The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[OPEN BORDERS 10]

Naïve ?

Remember the question - Remain or Leave, correct me if im wrong.

I voted Leave - and guess what, Leave won.

Why shouldn't I expect the democratic vote to be carried out ?

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

36 minutes ago, OPEN BORDERS said:

When May's deal gets voted down tomorrow, she should get behind a 'No Deal' - then she might get some credibility back.

She would save her party, and the country would get behind her.

 

I doubt it, I’d think she’d get more support if she called off the whole thing.

 

As far as credibility goes, there’s none of that left in British politics anywhere. 

[OPEN BORDERS 10]

3 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I doubt it, I’d think she’d get more support if she called off the whole thing.

 

As far as credibility goes, there’s none of that left in British politics anywhere. 

Credibility goes out of the window when you don't listen when the people speak.

We gave our Politicians the chance to govern our country without the EU constrictions - and it seems they don't want the opportunity too. Maybe they are not up to it ?

Spineless.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

39 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

We should have had a Brexiteer doing the deals, it's just common sense. We should have told the EU in no uncertain terms what WE wanted from them, and negotiated from that position of strength.

 

Are you completely deluded?

 

We don't have a position of strength! Every single credible economic forecast predicts that leaving the EU will do serious damage to the UK. NOT ONE says that we will be better off! 

 

Teresa May knows that, the EU knows that and even Boris Johnson knows that. Having a Leave supporter leading the negotiations and being a bit more shouty with Barnier and Tusk is not going to change our economic situation one bit. Have you spent any time at all in the past two and a half years considering the real implications of triggering Article 50?

 

[tinfoilhat 11]

17 minutes ago, OPEN BORDERS said:

Credibility goes out of the window when you don't listen when the people speak.

We gave our Politicians the chance to govern our country without the EU constrictions - and it seems they don't want the opportunity too. Maybe they are not up to it ?

Spineless.

Do you know what May and Davies and co asked for? Do you think if they'd banged their fists on the table they'd have got it?

 

And remember they're doing what 52% of the people (in 2016) asked for. And that  52% have many many different views on brexit.

 

This is why our political system needs a really good shake up. I don't think either party actually represents half of their voters. If some big beasts from both parties actually got their heads together the political landscape would be transformed.

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, I1L2T3 said:

Pretty much it would

 

It would go back to being the low ranking issue it always was

 

And then the rest of us can get on with life without worrying about your imaginary EU bogeymen

You carry on believing that if you want. I don't think ignoring half the electorate is just a trivial matter.

[RJRB 688]

38 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Let's be honest. May is a remainer, fact. We should have had a Brexiteer doing the deals, it's just common sense. We should have told the EU in no uncertain terms what WE wanted from them, and negotiated from that position of strength. May capitulated even before the get go. She has been a dead loss from the first day to this. 

 

Looking towards the Liebour Party to be the Salvation of Brexit, it is akin to finding Lord Lucan and Elvis in the local chippy, no chance.

 

Don't forget these ne'er-do-wells with their Pensions that are around the best in the Country have made a pigs ear of Brexit, which ever side you are on. They would be sacked if they were working (ha ha) for a private company.

 

Angel1.

Yes you should have had a Brexiteer in charge of negotiations,but have you reasoned why this did not happen.

Was it because some of them recognised that it was always going to be a far more intricate business than they could hope to achieve.

Was it because one of the leading figures was happy to sit on the sidelines and await his opportunity to challenge for the leadership (and this remains his position as he canoodles with his latest flame)

Was it because Gove,who stated that he was not PM material,suddenly decided that he might be,and threw everyone into confusion.

IDS proved his credentials as leader of the party.

Farage concluded his UKIP involvement when he said his work was done,when intruth the work had not even started.

So May was willing to take on this hot potato ,and like some modern day Sysiphus Is condemned to her daily trial.

So who do you propose to deliver your version of Brexit?

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, RJRB said:

Yes you should have had a Brexiteer in charge of negotiations,but have you reasoned why this did not happen.

Was it because some of them recognised that it was always going to be a far more intricate business than they could hope to achieve.

Was it because one of the leading figures was happy to sit on the sidelines and await his opportunity to challenge for the leadership (and this remains his position as he canoodles with his latest flame)

Was it because Gove,who stated that he was not PM material,suddenly decided that he might be,and threw everyone into confusion.

IDS proved his credentials as leader of the party.

Farage concluded his UKIP involvement when he said his work was done,when intruth the work had not even started.

So May was willing to take on this hot potato ,and like some modern day Sysiphus Is condemned to her daily trial.

So who do you propose to deliver your version of Brexit?

Jeremy corbyn anyone? Proven brexiteer based on his previous voting pattern, more so than Boris. 

[L00b 441]

4 hours ago, Baron99 said:

I see we've bought into / convinced by the  term, ('Project Fear)' Crashing out' of Brexit & not moved on since 2016?. 

 

Really the emotive term 'Crashing out' should be left to where it really applies, to a Premiership football  club being beaten by a non league side. 

 

We've not crashed out of anything.  How many more times?  The UK undertook the biggest democratic vote in its history &  voted to leave the EU after months of debate.   Yes we voted to leave.  We didn't crash out of anything. 

 

If the majority 52%, didn't get it or weren't on board with the other 48%, I wasn't for the lack of trying by those trying to persuade us, (or trying to frighten us; (remember George Osborne's emergency budget; still waiting for the Russians to start WWIII)) 

 

Speaking of democratic votes.  Both Thatcher & Blair were both credited in their times with winning 'Landslides' with round just over 40% of the popular vote. 

 

What is a winning vote of 52% of the eligible voting population termed as then? 

 

As for the mention of the Welsh Assembly.  Can I just mention that vote the Irish Republic's vote on the Treaty of Lisbon in 2008 when the Irish voted against it & the EU made them do it again in 2009 & presumably this would have carried on until the Irish got it right? 

 

If politicians spend enough taxpayers money & have enough referendums, they'll wear the population down. 

 

Should be a warning! 

....so, err, back to your earlier post and the definitional issue that I took with it: does "no deal with the EU" mean "no Brexit", or does it mean "Brexit without a withdrawal agreement"?

 

No soundbites, voting percentages, Welsh or even politicians required: a simple answer to the above will do.

 

The UK exiting the EU at end March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement means that the UK becomes a third country, overnight. For the UK, not only relative to the EU, but also to all those countries with which the EU has international and bilateral treaties about anything and everything, from trade to air travel, including medicine type approvals, civil atomic goods and transport protocols, personal/financial/criminal data, etc, etc.

 

Now, you can put your head in the sand, scoff, handwave, deride all you want: Brexit is a legal process first and foremost (effectively, it is the permanent cessation of all legal provisions tying the EU and the UK as of 23:00 GMT on 29 March 2019), and those are (very very few) examples of that legal end-of-effect in action as of 23:01 that day.

 

It would (will) be a crash out (-of the EU), by any definitional metric you judge the event against. The UK might wheather it, or most of it at least, OK. But don't kid yourself that UK life is going to change for the better, before many years of adjustment to your new geopolitical reality.

 

Oh yeah: the EU did not "make the Irish vote again". The Irish didn't like some of the original Lisbon Treaty clauses, and said so in their 1st referendum. The EU amended the clauses in question, as a consequence. The Irish approved the amended version in their 2nd referendum.

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, woodview said:

You carry on believing that if you want. I don't think ignoring half the electorate is just a trivial matter.

Half the electorate?

 

Less than 40% of the electorate voted for Brexit so sacking it off altogeter is actually really respecting the wishes of the electorate.

[apelike 10]

3 hours ago, Mister M said:

Lord Hattersley had to withdraw from the meeting due to ill health.

It still did not stop him from being very patronising though by stating, "They voted by a small majority to leave the union, but they had no idea what leaving the union meant." 

 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 minute ago, apelike said:

It still did not stop him from being very patronising though by stating, "They voted by a small majority to leave the union, but they had no idea what leaving the union meant." 

 

How on earth is that patronising?

 

very few people knew what leaving the EU meant in 2016, and not a whole lot of people really know now in 2019.