Off Topic UK / EU Future

To respect the UK's democratic system is to do the best for the country. Once Hammond and the remainer civil servants like Robbins are binned it will give the UK government an opportunity to negotiate without some elements within dying to score own goals.

 

It was the 'will of the people' on the day as promoted by the UK parliament. It was decisive because it produced a definite result to leave.

 

It was against the 'will' of 2 of the nations which make up the UK. Also against the will of the nation's capital and all it's largest cities. It left us with a divided nation - regionally, according to age, and even according to religion. In 1975 there was accord throughout the UK. Interestingly enough the 'remain' vote (1975) was highest in England, 68.7% followed by Wales 64.8%, Scotland 58.4% and Northern Ireland 52.1% - almost the exact inverse of what we have now. The 'Brexiters' of those days were the staunchly Labour areas - just as in 1983 when Michael Foot wanted another referendum.

 

It was a UK wide vote in which the overall result would be the same UK wide. If you take it on constituencies then roughly 64% of seats in GB voted leave.

You can only take any notice on the official preferred system chosen overwhelmingly by the UK parliament.

 

You can say what you like about your idea of democracy SH. But if that means that 52 people say to the other 48 'we won, get on with it' as if the 48 are suddenly going to disappear - rather than looking for a solution which the 48 partially agree with then you are sowing the seeds of poison for many years to come. If 'remain' had won by the same margin the issue would not have been over - Farage said as much before the referendum. On the other side the issues and worries of the Brexiters would have still been addressed. You cannot brush away 48% of the population as if they didn't exist.

 

My idea of democracy has been devised by the UK parliament, that is good enough for me. Of course the views of the losing side must be taken notice of but under the democratically chosen system to decide on EU membership, the leave side won. Leave must mean leave, Brexit must mean Brexit. We have constantly been told, before and after the referendum, it means leaving the single market and the customs union, I fully expect and hope that will happen.

 

I think that the question has been asked already - Is Norway in the EU ? Is Switzerland in it ? The answer to both of those is no. The question on the ballot sheet was 'Do you want the UK. to leave the EU' ? So, both the Norway and Switzerland models qualify as leaving the EU. which is what the referendum was about. No question was asked about leaving the single market or customs union, and the possibility of a 'Norway' solution was banded about by Bojo before the referendum. What is now urgently required is to know what type of Brexit the populace want, because we do not know this. Your assumption that every Brexit voter wanted a hard Brexit may be well wide of the mark. In the same way your version of 'Hard Brexit' is partly associated with a wish/need for a closer relationship to the USA. Do the electorate want this ?

 

We know what lies were told during the referendum - mostly by brexit. My point is you only seem to quote those that are in your favour - so if there are sour grapes I think you are the one who has consumed them
We lost - did you know that? Get over it - we have

We are now on Part 2. What does it mean to leave the EU? Only a few hard core brexiters think that the Norway model is not brexit. They are wrong.
We will not get a no deal - nor a hard brexit as most people prefer a reasonable brexit. If the Tories cannot deliver do not fear, JRM and Boris could pave the way to a Labour government and that would be a very soft brexit - or even a switch to remain.

 

I am pleased you now rely on Parliament to interpret what brexit means - correctly of course.
Parliament will give us a very soft brexit when Boris and JRM are defeated - either by the Tories or by Labour.
We will then all be happy as you will agree that democracy has won.

 

I've always had faith in the referendum because parliament designed it after careful scrutiny. Parliament was quite happy to let the people decide and not interfere if they did not like the result. This is why both major political parties supported Brexit and agreed to begin withdrawal after gaining 85% of the vote at the last GE. The anti Brexit parties failed to convince the public to back them.
I'm quite happy with the UK government's constant definition of Brexit, leaving the single market and customs union, stopping free movement, sovereignty, an end to being members of the CAP and CFP and finally no more large cash mountains being sent to Brussels. As long as the government sticks to that I can support it.

I always support democracy but your prediction smacks at wishful thinking at best.

 

Of course my prediction is optimistic but I think realistic too. There is no majority for a hard brexit.
I love your posts - "parliament designed it after careful scrutiny". Did they really? Nobody gave two thoughts about the details of the referendum as Cameron was so cocky he would win. If he had foresight he would have included far more controls to make sure a damaging close vote could not have torn us away from 40 years of successful membership. He was arrogant and careless - and walked away when he lost.
All the votes post the referendum have been by cowardly MPs afraid of upsetting the red tops and sticking to the mantra of "the people decided". Fair enough I have not said they cannot do that. However an MP is supposed to think of the good of the country - which brexit is not.

 

I'm sure there was ample debate over the finer points of the referendum but even if they had used the rules from 1975 that would have satisfied most. If they were appropriate in 1975 why would they be not appropriate in 2016?

The MPs rightly respected their own decision to give the choice to the people via a referendum. They would be hypocrites if they set up this only to overturn it if they did not like the result. This smacks at methods more akin to dictators or even past EU shenanigans.

 

It is only you who is arguing about 1975. How old were you then? Did you really have a political interest. Back then I was not really bothered so cannot comment.
If you are happy with the referendum then so am I. We are out and I accept it.
I suspect your approval of or criticsm of parliament will change with the brexit wind though.
All I want now is a good Norway deal.

 

24,
Yes, very much so.

 

David Davis has just shown in parliament he has an excellent grasp of the Brexit problems and has rubbished many of perceived problems with the UK trading on WTO rules. He also highlighted why May's latest proposal is a non starter.

 

So as David Davis has pointed out, the amendments to the bill under discussion at the moment are nothing more than wrecking devices. He has told the Brexiteers to lay off and support the government. But then he goes on to say that the white paper prevents trade deals. Even he doesn't seem to know which side of the fence to sit on. The question keeps getting asked in the debate, who is supposed to be running the government because at the moment it looks like no one is in charge. This is supposed to be government at work. It is the Tory party ripping itself into shreds.

 

David Davis is correct in saying to support the amendments, which the government has already agreed to. He is also correct in saying May's proposal limits potential trade. This seems a bit too complicated for you to follow at the moment.

 

Back to the snide remarks again I see.

 

I will withdraw that comment but you really need to portray accurately what was said. David was referring to that section of the white paper which he supported, nothing to do with the amendments that the government had already agreed to.

 

I've just opened a bottle of Chianti, can I send a glass over as a peace offering? Leo glass of red?