Should we leave and make even a moderate success of going it alone, other countries would start to question whether their continued membership was in their own best interests.

For that reason, the EU will allow a further round of talks and a compromise will emerge to allow a deal to take place with a both the EU and the UK being able to claim a "victory" in their negotiations........

I like your thinking...

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I always thought gambling was a mugs game At best, gambling is supposed to be an enjoyable past time where you don't wager any more than you can afford but this takes it to a new level.

Nobody knows how this will turn out. Nobody is even sure in any great majority what they want, other than "not this" and "to be better off". The stakes are too high the benefits of playing are vague at best and we are not even entirely sure what the prize is, or indeed if the prize actually exists.

Even fairground sideshows make a better fist of promoting their con jobs.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

And many of those vague hopes and nationalistic tendencies have been stoked by the media (and used to successive governments advantage to hide their own shortcomings) for decades. I can find no end of anti-EU newspaper stories that have subsequently been proved to be inaccurate or plainly false...and not just from tabloids either, certain broadsheets are equally at fault.

One of my personal favorites was Mayor Boris blaming EU for not allowing us to introduce new lorry safety features to reduce cyclist death in the capital. Wrong, Boris!---you really ought to check your facts, (but then that's never been a priority for you has it, Boris?)

Strangely, I can't find any inaccurate positive reporting on the EU (mostly because there has been very little positive reporting on the impact of the EU) and so starting from such a position of bias and inaccuracy didn't really get us off on the right foot.

Ask yourself who controls the media, how are they linked to political parties and do they are their associates stand to personally benefit from leaving the EU and I think that will go some way to explain the media coverage over that period.

I'll say it again - we have been played.

 

[Yellow River]

Seems to me that a second referendum is looking more likely.

Suspect we’re going to have a choice between remain or the deal negotiated by a remain voting Prime Minister. How many voters will abstain if that’s the choice?

If this does happen then the division and damage to trust in politics will be huge.
Many, many people will likely never bother voting again.

 

[Northstandboy]

Seems to me that a second referendum is looking more likely.

Suspect we’re going to have a choice between remain or the deal negotiated by a remain voting Prime Minister. How many voters will abstain if that’s the choice?

If this does happen then the division and damage to trust in politics will be huge.
Many, many people will likely never bother voting again.

It would be the death of UK politics and the start of severe unrest, also sets a precedence for any other vote to get re-voted!

 

[Essexyellows]

The leave vote was more a vote of faith in the abilities of the UK on the global stage.
We are the "star" player being held back by the rest of the team.
There is so much good tech going on in the UK in medicine, space and future tech yet we fail to promote it and are often held back by regulation & directives.
Whilst we may get some cash & incentives from the EU its only a small proportion of the money we send to subsidise the weaker players.

 

[m]

The leave vote was more a vote of faith in the abilities of the UK on the global stage.
We are the "star" player being held back by the rest of the team.
There is so much good tech going on in the UK in medicine, space and future tech yet we fail to promote it and are often held back by regulation & directives.
Whilst we may get some cash & incentives from the EU its only a small proportion of the money we send to subsidise the weaker players.

Yeah, but as somebody who works at the very forefront of the bold text, I can't see any way that research (the vital precursor to technology manufacture) won't be negatively effected when we leave the EU. Much of the big stuff is necessarily international and the UK is already not being awarded contracts in lieu of what's coming.

As you say, there are obvious ways round the problems withdrawing from the EU will create but I'm not sure I trust our government, whoever it will be, to find them.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Sorry Essex, do you have any examples of where regulations & directives have held us back in this respect? - I am genuinely curious to know.

My own personal experience with EU Directives and their transposition into domestic law, along with with technical guidance that goes along with it has been a very positive and collaborative one. In the first instance, we were already at the table deciding the rules and what should be in the Directives in the first place. We were and always have been fully able to object and to change that text and find agreement for an acceptable way forward for ALL countries at that table before final agreement and ratification.

We then had control over how that Directive, to which we had agreed, was transposed into domestic law. At no point in the process were we disenfranchised from the decision making. We then have full control over HOW that domestic law is finally implemented and then have some latitude here as to how light-touch we wish to make this, as long as we can satisfy the reporting requirements of the EU (again to which we agreed) to show that it has been implemented.

Any practical or technical guidance which might be required to set out the practical and technical steps needed to meet the requirements would also be developed in collaboration by Technical Working Groups with membership from every Member State, The working groups will not only include government and civil service representation, but also include representatives from the affected industries who would also be given the opportunity to present evidence that would shape the final guidance.

If we are talking about Directives and techncial guidance on improving Environmental Standards within industry, to improve air quality to make it less likely that people will die from respiratory or other health effects caused by industrial emissions, then I really can;t see how anyone thinks that is a bad thing...even if industry has to invest to get there.

Again, if we are talking about employee protections to ensure workers are not exploited and they have certain rights in the workplace. I fail to see how in a modern civilised democarcy, how anyone can perceive that as holding us back in any way.

Both examples are squarely aimed at making things better for all, not just those who's raison d'etre is wealth accumulation. We should be holding these up as examples of what we can achieve in everyone's interest, through cooperation and collaboration, not complaining that they hold us back!

 

[Deleted member 291]

First, I absolutely respect any position voiced articulately, like yours. But yes, you are thinking recklessly, in my opinion! Fine that you want to see what the UK can do on its own and take on the gamble, but what if it ends disastrously? What if your pension funds plummet, your kids can't find the employment they want, you have to pay through the nose for goods? Alternatively, leaving may create a trading panacea, with every industrialised country queuing up to broker deals with us on better terms than with the EU. Either way, in my opinion it's a risk not worth taking.

And, although many leavers have reasonable arguments for wanting to go, many don't. During the debate on here, a notable contributor kept writing 'OUT, OUT, OUT' over and over. No explanation, no intelligence, no reasoning. Not helpful for constructive debate. (PS There's a similar poster on this thread shouting LEAVE with no hint of a reason other than some nonsense about Britishness).

I read everything I could during the referendum debate. There were interesting points made by both sides. I made my 'remain' decision because I didn't like the xenophobic diatribes being exhibited by many. Not every leaver, not even a majority, but a noticeable number. I found it rather pathetic and small-minded.

So in summary, it's helpful if people on either side could voice a reasoned argument behind their views, not helpful just to keep repeating LEAVE or REMAIN like indoctrinated parrots.

I'm openly happy to admit that blind faith is needed. It's the ultimate gamble, this could turn the country upside down, or it might not. Pensions plummeting, food prices rising and the other things you mention are all real possibilities. There is more evidence to suggest it will go wrong then right, I cannot disagree with that. I can't give the better alternative as a definitive answer because it's not happened before so no one could claim it as fact that it might get better.
One day my kids will ask which way I voted and I will give them the answer. It's what I believe in or one day I might be telling them I believed in it but was wrong.

If I had to pin point it, I wasn't convinced at the time by the Remain campaign and the time since the election by the Remain campaign that there was enough reason to stay in. There are plenty of positives but I don't believe the door would be shut forever if we left, I just cannot see it.

I think the whole situation has been handled diabolically. I don't agree with the original vote in terms of what was asked, there should have been options and the vote should have been in stages. However as it was in or out I think the negotiations should of been hard Brexit from day one.

I have no problem with a 2nd vote, there are plenty of people who have changed their mind. It's not like a general election where you can change your mind every 4 or 5 years. If there is another vote lots of people will be unhappy but I think it will be fair now we have more information that people can digest. If you're not happy with your vote now is the time to change. If that vote happened and it was 51/49 to Remain then that would be that for me, If the country is not behind it at the last minute then so be it. If the 2nd vote sways the other way then it's full steam ahead. There is doubt about how the country would vote now so I think it should be put to bed. Get the vote done.

We have never had a bigger vote in most of our lifetimes so people deserve to be sure of their vote. I'm not really convinced there are loads of people who have voted Remain who would now choose to vote Leave. Not everyone has blind faith like me, or are happy to just roll the dice and that should be respected, you should be sure with your vote.

So unfortunately I haven't got the answers, it's a gamble.

 

[Essexyellows]

@Sheik djibouti .....
1.The EU has created extra layers of bureaucracy while taking away the decision-making process further from local communities. For example, the British Chamber of Commerce has estimated that the annual cost to the UK of EU regulation is £7.4bn. The introduction of Qualified majority voting means that on many decisions votes can be taken against the public interest of a particular country.

2.Another one ,that HMG failed to act on, is CAP. 40% of EU spending goes on the Common Agricultural Policy. For many years this distorted agricultural markets by placing minimum prices on food. This lead to higher prices for consumers and encouraged over-supply. Reforms to CAP have reduced, but not eliminated this wastage. A significant problem with CAP is that it has rewarded large land-owners, with little reflection of social benefit. See how much Mr Dyson pours into buying farms!

3. Individual countries cede control over some of their laws and regulations over to the European Union when membership is pursued. Some of the laws and regulations (that are essentially demanded by the EU!) may be counter intuitive to what specific nations may require. The perspective is that the good of the many must be pursued, even at the cost of a single nation.

Aside from that.... ultimately it is all doomed because the EU economic model is inherently unsustainable.
How can anyone sustain a 28 member organisation with only a very few being net financial contributors (and one of them soon to leave) and the rest being net beneficiaries?

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Fair play to you GRB. The point about remain not setting out their side of the argument well enough is so very true.

This always reminds me of the Life of Brian "what have the Romans ever done for us" scene. All it would have taken was a calm, rational explanation of:
- actually we can already control large amounts of immigration, but we have chosen not to for various reasons - here's the figures to support it.
- actually we stand more chance of getting trade deals on better terms with the rest of the world as part of an EU negotiating team, than we do on our own, because it's a bigger market for them to trade with. . . here's the figures to support that (EU-Japan trade deal anyone?).
- actually, here's all the ways European legislation have improved your wellbeing and protected you over the last 40 years. For balance, here';s the stuff which we haven;t got right, but we could fix if you tell us it really harms you every day.
- here's a list of all the European funded programmes within the UK and across Europe (which you are equally entitled to benefit from by the way) aimed at improving everybody's life

etc etc etc.

But they didn't. Not only that but the referendum was set against 30+ years of anti EU rhetoric in the media. Not to mention trashing the EU for domestic political convenience. It was always an uphill task to sell that, but they didn't really try to hard and resorted to "you'll regret it if we leave".

It boils my pi$$ I tell thee.

Oh and finally, on the subject of how bigger impact the EU and its laws and controls have had on everyday life. Even though I am not really a gambling man, I would wager a fairly hefty wodge that the man on the Clapham Omnibus will tell you that UK govt austerity has done far more to affect his family and worsen his standard of living than some EU directive ever did.

 

[Gary Baldi]

I do think we have lulled ourselves into a mindset that we cannot possibly survive outside the EU and forgotten that we are the 6th largest economy in the world. While this doesn't (and should not) guarantee anything, we should not be afraid of leaving or our ability to trade on equal terms with other countries - it's a very large change to how we've operated. One which we have had ample time to prepare for, if the Govt had been competent.

Lets remember that the EU are losing a massive partner in their collective, and it will hurt them equally. How did they allow this mess to happen? Not a question I've seen anyone answer.

At some point, we have to stop debating the vote and get on with the future.

 

[Yellow River]

Question for remainers and leavers alike.

1. Do you favour a second referendum?

2. If yes, What question would you ask?

3. What % of votes would be needed for the decision to be implemented by the Government?

4. What happens if Parliament votes against implementing that decision?

 

[Gary Baldi]

Question for remainers and leavers alike.

1. Do you favour a second referendum?
No
2. If yes, What question would you ask?

3. What % of votes would be needed for the decision to be implemented by the Government?
55%, with a big turn out. Only then can the "will of the people" be truly locked down. Unless my side loses, then I'll ask for another vote...
4. What happens if Parliament votes against implementing that decision?
It will be chaos. I genuinely believe some MPs underestimate the feeling in the country outside of the London bubble.

 

[Essexyellows]

Question for remainers and leavers alike.

1. Do you favour a second referendum? NO

2. If yes, What question would you ask? N/A See above. However there should only be 2 questions.

3. What % of votes would be needed for the decision to be implemented by the Government? 48.1% v 51.9% Majority wins its democracy.

4. What happens if Parliament votes against implementing that decision? Democracy is dead. Take a look at France for what happens when the "people" get ticked off.

There you go.

 

[Deleted member 291]

Totally respect that viewpoint, particularly that you agree it's a risk and that no-one knows how it will pan out.

It's claims by some that 'everything will be alright' even though they can't possibly know whether it will or not that is difficult to stomach. At least admit there are risks, and that just because we are Great Britain or the fifth largest economy in the world or have a history of invention and innovation doesn't mean 'everything will be alright.'

The other thing I must point out is that I acknowledge its not my gamble and only my loss, I am gambling your future and everyone else's with my vote. That is not fair, I get that.

That's why personally I am in favour of a 2nd vote, if people have changed their mind they shouldn't be forced to stick with it. That we are the fifth largest economy in the world is enough for me, I definitely don't think that means everything will be alright but it should give us a solid start in making it all right.

 

[Paul Cannell]

I do think we have lulled ourselves into a mindset that we cannot possibly survive outside the EU and forgotten that we are the 6th largest economy in the world.

It's not a question of survival, it's a question of maintaining or improving living standards.

BTW (playing nicely) I note that a few posts above our economy was 5th largest; if we're declining at this rate as a result of the uncertainty we better get sorted fast.

While this doesn't (and should not) guarantee anything, we should not be afraid of leaving or our ability to trade on equal terms with other countries - it's a very large change to how we've operated. One which we have had ample time to prepare for, if the Govt had been competent.

But it won't be on equal terms. No western country has no trade deals and has to trade on WTO terms. The disruption this will cause is inconceivable.

ILets remember that the EU are losing a massive partner in their collective, and it will hurt them equally. How did they allow this mess to happen? Not a question I've seen anyone answer.

Proportionately smaller, iirc, and it won't hurt Slovenia much at all. More to the point, all the remaining members will have access to joint projects on the same terms and find new and exciting vacancies to fill; financial centres are already moving out from London etc. The only thing we'll export more of to the EU for 20 years is employment.

But, if we're talking about the EU, they have bigger fish to fry - if the UK is seen to flourish a whole raft of regions and countries (Italy first) will secede in fact - this is more important - they have very few options.

At some point, we have to stop debating the vote and get on with the future.

Yeah. For once we agree.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Question for remainers and leavers alike.

1. Do you favour a second referendum?

2. If yes, What question would you ask?

3. What % of votes would be needed for the decision to be implemented by the Government?

4. What happens if Parliament votes against implementing that decision?

1. Even as a Remainer, I'm not sure that a second referendum is a good idea. See answer to 2.

2. That's the $64,000 question. Repeating the same question would produce no more clarity in people's views than last time, but even if we leave then you'd surely be asking people to choose between May's deal, an attempted renegotiation and just falling out in March. Plus you'd presumably have a remain option. That's asking people to choose between four options. You'd never get a majority and it's likely a large majority would feel unhappy no matter what was decided. See answer to 3.

3. With the necessary complexity of the referendum, you would never get an outright majority.

4. God knows. Nothing good.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Hear what you are saying Essex, but it would be really useful to break down what that estimated £7.4 billion cost covers.

Is it because they have to meet tougher environmental standards - if so, I say that's a good thing and outlay they should be making to benefit us all , not cut corners to avoid costs.

Is it because they have to meet employment standards - if so again good, because it is protecting workers rights, not cut corners to avoid costs

Is it because of product and manufacturing standards - again can't see any problem with meeting minimum standards agreed across a whole continent that is recognised across the world, meaning we can trade with anyone. EU product standards also apply to anyone wanting to manufacture goods/provide services and sell into our market don't they? So again consumers are protected against sub-standard goods and services.

The CAP I will give you. Outdated, bloated, biased and left to fester for far too long. I think all member states should be ashamed of their intransigence to reform it (and glad you recognise the contribution that HMG can and should make to that). Moreover, walking away now removes any chance we ever had of influencing its reform when (not if) it comes. And as for Dyson - man speaks with forked tongue...quite happy to criticise the EU and persuade us to leave while merrily taking money from it and relocating manufacturing to Asia.

If individual laws are incompatible with EU rules on ENTRY to the EU, then I can understand the country having to cede power on them (and again, it is about transposing and implementing directive - rarely is it about Directly Applicable Regulation). After all, if I join the local squash club, I don't expect to be allowed to wear black-soled trainers on court, even if they are the most stylish in the joint.

Are there any examples where existing members are told they have to change an existing domestic law because the EU don't like it? Only by agreement of all member states will a new directive be developed and implemented. Each member state would need to (or bloody well should) undertake an Regulatory Impact Assessment to see what is affected and how, which informs they way they negotiate and vote during the development and drafting phases. They have a say from the outset if they are already in the club.

Working within a collective such as the EU is ALWAYS going to be about compromise. Nobody ever gets their own way (although Trump is trying damn hard), it is all about cooperation and collaboration and I see the bigger pan-Europe, pan-global picture as of far more importance to us in the longer run.

Economics of the EU - is an interesting one. I need to read up more on that I admit but my basic understanding chimes with what you say. We of course do also benefit from EU funding (many places like South Wales and the South West, which ironically voted for leave - would you trust HMG to continue that funding?)

I was also interested to see that Italy were at loggerheads with EU over agreeing their budget. Why? basically because the Italian government wanted to make their deficit bigger and the EU wanted them to control spending - who's being the sensible one there?