Second Referendum

[Neweternal]

Ok I don't understand I knew it was a risk leaving and it may initially make us poorer but for many reasons thinking 20 years on I felt it is the right thing for the country to leave the EU.

Second referendum if it transpires I will vote the same way. Yes Brexit is hard but you don't give up something because it's difficult. I have a chum who has shifted from remain to Brexit which surprised me.

What happens when and if the second referendum is again leave? To remainers accept we KNEW it wasn't going to be easy but we want sovereignty and not tied to the EU.

There was a bit of arrogance prior to the referendum with IN almost thinking they had it in the bag, same thing now!

Or lying as it is normally known

Don't accuse them of lying. It hurts their precious feelings, which as we all know are all that matters these days. Facts cab go hang as long as the feelings of the Brexiters are protected.

{Facts can go hang as long as the feelings of the Brexiters are protected.}

As long as this is hungry and homeless that suits me fine, I have had enough of their shit.

@emily

See here regarding WTO only countries (Note - I’ve only read it, I haven’t fact checked it):

medium.com/@MrWeeble/who-actually-trades-solely-under-wto-rules-1b6127ce33c6

“there is only one country in the world that trades only under WTO rules. Mauritania.

For those of you not familiar with Mauritania, it’s GDP is $4,714million (0.2% of the UK’s), 50% of its exports consist of Iron Ore, and between 1% and 17% of the population still live in slavery.”

If that’s true, then I’ve just given myself a bit of a fright...

I am a strong remainer and one of the reasons I am so frustrated is that nobody who voted leave could possibly know what leaving would look like, they voted for a total unknown
Now we do know what the situation will be if we leave I think we MUST have another vote with 3 options, Remain, no deal, the deal on the table.
I would absolutely respect the result of that, even if I didn’t like it because at least people would have some sort of idea about what they were voting for. As for saying “oh, we will have a Norway” that’s not on the table and Norway have said they would oppose that anyway. So now we have a better idea what we would be voting for we should get the opportunity to do so

Hoppinggreen
No deal can't be on the ballot paper. Sorry but it's just completely irresponsible to give people the chance to vote for No Deal. We have an elected Parliament to protect the interest of the population precisely because decisions of this importance shouldn't be chanced.

@hoppinggreen

For me personally, I’d like to see the “no deal” scenario fleshed out by a prominent pro-leave figure before a second vote was considered. A written proposal in place that covers all the potential problems from trade to aviation.

Then all the options would be completely spelled out. No more voting for the total unknown.

@loletta

Yea, actually, that seems more sensible.

Like another poster on here, I will probably be ok or better off under Brexit
DH and the Dc have dual nationality with another EU nation ( passports obtained recently) we own our house and another one In a different EU country . Since fewer (highly skilled) EU migrants have arrived here DH can charge more for his services and due to his dual nationality he can also work throughout the EU and charge a high rate too if the UK economy crashes
However, just because WE will probably be better off it doesn’t mean I’m Ok with it because the vast majority of British people won’t be. People like Johnson and Rees Mogg et al who can afford to protect themselves from the negative economic effects of Brexit while pushing for it absolutely sicken me

loletta it was pretty irresponsible to give them a vote on Brexit at all in the first place!

loletta it was pretty irresponsible to give them a vote on Brexit at all in the first place

Yes it was! That's why making the same mistake again would be diabolical.

jm90914
The 'no deal' scenario doesn't need to be on a ballot paper, it is a 'default' so if everyone sits on their hands until March 29th 2019 it is what WILL happen.
To 'flesh it out' a bit, the UK government have issues something like 200 'technical papers' which outline what this actually means in practice.
Depending on the topic area, the government 'preparation' for this no deal scenario is somewhere between 6 months and over 2 years 'behind' what would be necessary.
The WA is the ONLY deal that the EU will accept unless 'revoking A50' came to pass. The WA was agreed within the EU27 many weeks ago and most in the EU have moved on as there is more important stuff to get on with. Norway, as an EEA area representative doesn't want the UK to join as it is seen as disruptive.
Unless the WA is agreed by the UK the 'Leave' camp had better get thinking damn smartish as the promise of unicorns will all be in their hands and they will HAVE to come up with the goods and it is not looking promising so far.

@Hoppinggreen why it's irresponsible? Is it irresponsible that the public can vote in general elections or should elections be only open to guardian readers?

AS i said on page one, Mays deal can't get through the HoC, so thats out, so it has to be a negotiated No-Deal or Remain.
Which to be honest is what i perceived the original ballot question to be, OUT doesn't mean in the SM or CU however lose that association might be.

@Neweternal You ve still not answered the loss of access to Security databases that protect us all and limited access to Galileo.

If someone comes here who otherwise would have been stopped and then commits a serious crime, what would you say to the victim/or family?
Or the 10's billions we'll have to spend on a rival military grade GPS system that otherwise could have been spent on nhs & education etc.

What nonsense @Neweternal

jm90914 - you didn't read far enough into that article

Others (thank you Alan Bell et al.) have take my work and investigated Mauritania further. It turns out that while they don’t have any current bilateral or multilateral free trade deals, it does benefit from preferential treatment from certain developed nationss^ (the EU amongst them), where Mauritania’s exports in certain categories (everything but armss^) are not charged import duties, but those countries goods can have tariffs added when being imported into Mauritania. As this is a form of aid for a developing country, I think that it is not something that the UK is likely to obtain, so for the purposes of debate referring to “no deal” as the “Mauritania Option” is not entirely inaccurate and could be a useful shorthand.

So in effect, there is not a single country in the world that trades purely on WTO terms.

But I suppose that fits in well with Brexiters' delusions perceptions of English UK exceptionalism: the UK will be the first

And of course, in today's world of increasing globalisation, this is such a brilliant example to follow

I really hope not neweternal as I am pretty far away from being a Guardian reader!
It was irresponsible because people weren’t given the information they needed to make a genuine decision.
You only have to read a thread on here about Brexit to see how uninformed Leave voters were and to a large extent still are.
Most of them have no idea what The EU is and does so couldn’t possibly vote whether we should be part of it or not. Now we know what we would lose we need to decide whether that’s what we want

@1tisILeClerc

Of course, I’m not suggesting any tenable plan would be forthcoming. Mogg etc do plenty of shouting about how easy it would all be, but are never held to account. If they were forced to address the most serious of issues, for example explain this wonderous tech solution they say is so easy, then the game would surely be up. They have nothing. Pehaps I’m being naive.

@prettybird

haha “the Mauritania option”... At least I’ve had a chuckle out of this thread then...

• @Hoppinggreen why it's irresponsible? Is it irresponsible that the public can vote in general elections or should elections be only open to guardian readers?*

There's a huge difference between general
election and referendums notably that GEs take place every 5 years and can be reversed if people aren't happy. Getting out of the EU is a permanent decision (at least in our lifetime). There's no way of reversing the potentially damaging effects after we've left. Don't you think it's a tiny bit irresponsible to trust people with such an important, permanent (or semi-permanent decision)? Don't you think it's Parliament's job to protect the public from irreversible errors?

By the time Brexit comes it will be nearly 3 years since the vote! How do we know that public opinion is the same? we’ve had GE’s with lesser time gaps and changes in voting patterns.

What about “sovereignty” do you think will make life better when we are out of the EU?

I think leave would win again btw. That being the case, what do leave have to fear from a second ref?

@Loletta

I totally agree, DC was guilty of a dereliction of duty back in 2016.

But at the moment Parliament is dead locked, putting it all back to the people is probably the only way forward.

I don't think Norway + is going to be acceptable to leavers, its EU in all but name, so i'd be more than happy with it but without a referendum it has no legitimacy, unless of course we actually get politician who will actually lead instead of following 'polls & focus groups.

Jasjas I agree that Norway + may not work for all the reasons you mention and Norway may not want us to join their exclusive club anyway.

Ideally I think I would like a GE with the opposition having the balls to make it a manifesto pledge to revoke A50 (if the ECJ confirms that we can do so unilaterally). It's a bold move and it can be politically damaging but - as someone else on another thread said - history will thank them for it.

@Loletta not true things like privatisation, not easily changed. Iraq war not easily changed (but we never even got the chance to vote on that). You assuming the general public are stupid and incapable of making decisions. Many years ago they had those standards for poor people and woman who never got the vote. You may believe Brexit is dreadful for the country but it's just an opinion some people don't like Donald Trump but the USA is not collapsing its economy. Lefties catastrophes!

It's a bold move and it can be politically damaging but - as someone else on another thread said - history will thank them for it.

They would lose some voters for sure, but this could be balanced out by gaining others. I don't know why Neweternal thinks it's just 'Lefties' who think Brexit is likely to be a catastrophe - both main parties are split on this issue, and were afraid of losing out to UKIP.