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

[Geoff Parkstone]

A second referendum cannot offer a way out. It would just complicate things even more if remain won, and not change things one iota if leave won again.

[Trickytreesreds]

A second referendum cannot offer a way out. It would just complicate things even more if remain won, and not change things one iota if leave won again.

It wouldn't cange things one iota if the resultwent the other way 48-52 now.
The elections are going to be warfare for a long time.

Here's an idea.
We voted leave, so we leave.

If another referendum is to be done, it should be done in years time. When things have calemd down.
The remainers here, are behaving like the SNP.
Refusing to accept the last referendum and doing everything possible to get another one and try again.
Of course, the EU loves that. Vote and vote and vote, until you give us the answer we want.
Of course , it's not like theyve done it before, have they?

Personally, if we leave, then it'll be all over anyway. It will fracture, just wait and see.
Italy are watching closely. They won't need much of a push.

[ramAnag]

A second referendum cannot offer a way out. It would just complicate things even more if remain won, and not change things one iota if leave won again.

You’re right, it’s far from satisfactory GP, I accept that, but it might be the least damaging option.
The mood of many is changing as illustrated by the change in farmers’ attitudes which you have alluded to elsewhere.
People are, imo, becoming ever more aware of how misleading and ill thought through certain aspects of the Leave campaign were in 2016.
If the result were to be repeated I for one will accept, however reluctantly, that to leave the EU is what the country genuinely wants.
Should the vote be in favour of Remain which, especially given the alarming new prospect of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, is what I expect then I hope those in favour of Leave will accept the situation with similarly good grace.

Maybe we could follow Tricky’s lead - things you thought you’d never hear - and let Stephen Fry put the Remainer case against Farage, Johnson, Gove and/or Rees Mogg.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So what you are saying is you'd accept a 0-2 defeat, but if it went 1-1 you expect leavers to accept that as a defeat with good grace? Given that remainers have by and large not accepted 0-1 as a defeat, how likely do you think it would be that leavers accept 1-1 as a defeat?

[ramAnag]

So what you are saying is you'd accept a 0-2 defeat, but if it went 1-1 you expect leavers to accept that as a defeat with good grace? Given that remainers have by and large not accepted 0-1 as a defeat, how likely do you think it would be that leavers accept 1-1 as a defeat?

Arguably it’s 1-1 at the moment, but what I’m really saying is...I do believe the electorate to be better informed now, I don’t believe that campaigners will be able to make the same outrageous and unfounded claims as they did in 2016 and I do think there will be far less complacency on the part of those favouring Remain than was the case three years ago.

As we agree...it’s not ideal and it is a risk but something has to end the stalemate and I doubt very much that Bodger’s plan is the way forward.

[AngryRam]

Lol...more side splitting humour from the Angry one. ‘Why do I’...’I don’t want’...blah, blah...you’re all noise and bluster AR.
It’s not all about you, chap...but considering I’m the ‘gift that keeps on giving’ it’s funny how you’ve never got an answer and, as I suspect you well know, my question was...what’s your alternative solution to a second referendum as a way through this impasse so your response of ‘I don’t want a second referendum’ is hardly relevant is it?

You asked me a question which I answered. Not my problem that you are too thick to understand the response.
In fact you’ve never understood anyone’s answer on here.
What would make you happy? Would you be happy that I said I wanted a second referendum when my position has always been we’ve already had a referendum. You and Swaledale are really moving into dumb and dumber territory.

[ramAnag]

So what you are saying is you'd accept a 0-2 defeat, but if it went 1-1 you expect leavers to accept that as a defeat with good grace? Given that remainers have by and large not accepted 0-1 as a defeat, how likely do you think it would be that leavers accept 1-1 as a defeat?

Arguably it’s 1-1 at the moment, but what I’m really saying is...I do believe the electorate to be better informed now, I don’t believe that campaigners will be able to make the same outrageous and unfounded claims as they did in 2016 and I do think there will be far less complacency on the part of those favouring Remain than was the case three years ago.

As we agree...it’s not ideal and it is a risk but something has to end the stalemate and I doubt very much that Bodger’s plan is the way forward.

[Trickytreesreds]

Arguably it’s 1-1 at the moment, but what I’m really saying is...I do believe the electorate to be better informed now, I don’t believe that campaigners will be able to make the same outrageous and unfounded claims as they did in 2016 and I do think there will be far less complacency on the part of those favouring Remain than was the case three years ago.

As we agree...it’s not ideal and it is a risk but something has to end the stalemate and I doubt very much that Bodger’s plan is the way forward.

No, it's not 1-1. Not when someone like May, a remainer. Has allowed this country to be bullied and all the facts twisted.
Had she negotiated like Johnson 3 years ago. The chamce to manouver who have been there.
The EU give nothing, or did you not learn that with the pathetic attempts Cameron came back with for appeasement?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...7ud8tOWyOnpfKE

[ramAnag]

No, it's not 1-1. Not when someone like May, a remainer. Has allowed this country to be bullied and all the facts twisted.
Had she negotiated like Johnson 3 years ago. The chamce to manouver who have been there.
The EU give nothing, or did you not learn that with the pathetic attempts Cameron came back with for appeasement?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...7ud8tOWyOnpfKE

I actually meant 1975 and 2016.

[Trickytreesreds]

I actually meant 1975 and 2016.

Arhhhhhhh the 1975 vote, 1-0? No I don't think.

Perhaps we should have had another vote?

“How does the current EU setup differ from what was put before the electorate in the 1970s referendum? I have heard that it was touted as simply a trade agreement.”

Full Fact readers

In 1975 the UK held a referendum on continued membership of the European Community.

This wasn’t presented just as a trade agreement. Other issues discussed at the time related to security, European funding for UK industries and regions, and aid to developing countries.

That’s not to say that anyone in 1975 knew what the EU would be like in 2016, or how much it would change in the following years.

The European Community was presented as more than a trade agreement

During the 1975 campaign, membership of the European Community was presented by both the government and the Conservative opposition as relevant to peace, security, and both regional and international development, as well as to trade and economic cooperation.

In 1975 the government set out the aims of the European Community as bringing “together the peoples of Europe”, raising living standards and improving working conditions, promoting growth and boosting world trade. They also set out that the EC would “help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world” and “help maintain peace and freedom”.

In their October 1974 manifesto, the Conservative party outlined the two key ideas behind the EEC as being to maintain security within Europe and to allow European influence in the world, and control over its own affairs, to grow in a world of polarised superpowers.

The “Yes” and “No” campaigns talked about other issues too

The “Yes” campaign of 1975 also presented the debate as being about a range of issues, from jobs security to world peace and the Commonwealth.

One “Yes” campaign claim which with the benefit of hindsight we can say was not true, was that English common law would not be affected by staying in the European Community. We now know that EU law has a significant effect on UK law.

Meanwhile the official “No” campaign warned of the risk to sovereignty, jobs and food prices. They also raised the issue of lesser trade with the Commonwealth if the UK voted to stay in the European Community and told voters that it would be best for peace, stability and independence if they voted to leave.

Immigration was not mentioned by either campaign in their official leaflets.

You've got to laugh