To wish Theresa May would just say sod it we're staying in the EU because ...

[Topanga1]

It's her job to act in the best interest of our country.

We NEED access to the single market and won't get that without free movement of people.

The peace process in N Ireland will be in jeopardy if we erect a border between them and Ireland. It's too high a price to pay.

The referendum was advisory so PM May and the majority of MPs who were pro-remain need to say 'thanks for the advice but we can't deliver what you wanted without wrecking our country so we're staying'

So, WrongTrouser, what are you hoping for after we leave?

But why WrongTrouser ? What reasons? What are they hoping for?
ThickandThin our economy will always be tied to that of the EU though - surely that's clear? In terms of economic disaster I'd say that a) the EU has more chance of withstanding economic forces than a single country and b) they'll take us down anyway, so we would be better off inside with some sort of protection.

Those of you who are saying we shouldn't have had a referendum, why? A referendum is the best form of direct democracy; something which we should all cherish and protect.

If TM procrastinates too long, UKIP will gain more support and could win the next GE.

I voted leave. If the Remain vote had won, i would have accepted the outcome. That's how democracy works.

Yes I can see the rise and rise of UKIP too.

Direct democracy is a terrible idea. Why would you put important economic and political decisions in the hands of people who don't have the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision? Especially in a country such as the UK where millions of people are manipulated on a daily basis by the tabloid media.

And at the idea that UKIP will ever win a general election.

Winky, it definitely will if TM doesn't trigger article 50.

And of course, all those who voted in the 1970s referendum - EEC, with free movement of people/goods/service but none of the other bollocks - are cool with the idea of a single market offering exactly that.

Premise of OP is way too simplistic, and ignores history.

Democracy involves discussion and protest. We don't have to just accept any decision, whether made by referendum or parliament. We don't have direct democracy here, it's unworkable. We delegate it to our representatives. No referendum in our system is binding - it's a glorified opinion poll. It's also worth remembering that way, way less than 50% of the population voted to leave. Many didn't vote at all, and, while I don't necessarily think you can count all non-voters as Remainers, I think people who felt really strongly that there should be a change in the he status quo (i.e. wanted out) would have voted.

YABU to post outside the topic

Cardi, I just don't agree. Sorry. I think there will be a global recession, that the Eu will implode. And that Britain is better off independently,

Why we shouldn't have had a referendum?

because we didn't know what we were voting for. It isn't as simple as leave or stay.

For example, we could leave the Eu, remain in the common market and retain the fundamental freedoms of the EU - movement of goods, capital, people, services.

I doubt many leavers would be happy with that outcome, but we'd have still left.

Also....give the public the choice and they'll try to name a billion pound arctic explorer ship Boaty McBoatface.

Loveintokyo, so are you saying it's preferable to let a huge decision be made by a group of elite politicians who are in the pockets of the bankers? I prefer direct democracy thanks.

IAmNotTheMessiah

Well said and without doubt very true! I wouldn't be surprised if Boris doesn't employ someone charged specifically with the task of get his trousers in position ready for morning duties! Fucking idiot!

I think it's reasonable to discuss this here. If not then I presume that every single bastard Christmas thread will be instantly moved to it's own tragic little topic?

The most important thing in all of this is that the referendum was advisory. The result did not immediately become law and the government has every right to proceed in the best interests of the country - not in the best interests of Gove and Farage. If the public calls for a General Election in the face of this then so be it. Labour is unelectable and the fool Corbyn couldn't even formulate a position pre-Referendum so what hope when it's the basis of an election.

I've thought that,I'm just waiting for her to announce it...she was remain anyway...made no sense Cameron leaving coz he was remain,to replace with someone else who was remain.bizarre

Last time I checked thats not how democracy works. However Id like her to say we are staying in the EU. I was a very silly Leave voter. If I could vote again I would vote Remain. I believed the lies, didnt think about our sister nation Scotland, and got swept up in the hate (plenty around me)

"If TM procrastinates too long, UKIP will gain more support and could win the next GE2

And then piggies might fly.

UKIP are busy imploding. They're dead in the water. They've had their 15 minutes. They won't win a single seat next time round, and I can see Carswell returning to the Tory fold.

TM is playing a clever game. Take the heat out of the discussion, play a long game and then quietly and calmly when she has better cards to play say its not happening.

Democracy ISN'T about standing by and watching your country and your children's futures being irrevocably damaged.

I wouldn't bet on a Brexit party winning a general election; people are starting to realise what a catastrophe it could be and hopefully would vote differently this time.

Anna, I do share your concern about politics being dominated by the elites who have a very narrow view of life and don't understand the concerns of ordinary people. I am also concerned about how political parties are funded and how politicians listen to "big business" / wealthy donors rather than the electorate. Just look at the "cash for access" scandal.

These are all things that need to be addressed.

But direct democracy? No thanks.

The economic consequences of leaving the EU are too complex to be properly understood by the average voter. I firmly believe that decisions such as these should be made by people who have at least a reasonable grasp of the issues.

Of course, economists don't get things right all the time, but when you have such a strong consensus from pretty much all credible economists and institutions that leaving the EU will harm the economy, and the only thing they disagree on is how much harm it will do and how long it will last, it doesn't take a genius to understand that leaving the EU might just be a bad decision from an economic point of view. And yet people voted for it anyway.

Ironically, I think we probably have those powerful elites to thank for Brexit. The Leave campaign was largely bankrolled by multimillionaire Arron Banks. All the owners of the tabloid media (particularly Rupert Murdoch) are pro-Brexit, so their readership was fed a steady diet of pro-Brexit propaganda.

Representative democracy isn't perfect, but it does offer us some degree of protection, and it makes sure that important decisions like this are debated and properly scrutinised.

Direct democracy is all very well, provided you're not deciding on anything more important than who wins X-Factor.

I think we'll end up in a leave focused middle ground in which we do leave but also keep freedom of movement in exchange for access to the single market (both of which are very good things IMO). That way TM won't be dubbed undemocratic as the vote gave 2 very high level options and she will have followed the path the very slim majority chose.

Gruffalo I agree that would be the best we can hope for now. So - we still follow EU rules, we still have immigration/free movement (I'm not opposed to these things, by the way) but now have no influence. What a colossal waste of time and money.
Oh, and we still might not keep our free trade status with regards to banking, so our economy still tanks.

Who/what is that biscuit about Bengal? It's not very helpful without context...

cardibach - that's about the size of it.

The problem is that following the leave vote, the UK's and the EU's interests are no longer aligned.

I honestly don't think there's any malice in it, but to protect the EU's future, they have to make sure that the UK is demonstrably worse off out than in. If we go for a hard Brexit, with no access to the single market, our economy will undoubtedly take a severe hit, and that will speak for itself. If we are going for more of a soft Brexit, it will really be up to the other Member States to decide what they're prepared to concede and what they aren't. So I expect it will be some sort of deal which preserves the main part of market access (as that will benefit both us and them) but which still obviously leaves the UK in a worse position than we would have been in if we'd stayed,

Pour encourager les autres.

hopefully would vote differently this time

I wouldn't count on it. Leave voters were very quiet before the referendum, largely, and most have been very quiet since. They don't make their opinion known, and I think a lot probably pretended to be Remain voters. That's why nobody saw the result going the way it did.

The same is happening now. They are being quiet, which leads everyone to believe that all the support is for Remain and Leave must be weakening. It's not necessarily true at all.

Politically it's interesting; but I do think May will want to be the PM that successfully removes the UK from the EU and "gives the people what they want". I suspect she'll wait until the heat has died down; and then we'll leave slowly. If that goes wrong, she can say she didn't call the referendum and the people chose to leave, so it's not her fault. If she ignored the referendum, it'd be all on her if it went wrong, and the next PM would almost definitely get in on the basis of promising Brexit.

I wonder if the US elections will go the same way.