National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

Brexit - Deal or No Deal?

  • Deal

    Votes: 51 29.1%
  • No Deal

    Votes: 77 44.0%
  • Call in the Donald

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Call in Noel Edmonds

    Votes: 8 4.6%
  • I don't care anymore

    Votes: 37 21.1%

  • Total voters
    175
This is becoming hilarious! So if parliament fails to back May's plan, MPs will have a free vote on the direction of travel.

One of the options available is likely to be no Brexit. Confusion reigns. Will all MPs vote the way the majority of their electors did? Doubtful. Could MPs reverse 'the will of the people'? Possibly. An 'affront to democracy'? Depends on your view point. MPs are elected to make decisions on our behalf. Impossible for them to reflect the views of every individual elector, and how does an MP know how many constituents want in or out NOW, rather than at the time of the referendum?

David Cameron has a lot to answer for. Chickens coming home to roost and all that ....
I think the Maybot has cooked her goose. The legal advice has been blown open, and while I understand her desire to push it through, she's too stubborn to realise it's as toxic as staying or going.

I am concerned about how toxic this could become. The top could be about to blow off the whole thing and I am worried about where this could end up.
 
I am concerned about how toxic this could become. The top could be about to blow off the whole thing and I am worried about where this could end up.
I agree with you on this. Those in power have managed to get us into a situation where there is no good outcome and I can foresee trouble (of the financial, social and 'in the streets' types) happening whatever they eventually cobble together.
 
I think a second referendum or whatever you want to call it would be the most divisive and potentially toxic of the possible outcomes to this sorry saga.

How that anger would manifest itself? Difficult to say. Disturbances in large provincial towns? Would be worse in the warm, summer evenings for sure, but look at the French kicking off over fuel duty.
 
As far as I understand it (and I am really not sure I do!), the options - of which some are much more likely than others - are:

Accept May's Chequers deal. Will apparently satisfy nobody and the permanence of the 'backstop/Irish border' problem will be a sticking point for many. However it is at least some sort of compromise that gives a way forward and offers a 2 year transitional period. Is this the least bad of a set of bad options?

Reject the Chequers deal and try to renegotiate with the EU. I don't think anyone is convinced that the EU (who are negotiating from a condition of strength) will budge substantially - they certainly CANNOT give us excellent terms or there will be a flood of other EU countries leaving on the same terms. The 'Norway' and 'Canada' options are often touted, but - since those deals involve sticking to EU regulations - leavers don't like them.

Reject the Chequers deal and 'just leave' in March. I have really not heard any convincing argument that persuades me that this will be anything other than a financial (and therefore social) disaster. A trade deal with Botswana or Canada isn't going to make up any significant portion of the difference and trade with Europe will be gridlocked with no free movement of goods, import duties, VAT etc etc. A significant percentage of multinational manufacturing and financial services will leave to go to Europe to mitigate that and other barriers. Oh and we would end up with either Boris or Rees-Mogg as PM, who would get rid of the minimum wage, workers rights etc as soon as they could because our only chance would be to be cheaper than other nations in a race to the bottom. Blimey.

Have another referendum. Would be hugely divisive - and what on earth would the question(s) be? Will enough people have enough enthusiasm to inform themselves what any options might entail?

Let MPs decide on a 'no whip' conscience basis. We all know that Parliament is 'remain' in majority. If the MPs decided that remaining was in the best interests of the country (and apparently we could just change our minds about article 50), that would put Parliament at odds with the result of the referendum.

Are there any other options, realistic or not?

(Personally I wish the stupid referendum hadn't happened in the first place, but we are where we are.)
 
As far as I understand it a lot of leavers would be ok with a Canada+++ deal, remainers don’t like it because it would be quite a clean Brexit. The Norway option is Brexit in name only.

The back stop appears to be the main sticking point for many leavers in the May deal. If that could be resolved to the satisfaction of the Brexiteers & DUPs then May’s deal might be a goer. But it’s understandably such a red line for those MPs that it’s the EU who would have to concede some ground.

I really think another referendum/vote would be a hugely divisive campaign and very damaging for trust in politics & democracy in this country. Could take a generation for that trust to return.
 
Thinking aloud.... What happens if there is a "People's Vote" and the result is 50/50 to leave or remain? What purpose does that serve? Are we going down a Neverendingendum route?

The more I hear of a "People's Vote" or "election" the more I can see it's not been thought about at all, other than an abstract idea that sounds jolly good.
 
Thinking aloud.... What happens if there is a "People's Vote" and the result is 50/50 to leave or remain? What purpose does that serve? Are we going down a Neverendingendum route?

The more I hear of a "People's Vote" or "election" the more I can see it's not been thought about at all, other than an abstract idea that sounds jolly good.
I wondered what if another referendum was held and remain won by a similar amount to the 2016 vote, best of 3?

Having a second referendum would do so much harm to the country.

Some remain folk are saying that the leave voters didn't know what they were voting for.. I voted to LEAVE, I knew exactly what I was voting for.
 
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........
 
Sure, but what were you hoping we’d get out of leaving? I hear lots of people just shouting leave or remain, very few explaining why. (And I mean giving reasons that are logical and make sense, not to ‘take back control’ (for leavers) or ‘to give us greater opportunities’ (for remainers)).

Truth is think very few, if any, knew the likely consequences of leaving.

Maybe Pete the answer is just a bit more simple for some like myself.

I wasn't and haven't since the vote been convinced that we need the EU as much as potentially they need us. I'm not naive enough to think the EU falls without us but we are a big part of it and I think they want us to stay.

I want and still want a hard brexit as I want to see what the UK can do on it's own. I have no problem with immigration, didn't know anything about fishing laws and still don't and took the slogan on the side of the bus with a pinch of salt.

I am not a vocal person when it comes to politics but I listen and observe and make my choice and always vote. I don't have a problem with a 2nd vote as long as its all in. Either remain or completely out. A lot of people would have changed their mind either way now so if they want to change their minds now they no more.

I appreciate that my opinion will be seen as reckless, I've basically said that I'm happy to gamble the UKs future on curiousity. However I also think I'm probably not alone in that opinion.
 
Sure, but what were you hoping we’d get out of leaving? I hear lots of people just shouting leave or remain, very few explaining why. (And I mean giving reasons that are logical and make sense, not to ‘take back control’ (for leavers) or ‘to give us greater opportunities’ (for remainers)).

Truth is think very few, if any, knew the likely consequences of leaving.
I wanted to leave, full stop. Believe it or not, countries can thrive without being in the EU.

I said during the campaign that to leave was a massive gamble, which I 100% believe will pay off. That's just my opinion though.
 
Maybe Pete the answer is just a bit more simple for some like myself.

I wasn't and haven't since the vote been convinced that we need the EU as much as potentially they need us. I'm not naive enough to think the EU falls without us but we are a big part of it and I think they want us to stay.

I want and still want a hard brexit as I want to see what the UK can do on it's own. I have no problem with immigration, didn't know anything about fishing laws and still don't and took the slogan on the side of the bus with a pinch of salt.

I am not a vocal person when it comes to politics but I listen and observe and make my choice and always vote. I don't have a problem with a 2nd vote as long as its all in. Either remain or completely out. A lot of people would have changed their mind either way now so if they want to change their minds now they no more.

I appreciate that my opinion will be seen as reckless, I've basically said that I'm happy to gamble the UKs future on curiousity. However I also think I'm probably not alone in that opinion.
Hear hear

My reasons were simple too.

The vote wasn't for what leaving deal do you want, it was to LEAVE!
 
With hindsight it may have been better to negotiate the deal before putting it to the people.

If HMG were to offer a referendum on the current deal offered by the EU then the result would have been a leave landslide.

We need to get some cahoona`s and say we are leaving on the 29th March under WTO rules.
We aren`t erecting a border in Ireland , if the EU wish to thats their choice.
We`ll retain any current EU legislation and sort it out as and when we wish.
As we aren`t "at the table" we aren`t taking anymore rules/regs.
We`ll pay what we are committed to, whistle for anymore.

The deal being offered is in the interest of the EU alone, retaining us like a leech on a bag of blood.
 
I am genuinely interested to know why leaving, with or without a deal is going to be better for the UK?

Is it sovereignty? If so how do you define that and how do you think it will be different outside the EU? Is it our own rights, product, health and environmental standards?

Is it being able to make our own trade deals? If so, how do define success? Is it tariff-free, frictionless trade? and when do you think we will be able to achieve that for 100% of our exports? (already got that with the EU) Here's a useful reminder of what we export and import from where and to who: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_United_Kingdom.

Is it about immigration? If so, immigration from where and how do we put in place controls over and above what we already have?
Take a look at this graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Migration_from_1970.svg. The bit in between the green line and the red line on the immigration side, is the bit we already have full control over.

And how will being a single independant state make us more secure, not only in terms of defence, security and protection against terrorism, but also in terms of food security and actually making a meaningful effort to tackle climate change for example (and I trust David Attenborough far more than I do on Donald Trump on that issue!)?

When I look at all these issues in the round and look at the bigger picture of where the world is right now and where it will potentially be in 50 years time, I am really struggling to see how we will be better off and create better more diverse opportunities for younger generations and those that come after them. Whether or not it feels right for the older generations and those who are currently comfortably off (but perceive they could be better off) is another issue and it should not really be the issue that decides the argument for potentially generations to come.

In essence, this issue is way too complicated, way too nuanced to be decided by a single binary referendum when those asked the question were blatantly lied to by both sides (with at least one side almost certainly guilty of breaking the rules) and the full facts were not available or presented in an unbiased way that could be easily digested asked to make the decision.

All in all, whichever way you voted and whatever you believe, you have to see the complexity of this issue and the deeply flawed way in which it has been carried out (from the triggering of Art 50 to the utterly shambolic negotiations) , means that very few people will win anything...apart from a very rich elite who aren't really that affected in the first place

I for one wish we had never been asked - not because I have any deep love for the EU, but because the issue was never black and white - it was always way more complicated and intricate that that. But that is the decision we've been asked to make.

We have been played, to try and settle a political argument and to try to help the rich get richer. Gideon and the pig head shagger have A LOT to answer for.
 
We have been played, to try and settle a political argument and to try to help the rich get richer. Gideon and the pig head shagger have A LOT to answer for.

We have been played.

Don't forget Boris, Mogg and Gove, Farrage and his cronies, Banks and his factory of lies. What do they all have in common: significant offshore funds and contacts, plus the capacity to benefit from the twin carve-up of the (remaining) UK economy and destruction of rules protecting products, people and the environment once the UK starts making trade deals on US terms.

What has frustrated me throughout this disastrous scam is that the party of the vultures has used nationalism against the interests of 95% of the nation and won.
 
There will be huge implications for democracy here if politicians put this back to the country.
A will to leave the European Union was expressed by the British people.
Who the hell do politicians think they are representing when they act against the will of the people?
And let’s say that (God forbid) we skulked back to the France and Germany club like a naughty dog... Just what kind of country would that make us?
Do you really think that they would have more respect for our opinions than before?
No, our place at the head of decision making within the European Union has long gone and that is one of the reasons why we voted out in the first place.
We are already the pariah of Europe, In or out.
Get used to the fact that we are not AT the table, we are f*****g under it!

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of our watery weakness within Europe was plainly spelt out well before our referendum. Cameron tried to negotiate concessions on behalf of our country so that he could head off the threat of a ‘Leave’ vote.
Knowing full well that he was in this position, the EU deliberately humiliated him, giving him absolutely nothing. Nothing! He came home to a country outraged at their intransigence.

It is a brave new world ladies and gentlemen. We WILL make our way.
They need us but we most certainly can thrive without them.
 
With hindsight it may have been better to negotiate the deal before putting it to the people

That is exactly it. People could then have voted 'for' something that they could examine, that could have been discussed and they could have weighed up the pros and cons of the matter.

The referendum was fatally flawed - if you gave people a vote on whether they wanted to pay income tax or not, many people would vote for its abolition. The result might be different if you told them the alternative was that VAT would be put up to 150%!

Allowing people to vote against something without telling them what would replace it was short-sighted in the extreme.
 
No major European economy has survived outside the EU since its inception, but if you're happy to take the risk, fair enough.

Because nobody has been "allowed" to leave......... Ireland got it right when they voted on the Lisbon Treaty for the first time, they were forced to vote again and their "Leave" leaders at the time said............

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

And that is exactly the same road we are now treading with the TM "deal".
 
Back
Top Bottom