That Britain should rethink BREXIT

[WallisofWindsor]

David Davis admitting that the impact of Brexit will be equal to the credit crunch should surely make the country revisit the decision.
Why put your country through such a difficult period?

would you be arguing that point if the vote had gone your way? I somehow doubt it
No, because we know what we were voting for - the status quo! I think that there's a very strong case for a 2nd referendum on a final deal in fact it is only fair to ask once we have a better idea rather than tge pie in the sky that the Leave campaign tried to sell us.

Either way - if you only read British press you only get the British spin...

You're assuming that I or the OP only read british press, and considering you tried to rubbish the claim of the rise in Far right parites does make you silly, yes.

Also, not that I should caveat anything, I am a firm remainer considering I work extensively in our European offices, thats where I regularly read German and French press FYI

So you think that signing up to the Maastrict Treaty is evidence of a loss of sovereignity

Perhaps not loss so much as pooled. The central tenet of this seems to depend on whether you feel the concept of a sovereign nation is worthwhile or outdated. During the campaign a correspondent to our local paper wrote to contend that the whole idea of Nation as independent states was stupid and old-fashioned. It was an interesting view, and may prove to be correct, but I don’t agree.

I don't think the people who keep saying sovereignity even know what it means. The UK was never not a self governing state. You cannot reclaim something you never lost.
It's just meaningless soundbiteism.

Yes, I think this whole fiasco should be stopped. I don't see why my kids have to be lumbered with a shit start in life because someone somewhere hated their neighbour.

And what a laughing stock to be "led" by the current bunch of clowns. Like America after Trump, it will take ages to recover from the current mistake. Shambolic.

There's also the imposition of the ECHR ruling against our parliament that stopped us from deporting Abu Hamza for 7 years. I too could go on all day

The ECHR predates the EU by many years, and the British were leading architects of it. For the very valid reason IMO of wanting to offer protection against fascism in Europe.

We voted to join an economic community basically on the grounds of free trade being assured that sovereignty wouldn't be lost ......

If you are talking about the 1975 Referendum we were already in the EEC. If you are talking about Ted Heath taking us in, then yes, those who voted Conservative did vote to be taken in. Whether it was at the forefront of their minds when voting, is debatable. I recall Heath on the steps of 10 Downing Street when he won, saying that he would cut prices, at a stroke. Which he failed to do. I don't remember what he said about the Common Market.

and it wasn't lost, so you should be very happy.

And not just the UK but most EU nations - how many parties are now pursuing policies as part of the mainstream that might once have been considered further right eg bans on burkas or calls for curbing migration etc.
The far right aren't losing to socialists all over Europe. They are losing to parties that promise a "conservative" but increasingly right of centre agenda on issues like migration and the economy etc.

I am hoping you aren't somehow saying that we should modify our beliefs for fear of far right fascism and bigotry. Or vote with an eye to mollifying racial hatred.

@RubMyRhubarb

Nobody is claiming that 52% is a landslide victory, but it is nonetheless a win for leave. What somehow magical number would you need to see before you'd drop the "but it was close" thing? 53%? 54%? 99%?

I'd suggest looking up the term Super Majority. A referendum of such importance should have required one. 48/52 isn't even within a margin of error. You don't base a life changing decision (and tank the £) on that kind of margin.

So yeah the EU isn't perfect but anybody in power with an ounce of sense should consider halting Brexit. For the good of the people - what they're paid to do. Not blindly stumble on because "lol the peeps voted for it, init"

The question for me which is always ducked when they talk about there being a majority, is how small would it have had to have been? If it had been won by one vote, would they still have gone ahead?

I think what Brexit shows is the immense and dangerous power of the human capacity for story-telling. 'Brexit' as an idea is an appeal to strong emotions - to the idea of 'sovereignty' - there is nothing wrong with that, but it appeals to a historical period that never existed.

Britain has never been an effective 'sovereign' nation, standing alone. Before 1950, we stood at the centre of a world trading empire, built on our historic maritime power.

Then after the mid-1950s, we became part of a group of countries known as the EU that later changed and expanded over time.

However in the last 500 years, we have never been a 'sovereign' state that simply stands on our own when trading with other nations.

So our future, after brexit, will unfold in what are effectively historically unchartered waters, at a time of huge global change. For the first time in our history we will have nobody to fall back on but ourselves.

'Sovereignty' is simply a collective idea. It only has meaning for a group of people - a 'nation' - if they also have the economic power to make meaningful decisions about their future. Otherwise it's just a 'dog whistle' term to encourage people to make emotional decisions based on an imagined past.

More worryingly still, we are only the 5th (or perhaps now 6th?) largest economy because we have strength in services i.e. People. This means that our GDP relies more than most on nothing more than our global reputation and our credibility. Unfortunately, there is no law that says these things can survive intact however we behave.

The question for me which is always ducked when they talk about there being a majority, is how small would it have had to have been? If it had been won by one vote, would they still have gone ahead?

Presumably, yes on the way the referendum was set up. Not sure why it matters now?

More worryingly still, we are only the 5th (or perhaps now 6th?) largest economy

Sixth. France just passed us:

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-overtaken-by-france-in-list-of-worlds-largest-economies-a3699556.html

The question for me which is always ducked when they talk about there being a majority, is how small would it have had to have been? If it had been won by one vote, would they still have gone ahead?

This does make me chuckle because I do hear and read posts from people that voted to Remain complaining that they don't get a say in how we leave, what sort of Brexit we are going to have etc as if all those that voted to Leave had been invited to 10 Downing Street to discuss exit strategies

I presume you are not asking questions to politicians so maybe it's less ducking and more of a case of how the bloody hell do I know!?

Do people really want a one world government, because that's the plan you know.

Do people really want a one world government, because that's the plan you know

Is it really? Could you tell us a little bit more about that please?

Masons.

There's more to that shit than bricklaying. Let me tell you.

Do people really want a one world government, because that's the plan you know.
Well, I don't have any particular objection to that. What would be intrinsically wrong with it?

If there is a second, non advisory and totally binding referendum, what happens if the leave vote once again wins? Will remainers accept the outcome? If not, what would you like to happen if a future referendum doesn't produce a remain result?