OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[MadAmster]

... when Camoron decided not to put "push for devolving most of the powers Brussels had given itself".

[Andy_Faber]

Which is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but when was an argument ever won by alienating and ostracising ourselves and when did chucking the baby out with the bathwater become a sensible strategy?

You aren't going to get your rerun RA so wouldn't a more productive approach be to wait until the dust has settled and then, if things go your way, just tell us 'I told you so'?

[ramAnag]

You aren't going to get your rerun RA so wouldn't a more productive approach be to wait until the dust has settled and then, if things go your way, just tell us 'I told you so'?

No pleasure in being proved right as the country goes to hell in a handcart Andy. It’s still not too late.

[Ram59]

Fair point Rammy...I’m sure Parliament has made some atrocious decisions and, as you know, I have little faith in the present incumbents.
I do however believe they’re better equipped to decide on such an important and complex issue than many of those who were only deemed fit to vote by virtue of being over eigh**** and not yet dead.
I would also point out that your example of Iraq is another case of of a monumentally bad and misguided decision being made on the basis of complete misinformation. Will we never learn?

Andy...clearly the reference to ‘ardent’ supporters who had recently taken Dutch and Irish passports was to you and the Amster. You’ve defended Brexit on countless occasions even though you voted Remain. I really don’t follow this ‘just get on with it’ logic...if you believe a direction or decision is wrong then when was it ever a good idea to compound things by following what is perceived as a wrong/mistaken route forward?

Am I not correct in thinking that parliament, the well informed people you'd rather made the decision wether to leave the EU, ultimately DID have the power to reject the referendum result, but despite all the evidence pointing against leaving, they still agreed to back brexit.

[ramAnag]

Am I not correct in thinking that parliament, the well informed people you'd rather made the decision wether to leave the EU, ultimately DID have the power to reject the referendum result, but despite all the evidence pointing against leaving, they still agreed to back brexit.

Wow...of all the people I didn’t expect to accept that the Referendum was only ever ‘advisory’ you’d have been top of the list, Ram.
You’re right of course, but in the same way as Trump can’t afford to upset the ‘gun lobby’ so politicians in this country - Labour and Tory alike - are now reluctant to stand accused of going against the ‘Will of the People’ no matter how much sense it makes.
I’d tell you that this ‘Will of the People’ doesn’t really exist but it’d only set Ramjet off counting again.

[MadAmster]

Andy...clearly the reference to ‘ardent’ supporters who had recently taken Dutch and Irish passports was to you and the Amster.

Purely a selfish move on my part as I have explained before. When travelling with members of my family I would like to go through passport control together with them and not have me having to wait for them or vice versa. I could be pedantic and say that I have only taken dual nationality and am not in possession of a Dutch passport...... yet, but I won't

I have also said in the past on here that there should have been a 3rd choice, namely, stay in but fight to push through the massive changes that the UK wants and the EU needs. That would have been my choice had I been given one.

I am, as you all know, very anti EU but not anti organised cooperation in Europe in the form that it was in 1991 prior to the Maastricht agreemant that morphed the EEG into the EU.

[MadAmster]

How much mileage in this quote?

"Mr Campbell Bannerman, who sits on the European Parliament’s trade committee, said: “The reports we are getting in the European Parliament is that German industry is beginning to panic that we may end up walking away and go for World Trade Organisation rules because of the hard stance being taken by leading figures in the EU like Tusk and [commission chief negotiator] Michel Barnier.

“What people didn’t realise about Tusk’s statement is that he has already conceded a Canada plus deal, in other words a deal better than the free trade agreement recently with Canada.

“That would solve the Northern Ireland border issue and give us complete tariff free access for goods, although limited access for services.

“I think we should bank that.”

But he added: “It is good that the Government is prepared for WTO rules and it sounds like the EU’s hard stand is pushing ministers that way.

“I would like ministers to come out more to say how prepared we are for that scenario.”"

I am pretty certain that there is a fair bit of truth in it and that there are 2 possible outcomes.

1. We walk away. No deal. No divorce payment. Nothing. Use the WTO tariffs.

2. We get a compromise somewhere between what Mayhem wants and what the EU Commission is pushing for.

I would also add that the French, Italian, Spanish and other car manufacturers will likely soon be at their governments telling them they can't be savage with the UK or they themselves will suffer...... also a point I have made before.

[Ram59]

Wow...of all the people I didn’t expect to accept that the Referendum was only ever ‘advisory’ you’d have been top of the list, Ram.
You’re right of course, but in the same way as Trump can’t afford to upset the ‘gun lobby’ so politicians in this country - Labour and Tory alike - are now reluctant to stand accused of going against the ‘Will of the People’ no matter how much sense it makes.
I’d tell you that this ‘Will of the People’ doesn’t really exist but it’d only set Ramjet off counting again.

The government stated in the referendum leaflet that they would carry out the result of the referendum, not that they would consider the result when making a decision. There was a moral, if not legal, obligation for them to go ahead with brexit. If you wish to cling to the advisory stance, then you're welcome.

Having said that, it has shown a considerable lack of thought when planning the referendum. There should have been some thought given to a minimum acceptable turnout and a minimum acceptable difference in voting. If these standards weren't met then another referendum should have been taken in a couple of years time, after Cameron's concessions had come into effect. We're arguing over more than 1 million voters in a relatively high turnout, what would be happening now if the turnout was very low and the brexit vote had won by a few hundred votes?

[ramAnag]

Purely a selfish move on my part as I have explained before. When travelling with members of my family I would like to go through passport control together with them and not have me having to wait for them or vice versa. I could be pedantic and say that I have only taken dual nationality and am not in possession of a Dutch passport...... yet, but I won't

I have also said in the past on here that there should have been a 3rd choice, namely, stay in but fight to push through the massive changes that the UK wants and the EU needs. That would have been my choice had I been given one.

I am, as you all know, very anti EU but not anti organised cooperation in Europe in the form that it was in 1991 prior to the Maastricht agreemant that morphed the EEG into the EU.

Well there you go Amster, we agree after all, in so much as I absolutely accept the contents of your second paragraph about a 3rd choice.

I’m not ‘clinging’ to anything Ram...it’s a fact that Referendums in this country are not legally binding thus they are never anything but ‘advisory’.
There was no legal, or moral, responsibility to follow the views of the 37% (119 Rog?) and actions have been driven by nothing other than political necessity/posturing ever since.
Even you accept that the terms of the Referendum were flawed...MadAmster likewise...you can hardly have been reassured by the chaos which has ensued since negotiations began so why are we following this absurd road to likely ruin. Change...Yes. Economic Suicide for years to come? No!

[Trickytreesreds]

The government stated in the referendum leaflet that they would carry out the result of the referendum, not that they would consider the result when making a decision. There was a moral, if not legal, obligation for them to go ahead with brexit. If you wish to cling to the advisory stance, then you're welcome.

Having said that, it has shown a considerable lack of thought when planning the referendum. There should have been some thought given to a minimum acceptable turnout and a minimum acceptable difference in voting. If these standards weren't met then another referendum should have been taken in a couple of years time, after Cameron's concessions had come into effect. We're arguing over more than 1 million voters in a relatively high turnout, what would be happening now if the turnout was very low and the brexit vote had won by a few hundred votes?

We are looking at democratic legitimacy? Love this from the Guardian concerning the EU.
Answer Benns questions anyone?

I considered voting for Brexit. After the referendum was agreed, but before the campaigning had begun, I could have gone either way. My issue was democracy. I didn’t like the fact that the European parliament could not initiate legislation; that turnout for European parliamentary elections had fallen 30% since the first elections in 1979; the way countries that voted “the wrong way” on EU referendums were effectively instructed to vote again (Denmark 1992; Ireland 2001, 2008) and get it right; the fact that Greece’s resounding democratic rejection of the terms of its bailout (2015) was treated with such contempt.

Britain is still clueless about the EU’s motives in Brexit negotiations
Tom Kibasi
Read more
It felt increasingly obvious that this institution had growing control over our lives even as it became less obvious how anyone beyond its ruling bodies could directly influence it. It’s never been obvious to me that the EU’s senior leadership could satisfactorily answer all of the late Tony Benn’s five essential questions for people of power, namely: What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?