To wonder if there are any Leavers who would prefer no Brexit to no deal?

[Bearbehind]

I honestly don’t see where the opportunity to compromise and find a deal can come from now - Johnson has raised the rhetoric too much, so it looks like no deal or no Brexit.

Reading posts from Remainers lately (and I’m a Remainer but don’t really understand this), there’s still an insistence that Leavers don’t all want no deal.

Whilst I agree it wouldn’t have been most people’s first choice, I don’t see any evidence that they’d prefer to avoid it, even if that mean no Brexit

So would any Leavers prefer not leaving to No Deal?

My point was that you cannot dismiss "economic forecasts such as the CBIs", just because they cannot be proven

But you did put this alongside the theory of evolution, did you not?

Again, risk assessment and preparation

Exactly, that's my point. I have not forecasted a single thing in this thread.

But you did put this alongside the theory of evolution, did you not?

Yes, and the same argument holds. You cannot dismiss the theory of evolution, just because it cannot be proven.

Yes, and the same argument holds. You cannot dismiss the theory of evolution, just because it cannot be proven.

Do you accept that there are differing standards of proof in social vs natural sciences?

To be honest, I accept that there are different standards of evidence across different sciences.

Do try and keep up Do try and remain civilised!

You did compare economic forecasts with the theory of evolution!

And in science evidence for or against a theory are called 'proofs' when they are part of a reasoned debate, a well written submission of new data or synthesis of old data!

So why would you compare people who reject the CBI's economic forecasts (amongst others) to people who reject evolution? Can you not see that this is a hollow argument?

I'm labouring this point because it seems to be at the heart of every single remainer's arsenal of sneery insults, and I struggle to understand that anyone who is trying to occupy the intellectual high-ground would make such a stupid comparison.

Especially when I didn't reject anything!

And, back to work I go.

I'm labouring this point because it seems to be at the heart of every single remainer's arsenal of sneery insults, and I struggle to understand that anyone who is trying to occupy the intellectual high-ground would make such a stupid comparison.

Because the tactic is the same, whether you like it or not. The unrelenting demand for "proof" is a dishonest debating technique that sets an unreasonably high standard, whether we are taking of Brexit or Evolution. If we feel uncomfortable with the theory of evolution, we can try the theory of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

We both agree that we cannot "prove" that Brexit will be bad in the future for the economy and we can provide evidence - analysis by the Government, the IMF, other economists, etc. These have all been presented as evidence on many occasions. However, the demand that comes back is to ask for the "proof", knowing full well that it doesn't exist.

Especially when I didn't reject anything!

LOL

OnlyFoolsnMothers I'm interested to know why you think the result would be the same? We are several years down the line...I can't see anyone who voted remain changing their mind to become a leave voter, but I know a lot of leavers who have changed their mind. Add to that three years worth of OAPs (higher percentage of whom were leave voters) having shuffled off this mortal coil, and three year's worth of teenagers tipping over into voting age, and I think the result would be different.

Atmos Step back a little bit. I was asking you to show me how you came to your conclusions. Why you are so sure, when certainty is simply not possible.

LOL OK! You got me there, that just slayed me!

yearin the YouGov polls do suggest that might be the case.

And, anecdotally, I do know a couple of Remainers who have changed their mind! But that doesn't signify anything!

i know leavers who would leave without a deal, Leavers who hope there still can be a deal, remainers who now would vote to leave and one leaver who is thinking she might vote differently if she could do it all again. And no, these people are not bigots,racists, uneducated people either before anyone asks.

I'm of the view that a second referedum would solve this.

The Leave campaign and EU Referendum Act said we'd seek to negotiate a deal when we left, and various different models of what the UK's relationship would be with the EU were discussed. No Deal was also contemplated as a possibility by the Act (if not the Leave campaign).
%

Parliament has at times had a majority that would support some kind of Brexit but MPs couldn't agree on the specifics.

If, in a second referedum, an actual concrete Leave plan was put to the public, and it won, then it ought to negate the need for politicians to agree a plan between them.

I think Leave would probably win (I voted Remain) but at least it'd be done.

Putting it back to the people would also, you'd hope, bring an end to the attacks on democracy that Johnson has been committing in Parliament which, long term, may be more dangerous than No Deal.

I want a civil war over it. Well, we had had one before and it didn't do us any harm.

The old Blighty spirit will resurface as we eat rats and blow up our neighbours' houses and betray family and friends.

And the leavers will win, being a group composed of more of the thuggish element, and then 60 years later, after they finally accept that leaving has resulted in misery (and oh how I hope it is they who are the most miserable) the leavers will cringingly beg to return to Europe.

If, in a second referedum, an actual concrete Leave plan was put to the public, and it won, then it ought to negate the need for politicians to agree a plan between them. That sounds good but, in reality, as politicians cannot say what deals will be gained with other countries etc, as they can't, in law, begin to negotiate them untol we leave the EU, it isn't possible to supply the kind of detail that would allow most people to change their minds. It will all be best guesses, conjecture, lies... again!

And at the moment parliament also cannot agree on what questions to ask shoudl there be a second referendum... and will be less able after tonight, presumably!

It has all gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past that as a solution!

Not trying to change people's minds but it would be nice if people grew the fuck up and looked at compromise solutions.

Growing up would actually involve acknowledging that the time for compromise has passed and the reality now is living with that fact and it’s consequences.

I'm not there yet, Bear. I'll let you know when I am.

The sad thing is bellini, you even acknowledge that you will have to be ‘there’ eventually.

It really should never have come to this but, as this thread and every other one on the subject shows, there’s no room or mechanism for compromise anymore.

It really should never have come to this but, as this thread and every other one on the subject shows, there’s no room or mechanism for compromise anymore I haven't found any post on any forum that isn't doing as parliament is... still refusing to acknowledge that this is the bald truth!

I will not give up hope that GFA can be protected. I'm half Irish. I have a vested interest in protecting the fragile peace and growth of prosperity in NI.
I regularly think "Fuck No Dealers. I hope they fucking suffer for what they are trying to inflict on this country ". But I have to believe GFA can still be saved.
I care about that more than I care about my Remain vote. I can live with an orderly Brexit and won't try to stop it. But I cannot in good conscience give up on GFA. It means too much.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Step back a little bit. I was asking you to show me how you came to your conclusions. Why you are so sure, when certainty is simply not possible

I've never said I am sure that certain events will happen, but I can provide some evidence why I think no-deal will likely have negative effects.

First of all, from a logical perspective, it seems almost irrefutable that if we not longer have agreements with our biggest trading partners on 1 November, this will cause disruption to existing trade, meaning we will have problems with food, medicine, even solid waste management. This seems like common sense.

These risks are backed up by Operation Yellow Hammer, which identifies these as risks.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/18/no-deal-brexit-key-points-of-operation-yellowhammer-report

Then we have other predictions of economic damage to the economy as reported by the FT being made by KPMG.

www.ft.com/content/f60905a0-d0c1-11e9-b018-ca4456540ea6

This is supported by other studies and reports

ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Cost-of-No-Deal-Revisted.pdf

www.cbi.org.uk/articles/no-deal-brexit-is-a-tripwire-into-economic-chaos/

www.theguardian.com/business/2018/nov/28/bank-of-england-says-no-deal-brexit-would-be-worse-than-2008-crisis

I could go on, and I'm aware of any studies that show that no-deal will have positive effects. I fully admit there is uncertainty, and I fully admit that I'm relying on the expertise of experts, but as a non-economist, that seems the sensible thing to do.

Lastly, this tallies with my knowledge of the world. I've visited Rotterdam Harbour and Dover, and seen how much traffic there is between them. I know that many of my products such as food comes from outside the UK. I've seen how complex an operation it is to run Heathrow airport, and I can imagine the knock-on effect of disruption.

Based on all the above, I have sufficient evidence that a no-deal Brexit would be damaging to the UK, and I've not see a rebuttal or any evidence that it wouldn't.

EDIT: I'm not aware of any studies that show that a no-deal Brexit having positive effects.