Brexit deal

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'm sure it was BB. There were people on here saying they were voting Leave because of Kosovans and Somalians and Pakistanis.

What I want is irrelevant here. We're addressing the issue of what you think the EU should have ceded to us.

The other countries in the EU  don't away with FoM because, on balance, they prefer to have it. If we wanted the EU to change that, maybe we could have been having a grown up discussion with them over the past many years, instead of shouting the odds at them and blaming the EU for our ills.

If we don't want the benefits that coming with FoM (and there are many) we can drop out if it of course. And lose the benefits of the Single Market.

[SydneyRover]

BB
Then you want the EU to remove one of the key pillars of the Single Market, right?

I think the lack of control of immigration was the main reason why the majority voted to leave.

Don't you want any sort of control on immigration?

Just a guess but if brexit happens and britain continues on the downward growth spiral the brexshitters will be wishing they had freedom of movement to go and work in the rich countries of the EU.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I've a much more serious concern.

I entirely appreciate the frustrations that led to the Brexit vote. I was predicting that nearly a decade ago. It's a story as old as the hills that, when people hit economic hard times, they blame immigrants. It's happened throughout history and around the world and it was inevitable that it would happen here as a direct result of Austerity.

Go and look at the polls of UKIP support over the past 20 years. They barely registered before 2010, then they grew rapidly. As a direct consequence of the entirely justifiable anger that people felt about working harder and getting poorer.

Farage is no different to hundreds of populist rabble rousers throughout history. He sensed people's frustrations and told them it was the fault of the immigrants and the immigrants were the fault of the EU.

But here's my deep worry.

When we leave the EU and Take Back Control, and when living standards then get markedly worse (as they will, to an extent that no Brexit supporter seems prepared to countenance) where does the anger get directed then?

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way, that gets to the heart of the other issue that Brexiters never want to think about: why Putin poured money into the Leave campaign.

Putin's entire foreign policy is based on weakening and dividing Europe, to give him the opportunity to threaten and bully small countries a way that he can't do to the much bigger and stronger EU.

Weakening and dividing Britain is a perfect step for him. It entirely explains why he was such a backer of Brexit.

You lot supporting Leave are effectively colluding with the wishes of an enemy foreign state.

[drfchound]

AL

YOUR lot said repeatedly during the campaign that Brexit would mean we'd be like Norway and Switzerland. And that we'd be £350m/week better off. And that we held all the cards in negotiations. And that 80 million Turks were about to descend on the UK.

Here's a thought. Why don't we put to one side what anyone said in 2016 and start thinking like grown ups about where we are now?

Speaking of voters who have changed their mind, I have friends who originally voted to leave who now say that in a second referendum, they would change their vote to remain.
I haven’t spoken to any remainers who have said they would change their vote to leave.

Look, I know I come over over the top on here, but i'm only taking the wee wee (most of the time ), but I think brushing aside a referendum held just two years ago is a bit strong, and in my opinion comes over as 'We'll keep voting until we get the right result'. It's all a bit banana republic.
The result of REF1 must be upheld or millions such as myself would not bother taking part in the democratic process any longer. Is that really what we want? In all votes there are winners and losers, I believe the idea on REF2 being about how we leave would help bring together both sides of the argument and help heal the rift in the country. There you have it, AL the voice of reconciliation. Both sides give something, both sides get something. You can't say fairer than that. Next problem please? I ought to be in government except i'm not bent enough.

[IDM]

Heard this on radio 4 this morning, unfortunately did not catch the name of the chap speaking but he suggested a way forward which would maybe be acceptable to all and break through the current stalemate
He suggested a second referendum, but only a referendum on how we leave.
The first referendum result stands and we still leave, however the second one is a decision between no deal, deal, etc. Maybe a way forward, as at the moment no-one is happy, at least this way everyone thinks they are gaining something?
Stands back and prepares for verbal assault.

What you suggest there should have been put forward in the 2016 referendum, ie leave on the agreed terms, or remain..

That’s been my point all along..

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL

Problem with that, as I've said all along, is that it doesn't address the fundamentally undemocratic aspect of the 2016 vote.

There is an implicit assumption that everyone who voted Leave in 2016 assuming that there would be a deal with the EU would prefer No Deal to Remain. And an assumption that everyone who voted Leave wanting a No Deal break would prefer to leave with a deal than to remain.

In other words, it assumes that everyone who voted Leave in 2016 was voting for ANY type of Brexit.

There is no evidence that these assumptions are correct. In fact, both Farage and Johnson have said that we'd be better off staying IN than leaving on the terms of May's deal, so there's two Leave voters straightaway who disprove that idea.

So the ONLY way you could have a properly democratic vote would be the way that I've said on here.

Three choices.
No Deal
May Deal
Remain

You put a 1 in the box at the side of your first preference and a 2 for your second preference.

All the 1s get added up. If one alternative has 50%, that wins. If not, the alternative in third place is eliminated and all the 2s that were on those papers are reallocated, giving one of the 2 remaining options a 50+% share.

It baffles me how anyone could have anything against that approach.

[albie]

BST,

I don't understand your 3 choices.

No deal.....now not on the table because of the Grieve amendment.
May deal....dead on tuesday after the vote, no HoC support.

The real choice is:

Remain
Norway plus
Canada style...maybe!

No real point in another referendum with the current HoC make up.
Any option needs to have the numbers in the HoC on a cross party basis.
This is why Rudd has flagged up the alternative today, to prepare for the next step after tuesday.

Key point is that Brexit as advertised is not going to happen under the current HoC.
That means the Leavers are going to be left in a rage.

That is why a GE is needed, rather than a referendum re-run which could once again give a Leave outcome. The Tories will not go into a GE with the Maybot in charge, so the plotters will need to remove her at an early date.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

The Grieve amendment does effectively scupper No Deal in the current situation.

But I can't see how Parliament would be practically able to not implement a No Deal Brexit if No Deal was a clear and unambiguous alternative in a non-binary referendum and won that referendum.

It would be lunacy for us to go that route of course, but if that was the outcome, everyone would need to accept it.

Norway and Canada deals are all well and good, but they don't currently exist. So you'd be back into the situation of asking someone to vote for something that would be sorted out in the future.

That's precisely how we got into this clusterf**k in the first place.

There are only 3 clear and unambiguous options on the table.
Remain
No Deal
May deal.

The time has run out for any other sort of deal to be agreed in detail with the EU, then put to a referendum, let alone TWO deals as you are suggesting. That's even assuming that the EU would be prepared to rip up the deal they've been working on for two years and start again. If I were in their shoes, I'd tell us to b*llocks if we came along now saying "Err, sorry. We've changed our minds. Can we start all over again please?"

[albie]

BST,

Sorry, but I think you are as wrong as a wrong thing on this one!

Unless I have misread, you are saying there should be a new referendum to consider options long since dead and buried.

The earliest that any new referendum could be called is going to be well into next year.
By then, the May deal will be a long forgotten footnote to the debate.

No deal will still exist in theory, but cannot get past the UK parliamentary arithmetic.

The EU legal opinion that the UK could retract from the March departure is there to give wriggle room.
In other words, if we decide on another tack once Treeza's non-runner is euthanised, then accomodation will be made.

You are making the mistake of assuming that the options are fixed. This is the May propaganda line she has been peddling like snake oil around the country.
I start from the perspective that all positions are provisional, and subject to revision.

I can guarentee that Norway Plus will be the next staging post after the vote on tuesday.

As I have said before, I am commenting on what I think will happen, not what I think should happen!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

I take your point but I disagree with it. YOU are taking the current scenario as fixed.

Parliament may well not pass the May deal or No Deal NOW, but it would not dare to ignore a referendum where the result was explicitly and unambiguously for one of those.

I do agree that there's a head of steam building up for Norway+ but I don't see how that could possibly win a referendum. It is a sensible compromise, but it will satisfy neither Hard Brexiters nor Remainers.

The only way Norway+ gets implemented is via Parliament and there'll be he'll to pay afterwards. The whole Europe running sore will just go on and on and on.

More importantly in the current Parliamentary situation, Norway+ will split the Tory party apart, so no-one is going to champion it from their side, despite Amber Rudd flying a kite this morning.

Then there's Labour. Corbyn has spent the past two and a half years insisting we'll leave the SM. Is he going to whip his party to support Norway+?

Then there's the time issue. Presumably negotiations on the Norway Plus withdrawal agreement will take a long time to conclude and ratify? So we remain in limbo?

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST,

Sorry, but I think you are as wrong as a wrong thing on this one!

Unless I have misread, you are saying there should be a new referendum to consider options long since dead and buried.

The earliest that any new referendum could be called is going to be well into next year.
By then, the May deal will be a long forgotten footnote to the debate.

No deal will still exist in theory, but cannot get past the UK parliamentary arithmetic.

The EU legal opinion that the UK could retract from the March departure is there to give wriggle room.
In other words, if we decide on another tack once Treeza's non-runner is euthanised, then accomodation will be made.

You are making the mistake of assuming that the options are fixed. This is the May propaganda line she has been peddling like snake oil around the country.
I start from the perspective that all positions are provisional, and subject to revision.

I can guarentee that Norway Plus will be the next staging post after the vote on tuesday.

As I have said before, I am commenting on what I think will happen, not what I think should happen!

The reason BST said those options is because they are the only ones that don't need any renegotiations with the EU and are therefore more alive than any other options. The point to any new referendum would be to unblock Parliament by making it absolutely plain what option of the three options on offer the electorate wants. It could even be made binding on parliament - unlike the first referendum - so that Parliament would not only be bound to pass the winning option, they wouldn't be able to make any amendments to it or be able to try any other blocking tactics.

[albie]

Glyn,

The EU are prepared to renegotiate. Prodi has been flagging that up today.
They are working to the assumption May will crash and burn on tuesday.

As far as I am aware, a referendum cannot be made binding, as the HoC remains the decision maker.
If you know different, can you give a ref?

BST,
The point about I was trying to make is about timing, and what the available options (and the numbers) might be at the point of any new referendum.

Your questions will not be appropriate in 2019, when the game has moved on.

The situation is close to insoluble, hence the call for a new GE. The current impasse cannot be unblocked with the present PM and the existing balance of interests in the HoC.

A new referendum would surely need to canvass opinion about the options which will emerge, rather than those already deceased.

Anyway, lets agree to differ.
I am confident that by the recess we will all be in a different place!

EDIT;
Here is the Prodi intervention:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-brexit-deal-talks-renegotiate-theresa-may-vote-european-commission-president-romando-prodi-a8673901.html

No accident it is from the former President......for the same reason it is Rudd, not May, fronting the new "Plan B".

[Bentley Bullet]

I'm sure it was BB. There were people on here saying they were voting Leave because of Kosovans and Somalians and Pakistanis.

What I want is irrelevant here. We're addressing the issue of what you think the EU should have ceded to us.

The other countries in the EU  don't away with FoM because, on balance, they prefer to have it. If we wanted the EU to change that, maybe we could have been having a grown up discussion with them over the past many years, instead of shouting the odds at them and blaming the EU for our ills.

If we don't want the benefits that coming with FoM (and there are many) we can drop out if it of course. And lose the benefits of the Single Market.

So, it doesn't matter what you think but it does matter what I think!

The reality is, like I've told you before, it doesn't matter what I think personally, but my opinion why we voted to leave does. That's what is important.

Now, stop avoiding the question and explain your opinion why the majority wanted to leave.

[IDM]

The majority who voted wanted to leave, just, it was quite close wasn’t it.?

Wonder what those who didn’t vote wanted, but couldn’t be bothered to vote.?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB
Calm down a bit. The discussion was about what changes to EU policy YOU had wanted. That's why my opinion wasn't important.

It seems that you're frustrated that the EU didn't accommodate us by changing a policy that the rest of the EU doesn't really want to change. I'm sure you appreciate the difficulty there.

For what it's worth, I DO of course think that immigration was a major factor, in forming people's opinions, albeit that I think that is a lot more to the issue than simply disliking immigrants as I said up the page at 12:52.

[Bentley Bullet]

No BST. The discussion was about what I think would have been a good move from the EU to stop Brexit. The major reason why the vote went to leave was because of the lack of control of immigration. Whether I sympathise with that point is irrelevant.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

It's really tiring when you start doing the semantics thing. It always leaves me feeling like you prefer arguing for arguing's sake than in order to think around an issue. Personally, I usually find being as clear as possible about what you mean is the best way to have a discussion, but there you go.

And by the way, the man who ran the official Leave campaign disagrees with you. He says it was the £350m claim that won the vote for Leave.

[Bentley Bullet]

Good for him, I think he's wrong. Just like I think you're wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yeah of course. He only had Cambridge Analytica studying people's social media messages and a shit load of private polling done by which to assess the things that changed voters' opinions, so I'm sure you're right.

Which bit of my opinion do you think is wrong and why?

[Bentley Bullet]

I think you're wrong everytime you disagree with me, otherwise I wouldn't disagree with you.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thank f**k we won today or you'd be REALLY cantankerous.

[Bentley Bullet]

f**k me! There's  me stuck here on holiday having to break off to read the latest personal attack on what went wrong in the vote and why my opinion played such a big part in it and I'M now being cantankerous!

You just couldn't make it up!

[auckleyflyer]

For what its worth from me. A Delay on exiting, followed by a G election and renegotiation is most likely. or by some miracle A rudd gets a stab at tweaking the deal under the current deadline.
Last resort ! Back to the people but no remain on the table!!
If it were even me and mine as remainers would struggle with the fact that this question is being voted on again! It may be wrong (in our eyes) and part of me desperately wants this, what looks like a window of opportunity to reverse the decision. But.
The split in the country would be worse and longer than that of the split from our euro friends??

[BillyStubbsTears]

Auckley

I keep hearing how another referendum that has Remain as the outcome would split the country. In fact, people are now saying it will lead to far-right violence.

Just sit back and reflect on what you are saying.

A vote that showed that the majority of people in the country wanted Remain shouldn't happen because of the effect it would have on the minority.

[RedJ]

Surely if to leave is still the will of the people then the Brexiteers have nothing to fear by giving them the final say.

[Donnywolf]

Ah but as this geek* on Andrew Marr has said 10 times so far - oops make that 11 - THAT does not deliver on the will of the British People (*Steven Berkely)

Again they mention 2016 but NEVER refer to 1975 (and the will of the People at that point - who voted by a 33% Majority to "Remain" ) Count the Votes of the living from then and add them to 2016 and I will listed

Also I voted Leave in 1975 and would wish to alter my Vote

[auckleyflyer]

Auckley

I keep hearing how another referendum that has Remain as the outcome would split the country. In fact, people are now saying it will lead to far-right violence.

Just sit back and reflect on what you are saying.

A vote that showed that the majority of people in the country wanted Remain shouldn't happen because of the effect it would have on the minority.

True billy, a minority im sure but a minority with the moral high ground? Also doesn't put together the still fractured Tory party! Who like them or not spend at least half the time in power. This will rumble on for another half a century.
I find myself agreeing with you but also myself?!?!? Im either mad or this is an impossible situation for our little island that's never been fully into the euro project!

[SydneyRover]

FoM, all these people taking jobs and annoying locals, something has to be done.

Brits abroad: how many people from the UK live in other EU countries?

1.3 million people born in the UK live in other EU countries, according to 2017 estimates from the United Nations (UN). Around 900,000 UK citizens were long-term residents in other EU countries in 2010 and 2011, according to census data across the EU collated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

[Muttley]

FoM, all these people taking jobs and annoying locals, something has to be done.

Brits abroad: how many people from the UK live in other EU countries?

1.3 million people born in the UK live in other EU countries, according to 2017 estimates from the United Nations (UN). Around 900,000 UK citizens were long-term residents in other EU countries in 2010 and 2011, according to census data across the EU collated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

But they aren't immigrants, they're "ex pats"!