There's no mandate for a no deal Brexit

[Cinammoncake]

It seems to me (as a remainer) that leavers didn't give their vote to a no deal Brexit. Even if say half of them might want that now, there's no mandate now to go ahead and do something so damaging to the country as this. I don't remember this outcome seeming likely around the time of the referendum, so I think people just didn't vote for that.

As an aside, just watched the nick robinson programme on Brexit on BBC 1, and was very much struck with how much more sophisticated and intelligent were the EU representatives than the Brexiteer British politicians. I was sincerely embarrassed for Raab and Davis. How desperately naive they seemed. They must have taken an absolute pasting in that job. God.

When the referendum happened, a majority of the nation voted to "Leave". They were not asked to specify under what conditions, because Referendums do not work that way. The nation expected Parliament to sort it out. Unfortunately that has proved a great deal more difficult than expected.
To later say that that the nation did not vote for a specific kind of "Leave", and therefore their opinions do not count, is an undemocratic trick, and not worthy of decent people.

To later say that that the nation did not vote for a specific kind of "Leave", and therefore their opinions do not count, is an undemocratic trick, and not worthy of decent people.

Except nobody has said that.
I think their opinions do count and would like their opinion, along with everyone elses, as to whether they consider leaving with no deal preferable to remaining. This was not what was set out before people at the time of the referendum and an attempt to claim otherwise was disingenuous. We were all there after all!

It seems the majority of Leave voters do want no deal

where are the stats for this?

That wasn't what was being said in 2016. Anyone can look up broadcasts from that time and see what was being said. People can remember what was being said. We're not stupid.

And yet the Nation was asked "Leave" or "Stay". They gave their answer, undesirable as it may be to some.
It is "disingenuous" to refer the question back to the Nation, as if we did not understand what we were being asked-as if we are fools or something.
Parliament must work out what they want to do-before or after an election. That is what MPS were told to do.
We must wait and see what happens. That is democracy.

I disagree onlyaman
The choice wasn't leave at any cost It was sold as something quite different.

It's like saying do you want breakfast it'll probably be a fry up, then going no it's cold porridge I've pissed on but you said yes to breakfast so there you go, you must have it because you said yes.

I am sure that Cinammoncake does not really believe what she has written. I'm sure she really thinks the Referendum decision was unwise, and perhaps disastrous. But that is not a reason for overturning Democracy.
That kind of argument can be used against anything that anyone disagrees with, and has a very dark future if allowed.

The majority of the people that were eligible to vote did and did so, voted to leave. You cannot assume that those that were eligible to vote but did not do so would have voted to remain.

Also for those that say, but it was by only a small majority, a majority is a majority.

As we have seen in recent votes in parliament, legislation that affects us all for years to come can be passed by just one vote. I don't hear the howls of objections over that.

Also if we have a representative democracy, why are a lot of MPs disregarding the majority decision of their constituents and voting according to their own personal viewpoints when it comes to Brexit?

At the end of the day each side of the Brexit argument thinks they are right and will not be persuaded.

What I would like to see though is debate that does not resort to demonizing and name calling of others with a different opinion.

Those who voted for Brexit had no idea how it would be achieved, nothing was said about the mechanism of leaving so one could say that there was also no mandate for a negotiated settlement either. In reality they voted to step off the cliff amd hope someone would catch them!

"Overturning democracy" , its difficult to take points like this seriously because democracy is an ongoing process. Leavers seem to be upset with how our sovereign parliament has operated in its democratic role too.

In our democracy the referendum was advisory, it doesn't need to be implemented, no matter who said what before hand.

I am sure that Cinammoncake does not really believe what she has written. I'm sure she really thinks the Referendum decision was unwise, and perhaps disastrous. But that is not a reason for overturning Democracy.

Nothing undemocratic about a confirmatory referendum.

Do I think the referendum decision was unwise? Yes.

Do I believe what I have written? Yes. There's no mandate for a no deal Brexit.

Those who voted for Brexit had no idea how it would be achieved, nothing was said about the mechanism of leaving

It was sold to people as leaving with a deal effectively - No damage to trade with the EU, negotiated settlement and so on. Norway style, etc.That's not to mention all the other lies, side of the bus etc. It was absolutely not sold as a no deal and all the economic consequences we are now seeing will occur.

Conimuityerror The neutral countries, by which you presumably mean Sweden, Austria and RoI will be contributing by paying into a ring fenced fund used for medical funding.

PESCO is the first step to European Forces. If it were like NATO, where the EU Member State is loaning the personnel to the EU, then fine. I think however, PESCO is about somehow standing up Forces paid for and loyal to the EU direct, whether that is by direct recruitment, or gradually easing control of a national military under the aegis of the EEAS.

Thebigball Given that, how can you mess with the status quo What status quo is that then? There is no staus quo with the EU. A new Commission headed by an avowed federalist with a dodgy political lawyer heading up the ECB doesn't smack of the status quo to me, but to the EU being driven towards ever closer union. I don't want that.

How many "confirmatory referenda" might there be, then? Until the Remainers get the right answer, from their point of view? I suspect there might be no further "confirmatory referenda" after that.
I believe the Nation and Parliament must deal with what they were given, despite the fact that Parliament is making a complete hash of it.
New election? Maybe.

Thebigball and was very much struck with how much more sophisticated and intelligent were the EU representatives than the Brexiteer British politicians. That's because the EU reps have been navigating the corridors at Berlaymont for some time and find it hard to speak in any kind of plain English. If you unpick what they say, or challenge it, then they tend to bluster and sod off. As you can tell, I have great fun at parties here in Brussels by skewering some of their arguments.

It's also a different mindset in that in the UK we can do anything we want as long as it isn't specifically prohibited. On much of the continent, you can only do that which is specifically allowed. It's a subtle difference, but it's there.

I've not read the whole thread so apologies if I am covering points already made.

Please stop saying it was only an advisory referendum. Just because to some the "wrong decision" was made does not mean it should be ignored citing 'it was only advisory anyway'.

The government spent £9m sending leaflets to every household telling everyone that whatever the result, it would be implemented. That doesn't sound like 'advisory to me.

As for a 'people's vote' with the question being do you want to accept the deal on the table, no deal or remain, contrary to popular opinion leave voters are not stupid.

The deal that most of parliament and most of the public hate? Not many votes going there.

Leave without a deal, when most of parliament, some leavers and all remainers hate? Not a chance of getting a majority.

So remainers are then pleased that the leave vote will be split which then makes a remain win a foregone conclusion.

No. If there is to be a second referendum, the only fair thing to do is repeat the same question as in 2016. Then this time accept the result what ever it is.

To open a new argument about "Brexit"-does anyone (and I mean both Remainers and Leavers) consider how the EU would deal with the UK, if we, as a nation, decided not to leave?
I think it is fairly obvious by now what the European negotiators (and probably Europe as a whole) really think of the UK. They have treated us with hostility and contempt during their negotiations with us. Never mind whose fault that might be-the mask has slipped, and we now know what Europe thinks of the UK.
If the UK "Remained", just consider what would be said by the EU when the next European decision (disadvantageous to the UK) was considered or made?
The EU position would be something like this-
"What are you going to do about it then? LEAVE? You had that chance and you chickened out!"
In the position we are all in now (and never mind whose fault it is), remaining in the EU is just not possible.

PESCO is the first step to European Forces. If it were like NATO, where the EU Member State is loaning the personnel to the EU, then fine. I think however, PESCO is about somehow standing up Forces paid for and loyal to the EU direct, whether that is by direct recruitment, or gradually easing control of a national military under the aegis of the EEAS

The EU can’t recruit its own forces unless all member states agree unanimously and then ratify according to constitutional requirements - that’s quite clear in Article 42.

Taking part in PESCO is voluntary - any member state can join and any member state can chose to leave at any time. The PESCO protocol requires participants to be able to supply combat groups at short notice - this is not creating some kind of force paid for and loyal to the EU.

ContinuityError

My reply to MrPan is about the veto and voting not about the defence force.

You have just quoted me and the defence force is not there.

You are trying to put words in my mouth.

There's a mandate to leave, I want us out ASAP no deal preferred.

I can't wait for all the No Dealers to come on here and whine when the economic reality of No Deal kicks in if we do it.
I hope they don't name change and are brave enough to say "I wanted No Deal" before the sob story starts.
To be clear, I don't equate all Leave voters with No Dealers.

They were speaking in perfectly plain English, scaryteacher. They were just saying more intelligent things. And clearly, very experienced negotiators.
David lidington came over well; an intelligent realist. Something of a pattern emerged, hmmm, can’t quite put my finger on it ...

The belief in Brexit is underpinned by colossal naivety. Only exception is Boris Johnson, who backed it for his own cynical reasons not expecting it to happen. Now he will have to ride the tiger and I hope he enjoys the experience. I will not enjoy anything about his prime ministership other than watching him suffer. For the short period in which he succeeds in holding the office.
And then what?

@Poloshot can you tell us why you want that?

You are trying to put words in my mouth.

Not all - you replied directly to a quote from a previous poster:

European army? Again, veto exists for any sich pan-european measure.

Your reply:

The use of the veto is not only being restricted but essentially phased out.

If you didn’t intend to imply that the veto will be removed from the EU army then why make your comments about removal of vetos in a direct response to a PP’s comment (that you yourself quoted) that the veto exists for the EU army?

You don’t have to mention “defence force” in your reply for it to infer that the veto would be removed from the EU army.

You’re tying yourself up in knots.