National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

[Sheik djibouti]

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.

And star players with the attitude that they are the star player will soon find that a: nobody want to play with them and b). They find it pretty hard to shine when they're playing 1 v 11 every f##king week!

In any case, I reckon that German midfield general is more of a star than us...we're all flair and no end product

 

[Essexyellows]

I guess the other part of the debate, for those of us old enough to remember the joining vote, was the lack of information & "sales pitch" at the time. What we joined was sold as a free trading block with no downsides, what that has become is unwieldy, undemocratic and has aspirations that don`t match mine/"ours".
Unfortunately expressing an opposition to the political direction of the EU immediately condemns you as an old, xenophobic, racist "hater".
This chap explains it better than I..... the left created the win.... the ballot box gave people freedom of expression.

 

[Ian]

Those so passionate about Brexit, and threatening violence if it doesn't happen, could have achieve a full Brexit today. There is no need to wait for the politicians.

To achieve Brexit, the Brexitters just need to:

• Blockade the ports - Dover, etc.
• Blockade the airports - Heathrow, etc.
• Blockade our factories - BMW, etc - but more importantly, the small factories of British companies making components
• Terrorise the universities - they are a melting pot of innovation and global collaboration
• Destroy the telecommunications network/internet - the internet enables many things including the trade of services that Brexit is intended to halt.

Do this, and you have Brexit without the need of politicians, and without delay.

 

[Peterdev]

My personal view is Theresa May looks very incompetent in her ‘negotiations’ with Brussels. I think another referendum beckons. Do you want to leave, accept the ‘deal’ or stay in the EU. The writing is on the wall, the U.K. can revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU. So many people are fed up they will accept where we were before.
Brussels don’t want us to leave, and nor do most of our MPs despite the the referendum result. They want plum jobs in Brussels with pensions to match. The EU is for life and we are locked in with any ‘deal’ that May has returned with.
The Irish had to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty, and no doubt that will become increasingly likely for the U.K. too with a people’s vote

 

[Yellow River]

Question for remainers and leavers alike.

1. Do you favour a second referendum?
No. I believe it would be hugely divisive & damaging to politics in this country. Could take a generation to restore trust.

2. If yes, What question would you ask?
Even though I’m against a second referendum, if it happens then I’d have 2 options on the ballot paper.
(A) No deal. (B) May’s deal or more likely May’s deal+++, because I suspect it would be amended when it became clear the only other option on the ballot paper was a no deal.

It would be the only way of holding a 2nd referendum while still respecting the result of the 1st one.

3. What % of votes would be needed for the decision to be implemented by the Government?
Whichever secures the most votes is the winner.

4. What happens if Parliament votes against implementing that decision?
I actually don’t think MPs would if it was made clear from the offset.

 

[tonyw]

I don't think there should have been a referendum in 2016, and I don't think there should be a referendum now.
We don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a parliamentary democracy. We elect representatives to study issues and make informed decisions that they believe are in the best interests of their constituents. And if those constituents don't agree, then they can bin that MP at the next general election.
I believe it was a dereliction of the government and parliament's duty to leave the biggest decision for the UK since 1939 directly to the electorate - and then that was exacerbated by holding the least factual and most emotive debate in the months leading up to the vote imaginable.

That being said, if you wanted to structure another referendum, I think in fairness there would have to be two questions:
1) Should Britain remain in the EU
2) If no, should Britain accept the deal on the table, or leave without a deal.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

That being said, if you wanted to structure another referendum, I think in fairness there would have to be two questions:
1) Should Britain remain in the EU
2) If no, should Britain accept the deal on the table, or leave without a deal.

I don't want to nit pick, but isn't that actually three options?

1) Stay In
2) Leave with the deal
3) Leave without the deal

The last two are very different! Even as a remainer, I can see that won't wash. It would split the leave vote while leaving the remain vote intact. So you'd get a 50/25/25 result.

 

[Yellow River]

That being said, if you wanted to structure another referendum, I think in fairness there would have to be two questions:
1) Should Britain remain in the EU
2) If no, should Britain accept the deal on the table, or leave without a deal.

As we’ve already had a referendum and the decision was to leave.

A 2nd referendum should therefore be about the terms of leaving.

(A) No deal.

(B) May’s deal or more likely May’s deal+++, because I suspect it would be amended when it became clear the only other option on the ballot paper was a no deal.

It would be the only way of holding a 2nd referendum while still respecting the result of the 1st one.

 

[Peterdev]

The reality seems to be we won’t be allowed to leave.
As for Jeremy Corbyn saying he would extend the leaving time and renegotiate the terms of entry. What absolute cobblers. The EU doesn’t negotiate, it dictates. Harold Wilson claimed to have renegotiated our terms of membership before. He didn’t.

 

[RyanioBirdio]

I don't want to nit pick, but isn't that actually three options?

1) Stay In
2) Leave with the deal
3) Leave without the deal

The last two are very different! Even as a remainer, I can see that won't wash. It would split the leave vote while leaving the remain vote intact. So you'd get a 50/25/25 result.

Which would only prove further that ‘the will of the people’ is and always has been to remain. The 52% is divided into multiple camps, such as no deal, Canada+, Norway etc. There are three or four different ‘leave’ camps, every last one of which cannot match the 48% who voted for one thing and one thing alone. So if there were a second referendum with a three way split then fine, we’ll finally see once and for all what single option truly has the most support.

I say this, by the way, as someone who is purely sick to death of the whole thing, rather than being somebody who walks around with an EU flag and blue and yellow face paint. The entire referendum was a stupid thing to call in the first place, but that they were so incompetent as to simplify it to simply in or out when it’s not that simple by far is unforgivable. Trust in politics has been destroyed either way now, so I’d rather the decision was made that leaves us the least damaged as a nation and for future generations. The worst thing anybody could do now is double down and refuse to admit they’ve made a terrible mistake, which is exactly what it feels the government is doing.

We’ve ballsed it up either way, so let’s make the right decision, not the one that damages egos and misplaced pride the least.

 

[Gary Baldi]

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

Agree. The contrarian in me wonders whether being out of restrictive training bloc is limiting our ability to improve living standards. Stopping freedom of movement should help improve wages, but of course it needs productivity to rise as well.

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.

It was in 2016 (I think), France took the place over last year under Macron, but I can't see them lasting much longer with Mr 19% Approval Rating in charge.

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.

And the UK can agree to not enforce tariffs as we choose if we are on WTO terms. We can trade with countries with or without a trade deal, but of course its not the ideal way to do it. My interest was piqued when I saw talk of entry into the new NAFTA and other such groups.

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.

The EU are losing one of their few net contributors. Would concern the heck out of me in Brussels that the UK could leave without paying a penny, leaving a financial hole in their immediate budgets. With France and Germany in a little chaos, they can't be expected to fill the gaps.

I'd argue that the place to export stuff to in next 20 years isn't Europe but instead the ROW.

Yeah. For once we agree.

Hallelujah

 

[cassox]

NO DEAL......thats the ONLY way to leave................. come on we've had 2 years of planning to crush Brexit......the remoaners are getting desperate now

 

[sideshowrob]

If we crash out with no deal then all the food and drink that we import and export from Europe will be subject to a 21% WTO tarriff. We will be free to negotiate our own trade deals but we will never get anywhere near the advantageous terms we have negotiated with 60 counties as part of the EU and it will take at least 5 years to put anything in place. Project Ostrich has been exposed as ignorant outpourings of backward thinking, petty minded xenophobic English nationalist fantasists. Put no deal against remain in a peoples vote and we all know what the result will be.

 

[tonyw]

I don't want to nit pick, but isn't that actually three options?

1) Stay In
2) Leave with the deal
3) Leave without the deal

The last two are very different! Even as a remainer, I can see that won't wash. It would split the leave vote while leaving the remain vote intact. So you'd get a 50/25/25 result.

No - it needs to be two distinct, independent NOT dependent questions

That way Leave/Remain is a 50:50 proposition still.
But if Leave wins, then the second question establishes what sort of Leave is favored by the electorate.

Although as I originally said, I don't believe in referenda as a point of principle.

 

[m]

Well put. I’m noticing a pattern emerging here. Those advocating a no deal exit are good at shouting ‘NO DEAL’ but there is little or no substance behind their opinion. Those pointing out the dangers of a no deal do so with reason and consideration.

What you have to remember, is that Brexit means Brexit.

 

[Yellow River]

We’ve already had a referendum, the people voted to leave.

If we’re going to have a hugely divisive and damaging 2nd referendum forced on us then it should a choice between two leave options.

This is the only way to respect the result of the referendum which included these words ‘The Government will implement what you decide’

A. No deal.
B. May’s deal or amended version of.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Inclined to agree with you. It's my belief that many leavers didn't begin to understand the ramifications of Brexit, which is hardly surprising given the lack of any scenario planning and resultant information flow from the government in advance of the referendum.

But having voted to leave the only question should be HOW we leave.

If, however, May's deal is voted down by parliament and there is a free vote for MPs, 'no Brexit' should be an option for them. We live in a parliamentary democracy. MPs are not elected purely to voice the opinions of their constituents. How would that work if (say) 48% of their voting constituents wanted to remain and the rest to leave? In a free vote they must follow their own consciences. If a majority of constituents don't like their decision, they can be voted out at the next election. That's how democracy really works.

The whole leavers didn't being to know what they voted for thing is a myth. Of course, some people weren't informed and didn't care, but the sweeping statements from some in the Leave camp is a little disrespectful. I've heard a myriad of reasons why people voted Leave.

The problem with more votes is I see no will to offer options other than what we had before in the hope to get a different answer. If there is a "people's vote", I am worried the top is going to blow off of the whole thing. I don't think the current climate will get any better with that.

It looks like Maybot is delaying the vote for parliament. All the options are there, but for a ditherer, she'll try and kick the can down the road again to get the deal no one wants through.

 

[m]

Well, it's now 2.5 years since the vote.

Main thing I've learned is that there are a vast number of wankers out there.

 

[Northstandboy]

So it looks like May is going to announce that tomorrow's vote will not be going ahead, wonder if she has had some assurances that the EU are willing to change a few things?

Statement at 1530 today.

 

[Gary Baldi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1072117987472224256