The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[Car Boot 10]

3 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

It’s a fair point.

 

But he’s enabling a right wing Brexit that is driven by people whose agenda is to shrink the state, not grow it.

 

You are not getting Lexit. And if Corbyn facilitates a very right wing Brexit you definitely won’t get it, ever. Very few people will trust Labour ever again. In fact that trust is already evaporating daily.

I actually think there's more chance of the UK leaving the EU under a Corbyn led government than under a May (Tory) one.

 

[hobinfoot 25]

Why do tariffs need to be used between us and the EU anyway?

[Lockdoctor 10]

20 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

So you seriously believe the majority will be happy with no deal?

 

Really?

A no deal scenario was an obvious possibility as a consequence of the UK democratic people voting to leave the EU.  It is irrelevant to the democratic process whether the majority of leave voters are happy with a no deal out come as a consequence of the result of the democratic EU referendum.

[Car Boot 10]

52 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Now the democratic people want to stay. Tough luck.

 

Pressing ahead with no deal will make a lot of people angry, even some of those who now consider themselves staunch Brexiters

If holding a 'People's Vote' and Remaining in the EU is so vitally important to the electorate, as some on here claim, why aren't we seeing any notable upsurge in the Lib Dem vote?

Edited December 23, 2018 by Car Boot

[I1L2T3 10]

12 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

Why do tariffs need to be used between us and the EU anyway?

They don’t if we stay in CU/SM

 

If we don’t and diverge from EU standards/procedures then tariffs may be needed as a way of re-levelling the playing field.

7 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

A no deal scenario was an obvious possibility as a consequence of the UK democratic people voting to leave the EU.  It is irrelevant to the democratic process whether the majority of leave voters are happy with a no deal out come as a consequence of the result of the democratic EU referendum.

No campaign or political party campaigned for that at referendum time.

4 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

If holding a 'People's Vote' is so vitally important to the electorate, as some on here claim, why aren't we seeing any notable upsurge in the Lib Dem vote?

This whole thing is not working neatly along party lines. Many prominent peoples vote supporters are Tories, some even in the cabinet along with many other senior Tories.

 

As for the LibDems, they’re a salutary lesson in how a party can so easily lose the trust of the electorate.

Edited December 23, 2018 by I1L2T3

[Magilla 510]

8 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

No campaign or political party campaigned for that at referendum time.

Indeed, quite the opposite, any notion of no-deal was decryed as "project fear", quickly followed up by "they need us more than we need them" & "easiest trade deal ever" soundbites.

 

No deal is utterly unacceptable to the majority of the population.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Magilla

[Lockdoctor 10]

2 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

 

No campaign or political party campaigned for that at referendum time.

I refer you to my previous post. A no deal scenario was an obvious outcome if the democratic people voted to leave the EU. It is irrelevant to the democratic process that no political party campaigned for a no deal.

[I1L2T3 10]

16 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

I actually think there's more chance of the UK leaving the EU under a Corbyn led government than under a May (Tory) one.

 

 

That could be true. Lets hope we never have to find that out

Just now, Lockdoctor said:

I refer you to my previous post. A no deal scenario was an obvious outcome if the democratic people voted to leave the EU. It is irrelevant to the democratic process that no political party campaigned for a no deal.

No it wasn’t obvious. Nobody officially campaigned for it and it has never been the official policy of any party.

 

There is no mandate for it

[RJRB 688]

2 hours ago, Lockdoctor said:

Of course  you can't  unless you want to be the World's laughing stock.

 

Your best post ever.

 

 

Going back to my original analogy regarding a retrial where new evidence comes to light,one of the reasons for abolishing the death penalty was that mistakes were made which could not be righted.

So a second referendum,preferably before any enactment of the 2016 one,would give us all the opportunity to examine the facts and probabilities,before the trap door opens.

We might confirm or change our opinions.

Being judicious is no reason to be a laughing stock to anyone.

 

If this is not worthy of your reply,just don’t bother.

 

[Lockdoctor 10]

50 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

 

No it wasn’t obvious. Nobody officially campaigned for it and it has never been the official policy of any party.

 

There is no mandate for it

Already agreed with you that nobody or political party  officially campaigned for a  no deal.  The fact is a no deal  is a obvious  scenario of the democratic UK people voting to leave the EU.

 

There is a mandate for the UK leaving the EU without a deal because the democratic people voted in the 2016 EU referendum to leave the EU.

 

14 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Going back to my original analogy regarding a retrial where new evidence comes to light,one of the reasons for abolishing the death penalty was that mistakes were made which could not be righted.

So a second referendum,preferably before any enactment of the 2016 one,would give us all the opportunity to examine the facts and probabilities,before the trap door opens.

We might confirm or change our opinions.

Being judicious is no reason to be a laughing stock to anyone.

 

If this is not worthy of your reply,just don’t bother.

 

You still haven't redeemed yourself.  Your latest post  is not worthy of a reply.

Edited December 23, 2018 by Lockdoctor

[apelike 10]

51 minutes ago, Magilla said:

No deal is utterly unacceptable to the majority of the population.

Although you may think that it cant be true as all the population has never been asked as its an impossible task for obvious reasons.

[ricgem2002 11]

1 hour ago, hobinfoot said:

Why do tariffs need to be used between us and the EU anyway?

its the eu way of punishing the uk we dont need to implement them just carry on as we are. if we keep to the regulations of manufactoring  standards as we are now no need for tariffs but who is trying to tell us different ? let me tell you the eu