O/T:- Is Brexit a dead duck?

[jacobncfc]

Depends how you look at it.

If you "allow" people to vote on whether they want change or not, and they vote for change, then surely that vindicates the decision. Not allowing people to express their desire for change would be the undemocratic position.

Of course, we all know Cameron promised a referendum simply to win back UKIP supporters for the Conservatives at the General Election, arrogantly assuming that winning a Remain vote would still be a walk in the park. That was the ludicrous calculation!

I don't think that the referendum was necessary and it's turned our relationship with Europe from an issue that a relatively small number of people were very passionate about into a national crisis, but I don't really have an issue with Cameron giving people the opportunity to vote on something. That's what we do in democracies.

For me, the blame lies explicitly with the Eurosceptics in UKIP and the Conservative party who campaigned on the basis that a pragmatic, sensible agreement could be put together easily and we could extracate ourselves politically from the EU while retaining all of the economic benefits. Since the result it's become clear that the only outcome they are willing to accept is a no deal scenario - that in itself isn't a problem - I may disagree with that but it's a fair position to take. They should, however, have had the *******s to campaign for it, and should now have the *******s to push for a referendum where they can campaign for it.

[mark45]

I don't think that the referendum was necessary and it's turned our relationship with Europe from an issue that a relatively small number of people were very passionate about into a national crisis, but I don't really have an issue with Cameron giving people the opportunity to vote on something. That's what we do in democracies.

For me, the blame lies explicitly with the Eurosceptics in UKIP and the Conservative party who campaigned on the basis that a pragmatic, sensible agreement could be put together easily and we could extracate ourselves politically from the EU while retaining all of the economic benefits. Since the result it's become clear that the only outcome they are willing to accept is a no deal scenario - that in itself isn't a problem - I may disagree with that but it's a fair position to take. They should, however, have had the *******s to campaign for it, and should now have the *******s to push for a referendum where they can campaign for it.

Jacob as a Brexiteer myself i'm quite happy to have a 2nd ref and agree they should campaign on that basis. The problem is if you listen to those asking for a 2nd ref they won't allow no deal to be on the ballot paper. We can all agree in the last vote Remain lost so why should that be anywhere near another ref.

[jacobncfc]

Jacob as a Brexiteer myself i'm quite happy to have a 2nd ref and agree they should campaign on that basis. The problem is if you listen to those asking for a 2nd ref they won't allow no deal to be on the ballot paper. We can all agree in the last vote Remain lost so why should that be anywhere near another ref.

Because people might want to vote for it. Democracy, innit.

It would, from my point of view at least, be a huge risk - but I could just about countenance a no deal vs. remain referendum.

[i961pie]

So when you cast your vote on 23rd June 2016, what were your views on the backstop?

I didn't have any views on the backstop I left those things to the experts. But I do know that any problem can be solved if both sides want it. The EU don't want it but there are brains and experts out there who know far more than you and I who say it can be solved. They have had 3 years to prepare for this but the politicians never wanted brexit to happen.
We can go on all night like this but I won't change your opinion and you mine. Goodnight.

[jackal2]

I realise that, what I'm saying is parliament won't allow no deal to happen by default because the overwhelming view is that it's a breathtakingly stupid idea. It will eventually come down to a choice between May's deal, revoking, or a long extension.

A long extension is the one option I didn't mention above and is certainly still possible (maybe even most likely), but don't underestimate the stubbornness of MPs and their fear of how the electorate will react if we face another round of European elections three years after voting to leave.

I don't understand those who think that "the fiasco" will just end if Brexit is cancelled. The fiasco would only just be beginning. The multiple and complex factors which have been building for 20-30 years that led to the Leave vote in 2016 are not receding, they're growing. If 17 million-plus people think that their opinion has just been swept aside by the political establishment (to which their Leave vote was in itself very much a statement) then the tensions will only grow.

[mark45]

Because people might want to vote for it. Democracy, innit.

It would, from my point of view at least, be a huge risk - but I could just about countenance a no deal vs. remain referendum.

The only way this gets sorted is via another vote but the arguments will be about what's on the ballot paper so for me it has to be a long extension for another general election. Pray we don't get another hung parliament.

[SwalePie]

A long extension is the one option I didn't mention above and is certainly still possible (maybe even most likely), but don't underestimate the stubbornness of MPs and their fear of how the electorate will react if we face another round of European elections three years after voting to leave.

I don't understand those who think that "the fiasco" will just end if Brexit is cancelled. The fiasco would only just be beginning. The multiple and complex factors which have been building for 20-30 years that led to the Leave vote in 2016 are not receding, they're growing. If 17 million-plus people think that their opinion has just been swept aside by the political establishment (to which their Leave vote was in itself very much a statement) then the tensions will only grow.

I'd wager the 17m would be more like 14m second time around though

[legs77]

I'd wager the 17m would be more like 14m second time around though

Of course it would as the result will be fudged in favour of remain that is very obvious and has been for a very long time now.

[BigFatPie]

A long extension is the one option I didn't mention above and is certainly still possible (maybe even most likely), but don't underestimate the stubbornness of MPs and their fear of how the electorate will react if we face another round of European elections three years after voting to leave.

I don't understand those who think that "the fiasco" will just end if Brexit is cancelled. The fiasco would only just be beginning. The multiple and complex factors which have been building for 20-30 years that led to the Leave vote in 2016 are not receding, they're growing. If 17 million-plus people think that their opinion has just been swept aside by the political establishment (to which their Leave vote was in itself very much a statement) then the tensions will only grow.

Well, an end to 9 years of austerity would help. I know those on the right don’t like that, and are quite happy for the EU and anything else they can think of to take the blame for people’s problems, but “tensions” may well subside when communities, schools, police forces, and social services are adequately funded at long last. We’ll only be able to afford that by scrapping Brexit.

[jacobncfc]

The only way this gets sorted is via another vote but the arguments will be about what's on the ballot paper so for me it has to be a long extension for another general election. Pray we don't get another hung parliament.

I'm not sure another election would help - I can't see either of the major parties being willing to go into an election with either no deal or revoking article fifty without a public vote as their policy.