National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

[Marked Ox]

Same here, I was interested to see what kind of vote you/others would see taking place because surely anything remotely in/out related is just repeating the first referendum?

I would have 3 defined options but in a 2 stage question

1st stage: Remain in the EU or Leave the EU

2nd stage: should Leave win stage 1: EFTA/May's deal (something like that) or No deal Brexit

If leave wins stage 1, then the winning option in stage 2 gets a mandate, whether No Deal or EFTA etc.

This stops the ambiguity of the 1st referendum on what Leave meant whilst allowing people to vote on actual options and on the implications of those deals. Make it a legally binding Referendum, unlike the advisory 2016 Referendum.

Remain has to be an option as so much more information about what Brexit means and its implications have been unveiled by the last 2 or so years and in a democracy, voters/people are allowed to change their minds.

 

[tonyw]

Of course No Deal will harm both sides, but it's kind of ironic that in a 500 page document, it's one item that is causing the issue. One issue. Kind of mad, but then did Varadker over play his hand in all this? Or was he a patsy?

It's one item, but it's a pretty hefty one.

As I understand it, the backstop is imaging a situation where:
- Britain is out of the common market, and no longer has customs and regulatory alignment with the rest of the EU.
- Britain and the EU have not yet been able to agree a free trade deal
- Noone has been able to come up with a technical mechanism for undertaking custom and border checks automatically or remotely.

Frankly, that doesn't look like an unlikely scenario to me. Given the way negotiations have gone over the exit agreement, I think it's actually more likely that not.

So we're imagining that scenario.....and it seems to be that there's three logical solutions to cover it:
1) You set up a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic to undertake the necessary customs and border checks
2) You set up a hard border in the Irish Sea to undertake the necessary customs and border checks
3) You just don't bother doing customs and border checks at all between the EU and the UK.

(I guess solution 4 is that you postpone Brexit until you can agree a free trade deal.....but I'll assume that Brexiteers won't ever agree to that)

Both sides have clearly agreed that (for historical reasons as much as any) they don't want Option #1.
The backstop is Option #2.
Removing the backstop and otherwise signing the rest of May's exit agreement is basically, by default, assuming Option #3.


Honestly, if I'm the EU and I'm trying to maintain a single market of 27 countries, with regulatory alignment and free movement of people, goods and services......I'm going to be seriously loathe to allow completely open border with a non-member state with whom we do not have a trade agreement in place - even one with such close historic ties as Britain. That's better than EU membership and basically would be what everybody wants.

So I can actually 100% see why the backstop is a firm red line for them.

I've long thought that if you're Britain and you want a Hard Brexit, unless and until you agree that trade deal or develop a technical mechanism for those remote border checks (neither of which is likely happening any time soon), you've simply got to decide which of Option #1 and #2 you can best live with for the time being.

To her credit (and I've not given her much credit on this thread), May has understood this and made the determination that Option #2 is the more palatable. But she's clearly completely failed to make that case to a large swathe of her party (and is never going to be able to make that case to the DUP). Labour doesn't want to leave the common market at all (I think). The minority parties don't want to leave the EU at all. So we're absolutely stuck.

 

[FalmouthOx]

There is huge opportunity if we vote "no deal" with other trading partners, but there has been I suspect little planning for this trade migration, nor any consideration of how to smooth the transition for either the UK or the EU, hence the screams that it will be a disaster. My concern with No deal is simply that our politicians don't have it in their DNA to be able to quickly create opportunity, and would likely stand around scratching their arses and lamenting how much easier things were before we left.

 

[mooro]

I would have 3 defined options but in a 2 stage question

1st stage: Remain in the EU or Leave the EU

2nd stage: should Leave win stage 1: EFTA/May's deal (something like that) or No deal Brexit

If leave wins stage 1, then the winning option in stage 2 gets a mandate, whether No Deal or EFTA etc.

This stops the ambiguity of the 1st referendum on what Leave meant whilst allowing people to vote on actual options and on the implications of those deals. Make it a legally binding Referendum, unlike the advisory 2016 Referendum.

Remain has to be an option as so much more information about what Brexit means and its implications have been unveiled by the last 2 or so years and in a democracy, voters/people are allowed to change their minds.

This is exactly the same as I suggested earlier, so at least two of us agree (which could be a first for anything to do with brexit!!)

 

[FalmouthOx]

We import more than we export so would receive more tariffs than we had to pay, and over time this pays the divorce bill, so why not simply say to the EU we won't start tariffing their goods if they don't ours, and we part as friends with no cash settlement. We can propose EU wide initiatives in parliament to be incorporated by our own legislative, and work closely with them in defence, intelligence etc and even on arrest warrants - whatever keeps the wheels turning, if it is in the interests of the country. A British manufacturing mark is accepted there as the EU mark is here on standards for goods. We keep the fish. It is easy to keep trade flows unaltered BUT we made it clear that the EU block is a stuttering economy and will look elsewhere for trading partners. If they refuse and goods flow is interrupted then EU businesses will be lobbying the EU to compromise - unable to get their BMW's and French wine into our shops. We may see some gaps on shelves for a while until they yield but yield they will.

May out, Raab in, gloves off or a glass of Port gentlemen?

 

[Marked Ox]

We import more than we export so would receive more tariffs than we had to pay, and over time this pays the divorce bill, so why not simply say to the EU we won't start tariffing their goods if they don't ours, and we part as friends with no cash settlement. We can propose EU wide initiatives in parliament to be incorporated by our own legislative, and work closely with them in defence, intelligence etc and even on arrest warrants - whatever keeps the wheels turning, if it is in the interests of the country. A British manufacturing mark is accepted there as the EU mark is here on standards for goods. We keep the fish. It is easy to keep trade flows unaltered BUT we made it clear that the EU block is a stuttering economy and will look elsewhere for trading partners. If they refuse and goods flow is interrupted then EU businesses will be lobbying the EU to compromise - unable to get their BMW's and French wine into our shops. We may see some gaps on shelves for a while until they yield but yield they will.

May out, Raab in, gloves off or a glass of Port gentlemen?

Ah, the Sunlit uplands are back.

 

[FalmouthOx]

Ah, the Sunlit uplands are back.

We haven’t stopped caring about each other; We haven’t stopped loving our families and children; We haven’t stopped loving our country either; We’ve just rediscovered our Freedom! lol

 

[Yellow River]

I would have 3 defined options but in a 2 stage question

1st stage: Remain in the EU or Leave the EU

2nd stage: should Leave win stage 1: EFTA/May's deal (something like that) or No deal Brexit

If leave wins stage 1, then the winning option in stage 2 gets a mandate, whether No Deal or EFTA etc.

This stops the ambiguity of the 1st referendum on what Leave meant whilst allowing people to vote on actual options and on the implications of those deals. Make it a legally binding Referendum, unlike the advisory 2016 Referendum.

Remain has to be an option as so much more information about what Brexit means and its implications have been unveiled by the last 2 or so years and in a democracy, voters/people are allowed to change their minds.

Not too different to what I posted on page 27 of this thread!


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.

 

[Marked Ox]

Not too different to what I posted on page 27 of this thread!


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.

The situation has changed, ie the implications of the options are now more readily apparent, so remain has to be an option.

 

[LeftSideBoy]

The situation has changed, ie the implications of the options are now more readily apparent, so remain has to be an option.

But if remain is an option, that goes against the democratic process; surely?

 

[m]

But if remain is an option, that goes against the democratic process; surely?

I don't understand how a vote can be undemocratic.

 

[Marked Ox]

But if remain is an option, that goes against the democratic process; surely?

Nope. Democracy is an ongoing process and people in a democracy are allowed to change their mind. Especially when the information to make that decision has changed so much.

Otherwise the last Referendum should never have happened because our membership of Europe was previously voted on. It would be irrelevant that the European common market changed.

 

[LeftSideBoy]

I don't understand how a vote can be undemocratic.

Because surely if it directly contradicts the result of the previous vote, that's going against the democratic process; not matter how they disguise the question posed in said vote?

 

[FalmouthOx]

Brexit can't be labelled a disaster - it hasn't happened yet - the way the government has approached it is the disaster and the rest (project fear) is just noise. The forecasters help persuade us what the implications might be, but whether we go WTO or negotiate our own deal the ports won't close and the trucks won't stop and it will appear business as usual.

 

[Yellow River]

Here’s what the Prime Minister David Cameron said prior to referendum in his Chatham House speech

“Your Decision, not politicians, not parliament. Just you”

“If we vote to leave, we will leave. They’ll not be another renegotiation or another referendum”

 

[Marked Ox]

Here’s what the Prime Minister David Cameron said prior to referendum in his Chatham House speech

“Your Decision, not politicians, not parliament. Just you”

“If we vote to leave, we will leave. They’ll not be another renegotiation or another referendum”

Then he buggered off so irrelevant.

 

[tonyw]

Apparently, according to Yougov/The Independent, Saturday (19th) is the day when the national vote will change from Leave to Remain, based purely on demographics.

Logic being that Voters over the age of 65 voted 2:1 in favour of Leave.
Voters in the 18-24 bracket voted 70% in favour of Remain. Polls suggest those under 18 were even more skewed towards Remain.

600,000 people die in Britain every year, and the majority of them are old.

So if noone changes their mind, then gradually over time, nature will change the vote from Leave to Remain all by itself


[n.b. I think the Independent's calculations are rather flawed, but the principle is sound enough......Leave was an old people's decision]

 

[Marked Ox]

Brexit can't be labelled a disaster - it hasn't happened yet - the way the government has approached it is the disaster and the rest (project fear) is just noise. The forecasters help persuade us what the implications might be, but whether we go WTO or negotiate our own deal the ports won't close and the trucks won't stop and it will appear business as usual.

I suggest you read up on the implications of WTO/no deal Brexit and why, for instance, they are putting plans for a lorry park or the Ferries contracts (one to a company which doesn't have a ferry and its planned port isn't ready).

There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of such issues for the Govt/local authorities that are known about that are only now trying to be planned for (whether they can be done in time is another matter) and many that won't be anticipated.

That isn't even considering the private sector.

 

[m]

Here’s what the Prime Minister David Cameron said prior to referendum in his Chatham House speech

“Your Decision, not politicians, not parliament. Just you”

“If we vote to leave, we will leave. They’ll not be another renegotiation or another referendum”

Others will doubtless be more erudite but I'd suggest that Cameron was full of s**t.

 

[Yellow River]

Apparently, according to Yougov/The Independent, Saturday (19th) is the day when the national vote will change from Leave to Remain, based purely on demographics.

Logic being that Voters over the age of 65 voted 2:1 in favour of Leave.
Voters in the 18-24 bracket voted 70% in favour of Remain. Polls suggest those under 18 were even more skewed towards Remain.

600,000 people die in Britain every year, and the majority of them are old.

So if noone changes their mind, then gradually over time, nature will change the vote from Leave to Remain all by itself


[n.b. I think the Independent's calculations are rather flawed, but the principle is sound enough......Leave was an old people's decision]

It’s a fair analysis. You could argue that Cameron called the referendum 5 years to soon!

I wonder what percentage of those age groups 18 - 24 & over 65s actually bothered to vote?