National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

[Paul Cannell]

...what started as a massive self-destructive act of vanity of one political party.

This is the real crime of Brexit.

Or perhaps as an orchestrated attempt by a bunch of pirates and speculators to carve off lumps of the dripping roast that is the commonwealth of this country; opportunistically funded by a kleptocratic dictatorship?

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Or perhaps as an orchestrated attempt by a bunch of pirates and speculators to carve off lumps of the dripping roast that is the commonwealth of this country; opportunistically funded by a kleptocratic dictatorship?

And that....

 

[Essexyellows]

But the problem with that is it will only satisfy a very small minority in parliament and in the country at large, I would wager.

I still don't think that crashing out with no deal is ever going to be "the will of the people".....if only there were a way to put that to the test.

The crux (as has oft been said on this thread) is that the question was far too simplistic, nobody was armed with enough facts, the campaigns for both sides were abject (but not really surprising given where political debate is) and not enough time was given to consider all the options (that we should have had)properly.

It will satisfy the 17 million + that voted to Leave.
Lets not let the fluff & bluster overshadow what the people voted for.
Same as when we joined a simple question led to a complex relationship that now has to be untangled.
We either sit and unpick it line by line.....or take a sharp axe to it.
Bit like a divorce they can be long & painful or short & sharp.................both come with pain.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Lets not let the fluff & bluster overshadow what the people voted for.

By gum. That's given me an idea. Instead of giving people options to vote for in a second referendum, ask them to write down what they want.

Obviously it would be necessary, to prevent undue influence from the Marxist BBC and Fascist Fleet Street, that this be a surprise 'referendum' and that the entire population of voting age be kidnapped and placed in a large airfield in Kent that's ostensibly being developed to contain billions of trucks but is really being kitted out with 30-odd million desks and invigilating chairs. Then the results could be analysed by non-experts to develop a consensus approach.

It could be the solution this is crying out for.

 

[Essexyellows]

By gum. That's given me an idea. Instead of giving people options to vote for in a second referendum, ask them to write down what they want.

Obviously it would be necessary, to prevent undue influence from the Marxist BBC and Fascist Fleet Street, that this be a surprise 'referendum' and that the entire population of voting age be kidnapped and placed in a large airfield in Kent that's ostensibly being developed to contain billions of trucks but is really being kitted out with 30-odd million desks and invigilating chairs. Then the results could be analysed by non-experts to develop a consensus approach.

It could be the solution this is crying out for.

No, no so wrong............................................................................it only needs 17 million desks so those who "won" can write the exit plan.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

It will satisfy the 17 million + that voted to Leave.
Lets not let the fluff & bluster overshadow what the people voted for.
Same as when we joined a simple question led to a complex relationship that now has to be untangled.
We either sit and unpick it line by line.....or take a sharp axe to it.
Bit like a divorce they can be long & painful or short & sharp.................both come with pain.

No, no so wrong............................................................................it only needs 17 million desks so those who "won" can write the exit plan.

You never know...they might come up with the complete works of Shakespeare, given enough time

On a slightly more serious note, you cannot possibly know what all 17.4 million thought they were voting for, so why not ask them?
If the choice was between remain and hard brexit, it would take less than 650,000 of them to vote against hard brexit and remain would have a larger vote

 

[Gary Baldi]

No matter how many people and politicians talk of a "people's vote", I haven't the faintest idea of what it will be, when it will happen and how binding it will be. Considering the intransigence of the EU now, is it not naive to think they'll bend at all if they can't be sure we'll stay?

I was glad to see Maybot get at Juncker today for a change.

 

[Essexyellows]

You never know...they might come up with the complete works of Shakespeare, given enough time

On a slightly more serious note, you cannot possibly know what all 17.4 million thought they were voting for, so why not ask them?
If the choice was between remain and hard brexit, it would take less than 650,000 of them to vote against hard brexit and remain would have a larger vote

I`ll take a wild guess (with tongue firmly in cheek) that they voted to "Leave the European Union". <----- please note the full stop.
They certainly did not vote for "sort of leave the EU depending on what bits of paper are wafted about".
I am a scholar of the "JFDI School of Negotiation".
Once the rock lands in the still water the ripples are soon calmed.....................ommmmmmmmmmm

 

[Yellow River]

If the public are to have a 2nd referendum forced upon them, then the result of the 1st one must be respected fully.

The only way to do this is for remain to NOT be an option as that has already been rejected.

A. WTO deal.
B. May’s deal/ Canada +++ style deal.

Alairstair Campbell, Adonis, Kinnock, Sourbry etc will obviously not be happy as they wish to overturn the result of the 1st referendum.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

If the public are to have a 2nd referendum forced upon them, then the result of the 1st one must be respected fully.

The only way to do this is for remain to NOT be an option as that has already been rejected.

A. WTO deal.
B. May’s deal/ Canada +++ style deal.

Alairstair Campbell, Adonis, Kinnock, Sourbry etc will obviously not be happy as they wish to overturn the result of the 1st referendum.

And if B is the overwhelming winner but can't be delivered . . . what then?

You can't just say A, because that would not be the will of the people.

 

[Essexyellows]

The second referendum has already happened (we had the first one to join) by their very nature referendum questions can only be "Yes" or "No" which gives an unequivocal mandate to the Government to enact the will of the people.
The result was to "Leave the European Union".... period, full stop the end.
In my JFDI School of Negotiation then the day after the result we leave.
We then do the negotiating, whilst firmly holding on to the purse strings.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

I`ll take a wild guess (with tongue firmly in cheek) that they voted to "Leave the European Union". <----- please note the full stop.
They certainly did not vote for "sort of leave the EU depending on what bits of paper are wafted about".
I am a scholar of the "JFDI School of Negotiation".
Once the rock lands in the still water the ripples are soon calmed.....................ommmmmmmmmmm

So no matter what hardship you might be inflicting on others, just get on with it?

March towards the gunfire regardless of risk to personal safety, knowing full well there will be casualties as it were?

Back in 2016, people still believed the sunlit uplands were within reach and that the trade deal would be "one of the easiest in history" . . .surely nobody still believes that......do they?? I'd suggest there was more disgrace in marching on regardless than there is in allowing people to admit they made a mistake based on better information now available.

 

[Essexyellows]

So no matter what hardship you might be inflicting on others, just get on with it?

March towards the gunfire regardless of risk to personal safety, knowing full well there will be casualties as it were?

Back in 2016, people still believed the sunlit uplands were within reach and that the trade deal would be "one of the easiest in history" . . .surely nobody still believes that......do they?? I'd suggest there was more disgrace in marching on regardless than there is in allowing people to admit they made a mistake based on better information now available.

Absolutely get on with it. Uncertainty creates more collateral damage than a short sharp shock.
We default to WTO which mitigates the initial impact (or puts the tourniquet on), then unravel the rest.
Business & trade will sort out the rest.

 

[Peterdev]

The second referendum has already happened (we had the first one to join) by their very nature referendum questions can only be "Yes" or "No" which gives an unequivocal mandate to the Government to enact the will of the people.
The result was to "Leave the European Union".... period, full stop the end.
In my JFDI School of Negotiation then the day after the result we leave.
We then do the negotiating, whilst firmly holding on to the purse strings.

Correction actually the first one was do we leave or stay.

 

[Essexyellows]

Correction actually the first one was do we leave or stay.

Yep, back then they had done the negotiation first then asked the people.

 

[Yellow River]

And if B is the overwhelming winner but can't be delivered . . . what then?

You can't just say A, because that would not be the will of the people.

Same argument can be made if the 2 options are the ones that those who wish to overturn the result of the 1st referendum want.
A. remain
B. May’s deal.

B wins but cannot be delivered.
A would not be the will of the people.


As has been said before, then we really are in The Hotel California, “you can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave”

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Same argument can be made if the 2 options are the ones that those who wish to overturn the result of the 1st referendum want.
A. remain
B. May’s deal.

B wins but cannot be delivered.
A would not be the will of the people.


As has been said before, then we really are in The Hotel California, “you can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave”

So then...back to another do you want to leave or remain vote. . . . anyone else getting dizzy?

And to think we are only in this mess because of the way the 2nd referendum was conducted.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Absolutely get on with it. Uncertainty creates more collateral damage than a short sharp shock.
We default to WTO which mitigates the initial impact (or puts the tourniquet on), then unravel the rest.
Business & trade will sort out the rest.

But EVEN Rees-Mogg admits that way could be 50 years before we see full benefits if we leave with no deal - hardly short and sharp!

And leaving on WTO with no deal I assume includes not paying the £39bn. IIRC, that £39bn is the agreed amount between UKgov and the EU for commitments and obligations we already have, so I cannot imagine that not paying it is going to go down all that well with our single biggest future trading partner (45% of our exports go there after all, 6% of theirs come to us). Whereas the EU on the other hand can probably fairly easily find that 6% in the lovely new trading deal with Japan (or the rest of the world).

You may argue that we will easily find a sizeable chunk of 45% of our export market outside the EU, but I ask you WHO will negotiate those deals (we have next to no experienced negotiators), on what terms and over what timescale

And not leaving on good terms with our single biggest trading partner is not I would imagine, going to go down all that well with those companies who have chosen their base in Britain because we are their doorway in to the EU market.

There is very little appetite in parliament for Hard brexit and no, we currently have no way of knowing if that is what the public actually want, other than to consult polling data. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be much on the type of brexit people want - this is probably the closest to it: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...the-government-eu-deal-and-staying-in-the-eu/

Interestingly, all polls are pretty much suggesting we would now vote remain: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questio...he-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/

Then again, they did before the actual vote didn't they . .. . what a shambles!

 

[tonyw]

Absolutely get on with it. Uncertainty creates more collateral damage than a short sharp shock.
We default to WTO which mitigates the initial impact (or puts the tourniquet on), then unravel the rest.
Business & trade will sort out the rest.

The question of tariffs is the easiest one to resolve in the case of a no deal Brexit. Because there's a set of global trading rules to fall back on.

What about the other hundred issues that we haven't prepared for, e.g.:
- Suddenly having a hard border in Ireland with no free movement of people, goods or services. Have to set up the infrastructure to charge tariffs, check passports etc. etc.
- Suddenly having to check and charge tariffs on all goods coming into UK ports from the EU. Have to expand infrastructure there too
- WTO rules don't cover aviation so all flights are cancelled until Britain can enter into a free skies agreement
- Financial firms suddenly can't undertake business for European clients because there's no longer any passporting rights, until another agreement is put in place
- EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU, suddenly lose their rights to residence, healthcare etc. until an agreement covering this is put in place

You might say - it's OK, we'll work things out on the fly, necessity breeds inventions etc. etc......but you've seen how the UK government operates, you've seen how the EU operates; there is zero chance everything gets resolved and work out in any reasonably short time horizon. They're just not competent enough to solve that depth and complexity of problem.

If Britain had begun preparing for a No Deal Brexit on Day One after the referendum, then there's a chance they could have worked everything out by now for at least an orderly transition.

But they haven't, so it would be the biggest chaotic disaster anyone could possibly imagine.

The majority of MPs are at least savvy enough to know this, and so will do whatever they can to avoid that scenario. Which, as I say, practically means delaying Brexit until they have some clue.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Project Fear.

And likewise, the EU will also have to do the same sort of investment for all ports where trade for the UK can enter - and it's a lot. Seems silly of the EU to lose £39 billion of money they need for their spending commitments and complicating future trade all over some fairly inconsequential wording about a backstop on their side. They could help Maybot, but they won't. I can only feel they are pushing a hard Brexit on the PM.

One potential remedy is for the UK and EU to agree to a longer transition period for a No Deal in order for both sides to prepare for all eventualities to reduce the friction. They still get paid for the time we have in their little club.

And with that in mind, I just don't see how a People's Vote or a General Election will provide any more clarity before the end of March. It will only muddy the water even more - 12 to 18 months too late. I've not seen anyone explain how it would all work - MPs, activists, the whole gamut.