People’s Vote Delusion

[PersonaNonGarter]

It isn’t going to happen. For the following reasons:

1. May Government won’t vote for a second referendum
2. No new post-May Tory Government will vote for a second referendum
3. Jeremy Corbyn and those in the Labour Party front benches won’t vote for a second referendum
4. There is no agreement about what the referendum would ask.
5. There is no plausible timetable for a referendum.

Why would Corbyn want a second referendum? He is a Leaver wanting to win in Leave seats. And he wants to implement his domestic agenda, not waste any further time on Brexit votes. The current situation SUITS him.

So what you are saying is you did understand the basics- which was all I was saying was required. Bloody hell I don't know what to say to that.
bearbehind I think you would start a row in an empty hoose

Free ones: www.bolloxtobrexit.net/free-stickers-1

Not free ones: www.euflagmafia.com/100_Bollocks_To_Brexit_Stickers_Or_Choose_200_Or_1000/p5046194_17931967.aspx

dexra your posts are baffling me now.

You initially said you didn't research your vote when that wasn't true - as you went on to say you didn't need to research as you had a grasp of the subject.

I was only ever talking about people who literally had no clue what the referendum was about.

How is that starting a row?

It's just having a discussion?

@Hesta54

Why do all remainers take it that the people who couldn’t be bothered to vote want to remain?

Ah but i never said that, 64% did not vote to leave, they didn't vote so therefore we do not know, so equally Leavers cannot say it was a majority of the country either and in such an important irreversible decision, a minority should not be dictating to the majority... whoever won!

derxa has just exemplified what I have found with many remain voters I know in real life. They don't like change so voted remain but didn't bother to look into it to any degree

No one has a fcuking clue what this change will be, other than we'll be worse off.....and we'll have a brain drain, google Francis Crick and the Bupa decision to take key staff and business to Dublin.

Who here is reassured that UKGOV is chartering ships to make sure we are ready for No Deal and can get enough food and medicines through after Brexit day?

Must say I'm so glad that this is being thought through.

Sarcasm.

jasjas1973 They had their chance to vote and for whatever reason chose not to, you can’t include them in your percentages,to justify your argument, they couldn’t be bothered one way or the other, rightly or wrongly, the majority who voted, voted to leave

No one can say the majority of the UK want to leave the EU, it just isn't true, now if you wish to add the caveat "majority who voted" i agree but that is just supporting my argument that a minority are driving Brexit.

This why countries that have regular referendums, put in safe guards.

Is this what you voted for? War time measures! Dominic Raab to tell business to prep for no-deal, what the F has happened to our great country.

www.ft.com/content/313fde10-d61c-11e8-ab8e-6be0dcf18713?fbclid=IwAR2HaFgyfSschruowz38ba_ww09N1IYGuNdXR7pRzADJxBSwi6kJvC107wE

@jasjas1973 Vicky Pollard has taken over, innit?

@LouiseCollins/@Doubletrouble99
Thanks both for your replies.
My apologies but I didn't really follow David Cameron's negotiations with EU in detail but did form 1 general impression; negotiations seemed characterised as the UK petitioning the EU establishment in isolation. Surely we weren't actually that isolated, surely there were others nations with concerns, surely an alliance/block could be formed perhaps even a majority (Italy, Greece, eastern europeans, France all seemed to have at least some concerns)? It seemed to me that a little more diplomacy could have produced a conversation between equals.

Anyway, feel that you've both identified a key difference between at least some leavers and remainers; many remainers are not entirely happy with direction of EU but are optimistic about being able to change it. Many leavers are also not happy about EU direction but are pessimistic about UK's ability to change it. Think it may also be fair to say that many leavers felt that '16 ref could be their last and only opportunity to halt further EU integration before future UK governments accidentally or by design signed up to it without consulting electorate. Consequently jumped at the chance and still keen to see it through despite substantial economic costs. Do you consider that a fair reflection of many leavers views?

So today the head of the National Crime Agency has been warning MPs about how buggered UK law enforcement will be by No Deal.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/crime-agency-boss-in-stark-warning-over-no-deal-brexit-bss23cjfm

I was rather fond of having a functioning police force.

@LouiseCollins/@Doubletrouble99
A suggestion; I presume it is now largely accepted by informed leavers that no-deal or canada-type deals will likely substantially further damage UK manufacturing, finance, pharma, aerospace etc ... Can we agree that neither of these options are acceptable to UK or at least should be avoided if possible? Can we also agree that our negotiating position is weak and that the EU will only offer 1 of the pre-existing options as per Barnier's slide? That being the case, I see a couple of options that may result in a semi-prosperous and united UK:

• go for an interim EEA/EFTA+CU position to minimise the economic damage in the short/medium term then drive restructuring of the UK economy to prepare it for a later shift to a Canada-type deal perhaps getting license for EU to prepare replacement trade deals at the same time?
• abandon Brexit - engage more forthrightly and less destructively (a la UKIP) with a view to driving the UK/light integrationist agenda. UK constitution could be codified to avoid ~50/~50 splits and massive division like we have now and UK independence/integration limits could similarly codified. Would that work?

I'd like to take up Indistinct's point.

Finally someone came up with a law they didn't like, which came via the EU. I don't know whether it was one of the 5% which the UK objected to or not. It was about VAT on sanitary products and we are not allowed to zero rate them. I couldn't help but think that if this is the case then surely a lot of other EU women would benefit from zero rated Sanitary protection, so could we not have argued for more flexibility in adjusting VAT rates, downwards as well as upwards?

@Peregrina

Agree - find it hard to be believe that UK would be alone in its dissent on VAT all sanitary products (in particular tampons). Does anyone know if UK and others tried to form a group to get the legislation changed? Did it work? If not, what went wrong?

I just wish they would stop calling it a people’s vote. It really makes me cringe a) because it is just a second referendum and b) because the historical context is quite sinister. Generally political happenings involving the word ‘people’s’ involved a lot of bloodshed, death, genocide, enslavement etc etc. It’s like when uni students hand out flyers with communist iconography on them. To them it’s cool and left wing and kind of retro. To represents three generations subjugated by an authoritarian government which robbed the people that I love of so much. Calling it a people’s vote is really screwed up.

Found this indicating that the UK was successful in removing VAT on tampons. Interestingly EU states 'EU VAT rules are not imposed by the European Commission. They are decided on and agreed unanimously by member states' indicating that UK at some point agreed to VAT on sanitary products including tampons. Regardless it seems that the EU was reasonably flexible once it realised that VAT on necessities like tampons was not justifiable. Not sure if this is a good example -will look for other examples where UK tried to form a coalliation to drive change ...

@Katzensocken

Your post says everything I wanted to say. I have no anger or resentment against people who voted Leave with the best of intentions. I don't believe that everyone who voted Leave is a racist, or a xenophobe or an idiot.

But what am I supposed to think when I see people refusing to confront the reality of what Brexit is likely to mean? The people who say "If violence erupts in Ireland that's their problem" or "Who cares if the car industry leaves?"

If you're a Leave voter who says "Hey, I still want to leave but we must preserve people's livelihoods and peace in NI so let's go for a Norway deal" then that's brilliant - I have no argument with you. I will still think the wrong decision was made in the Referendum but, as you say, you won!

But I can't think well of people who just say "I want what I voted for" without caring about the impact on their fellow citizens.

... no good examples yet of UK attempting to drive change through coalition with other EU states. Did find this though. Looks like coalition government had already codified prevention of further integration with EU as follows:

... that a referendum must be held across the United Kingdom and Gibraltar in any of various cases (listed in section 4 of the Act) where this would enlarge EU powers or reduce safeguards such as unanimous voting

Note this is a wikipedia summary rather than quote from the legislation. Not sure if this legislation is still active but @LouiseCollins/@DoubleTrouble99 were you aware of this legislation ? (apologies for ignorance if it should be widely known)

... seems to be have been repealed by the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018]] but demonstrates that it's possible to codify limits to further integration without population consent.

indistinct

The EU addressed the issue of further integration here:

www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/143478.pdf#page=12

27. The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed.

In this context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.

indistinct but the EEA/ETFA would inc FOM, most leavers want an end to FOM or at least some proper control, ( job based visa) not at the starting salary levels that they’re suggesting at the moment, most people in the U.K. would be happy to be on 30,000 pa

And here it is folks - the ultimate explanation of why Brexit is a good thing and why Remainers have no reason to be resentful of it:

twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1054853569621475329

The FoM is the sticking point - if May had not ruled it out we could have asked to go for EEA/EFTA and be well on the way to getting it sorted out now. This would be a compromise which satisfied moderate Leavers and moderate Remainers. Then Leavers tell us that it wasn't about immigration! Having said that, given May's record at the HO, being anti immigration is probably the one bit she's fully in agreement with.

I think some people need to experience the reality of being "a third country" in order to understand EU membership.... this includes politicians. Let the shit hit the fan I say.

I thought that for a while but reading various letters from remainers (janet street porter in the Independent) who call for a boycott of France (for example) at the first whiff of adverse measures in case of no deal made me realise only one thing would happen if the shit were to hit the fan: total hatred of the EU and of its people

People.are.not.good.with. consequences.

The FoM is the sticking point

Yes, and apparently that's worth some kind of nationwide murder suicide.

There is a nationalist agenda here. The word is now openly owned by Trump. Telling sign of the times.