Leave voters? What's your alternative plan for the country if TM's Withdrawal Agreement doesn't get through?

[bellinisurge]

A small majority of people who voted in the referendum voted Leave. I presume they still want to Leave. How do we do that if the Withdrawal Agreement fails and Parliament has voted through an amendment which allows it to stop No Deal.
Talk me through it ...

Weetabix The EU aren't controlling our exit. Theresa May's red lines and the Tory party in fighting is doing that all by themselves. The EU have said for the outset 'these are the options available, pick one'. It's the U.K. who wants to cherry pick and they've always known that's not possible. The EU is simply negotiation in the interests of their 27member, no idea why people in the U.K. still think the EU should be negotiating in the U.K.'s interests?

{Before we joined, was an exit deal not negotiated? How did anyone sign us up to this, allowing the EU to decide the terms under which we can leave?}
The UK can leave tomorrow if it wants. That is not a massive problem for the EU.
It would of course be catastrophic for the UK as it really would be an island on it's own as ALL the treaties currently in place would stop instantly. All it needs is for Theresa to pop over to Brussels and sign a bit of paper that says 'we quit'.
Of course everything bad that has been branded as 'Project Fear' would become 'Project total disaster' literally overnight and supermarkets would be out of food completely in a little over a fortnight. So in that respect the UK is not at all bound to the EU.
All the negotiations and deals are a half hearted way of actually leaving without too many dying in the process. If you are happy to have people dying from malnutrition and lack of essential medical supplies then 'go for it'. The dictator in N Korea, Stalin, Idi Amin, and others were not so squeamish. While the UK babbles on about their losses in WW2 Stalin sentenced something like 6 million Russians to freeze and starve to death through a combination of ruthlessness and lack of care.

teaandbiscuitsforme

I am against both the EU and Schengen. I simply don't agree with joining, in part, with other countries. Fine to form a common market, but no more.

The EU will not be happy until they have a United States of Europe, with a European Army and more.

The EU have said for the outset 'these are the options available, pick one'.

Which means that they are controlling the terms of our exit. Why did we ever agree to give them this control?

no idea why people in the U.K. still think the EU should be negotiating in the U.K.'s interests?

I don't expect them to do this. I expect that before we joined the UK government should have got a fail safe exit plan in place and now the UK government should be refusing to bow down to the EU.

I'm listening to a debate right now and the expert opinion is that if we threaten to leave under WTO rules and then walk away that the EU will come running because the German motor industry will not want to pay import tax on their cars. Why don't we try?

"why are we allowing the EU to control our exit?"

Because we want a future relationship. Relationships = compromise & negotiations. This isn't Donald Trump walking away from a real estate deal b/c there are 5000 other places in Manhatten to build a hotel and 1000 other business partners to deal with. There is one and only one EU, who represent 25% of the world's wealth (& a huge % of our existing supply chains). We made a lot of promises while in their club & reneging on those promises will make us look extra unreliable.

In r-World there aren't really that many countries with enough money to buy our stuff, btw. The pool of viable significant trading partners isn't that big. If we're rude to one partner, the others will all know what arses we are & be wary of deal with us coz they'll have seen how unreliable we are. Word will get round. In meantime, they are circling, assessing our weaknesses in future deal-making.

India insists on many thousands more visas (to UK, for its workers) if UK wants trade deal with India. Why wouldn't they 'control' the deal they try to get, too?

{made a lot of promises while in their club}
But it isn't 'their club'. The UK was an equal partner at the top table. Since Brussels is too far to walk from the Westminster bubble, it only got part of the attention it should have. Farage only turning up to 1 out of 42 meetings in Brussels is a total disgrace. Fortunately other topics were discussed rather more successfully.
If you are determined to act as an 'entitled outsider' you will never get the best from being in a club.

{Which means that they are controlling the terms of our exit. Why did we ever agree to give them this control?}
The clause for leaving was written by Lord Kerr, from the UK (Scot?).

{I'm listening to a debate right now and the expert opinion is that if we threaten to leave under WTO rules and then walk away that the EU will come running because the German motor industry will not want to pay import tax on their cars. Why don't we try?}
The German motor industry will not have the EU running to the UK.
Their 'stake' in the UK is not that big and as global trends are shifting to China and India, they will not be intimidated by this sort of threat. It would hurt, but they have already announced a shutdown of 2 or 4 weeks post March 2019. If their spreadsheet says no, the doors will stay locked.

The clause for leaving was written by Lord Kerr, from the UK (Scot?).

Exactly. Madness. Why did we do it? Who asked the electorate if this is what we wanted?

Whatever happens now we are in a terrible position.

If we stop A50 and ask to go back then it will be entirely on their terms.

We should not have a Remainer trying to negotiate us leaving.

Before offering a referendum our government should have had a strategy in place.

We cannot leave on some weak deal that continues to give EU power over us (back stop). If WTO rules are the best we can get then so be it.

If WTO rules are the best we can get then so be it.

What do you understand the implications of trading on WTO terms to be, @Weetabixandshreddies?

“To trade under WTO rules you have to publish what's called a Schedule, which has to be approved by every other WTO member. Once the UK is no longer in the EU it needs its own Schedule...and anyone with a bone to pick with the UK (about anything) is raising an objection -- and until every one of those objections is turned into an approval....we're pretty well fucked.”

www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/17232332.agenda-events-in-geneva-could-make-the-london-drama-pointless/?ref=fbshr

"If we stop A50 and ask to go back then it will be entirely on their terms."
Nope, it'll be in the terms we have now No Schengen. No Euro. Unlimited access to the biggest market in the world.

bellinisurge
And democracy in this country will mean what?

We had a referendum. If the remainers knew so well what brexit would mean why weren't they saying this during the campaign? Why didn't they clearly set it out for the electorate?

We had a democratic vote. This is the result.

Now the government, who wants to remain, have decided that they will sabotage the entire process so that they can over turn the majority vote.

We all exercised our democratic vote - voted to leave, to stay, or didn't bother to vote at all - leave won. That's what we should do. With a team of negotiators committed to getting the best deal, not working to make sure it fails so that they get the result that they wanted.

@Weetabixandshreddies - my view to Remain didn't prevail. I accept that. I would prefer this shit deal to No Deal. I want to find out if there are any other realistic Leave options. Turns out there aren't.

Leave campaigners promised voters something that couldn’t be delivered. How is that the fault of Remainers?

“Brexiteers have had more than two and a half years, a blank cheque from the taxpayer, the top jobs in Government, the BBC and most of the press cheering them on, the EU unbelievably patient with them, and still - STILL - they have failed to come up with a workable plan.” - @ThatTimWalker

Weetabix During the last 2.5 years (and the last few decades) anybody who has tried to discuss the facts of the EU and the fact that being part of the EU is what has made us the 5th largest economy has been shouted down as a traitor. 'Project fear' sound familiar? People didn't want to hear facts because they're so conditioned to hearing EU hate.

Personally, at the moment I'm leaning towards Norway plus at the moment because I really don't trust the U.K. parliament or the U.K. people to put the interests of the U.K. first. At least with that option we'd be getting as much of best bits of EU membership as Brexit is going to allow and I'm very happy for us to be rule takers rather than makers. The U.K. have shown themselves to be completely incompetent of being rule makers and their attitude and contempt of the EU for decades, constantly asking for exceptions, means that in my view, we shouldn't expect to be part of the top table after 2 years of theses shenanigans. We're an absolute embarrassment and I'm thankful to the EU for trying so desperately hard to make sure we don't crash out and go into complete free fall.

Norway has FOM. Something leave supporters won't accept

During the last 2.5 years

Bit late after the event though isn't it?

Why did Cameron bribe the electorate with the offer of the referendum if they all knew to leave would be a disaster?

Why, in the government backed remain campaign that saw leaflets sent out to every household, did they not warn what a leave vote would look like?

I certainly don't want to be a part of the rule takers, rather than the makers scenario.

What we sit here and do as we are told, pay what we are told, without having any say? That sounds like a great deal.

And the EU haven't accepted anything from the UK without benefitting from us being a member. They haven't been some generous benefactor smiling benevolently down on us.

There are benefits to them in keeping us on side.

Weetabixandshreddies
You and yor mates can democratically decide to jump out of an aeroplane. Brilliant fun!
If someone then tells you there are no parachutes, would you go through with it and jump?
So far NO ONE has managed to suggest what the UK is going to do after it leaves, and how it can possibly make life better for UK citizens.
Sofar all the soundbites spouted by the ERG and the rest of the government have NO plans, apart from the rapidly failing economy will make some disaster capitalists very rich, which by avoiding the new financial regulations due at the end of April will mean they can take their money elsewhere. If you think they are going to fix the NHS and all the other problems you are sadly mistaken.

Well in excess of a million people in the biggest turnout isn't a small majority! And from the beginning nearly all leavers I've spoken to have wanted and a managed wto withdrawa.l The fact that iur remain votinggovernment has gone out of its way to keep us in the EU whilst pretending to uphold the Referendum hasn't change my vote.

And Norway has said it doesn't want the UK in their club because the UK's track record is to break things (at political level).

We voted to leave and leave we will.

When May's appalling attempt to betray Brexit and leave us virtual prisoners of the EU is scrapped by Parliament, as it must be, all that is left is WTO. There will be no second referendum, Article 50 will not be withdrawn, Norway/EFTA/EEA does not deliver Brexit and is not an option.

Don't be frightened about WTO. We already do most of our non-EU trade under WTO terms (various minor bilateral deals notwithstanding) and it will be fine, for us anyway.

It is the government's job to implement it.

And OP, 1.3m is a clear majority.

Infinite
The magnitude of the job of leaving and how much it will totally destroy the UK is only gradually sinking in. On the basis you want to eat in say 3 weeks time, (or 3 weeks after actually leaving) the UK has to negotiate something. Remember the UK is leaving, not the EU so it is up to the UK to do all the running. The EU has the responsibility of looking after 450 Million citizens, not the idiot UK who have been sold a pack of lies.

Cameron wasn't bribing the electorate - he was bribing his own party!

I know Norway don't want us and have FOM; my actual preference is obviously to remain. My point is that following this debacle, I would much prefer that the U.K. government had as little power as possible because I don't think they, or the British people, can be trusted to do things in the interests of the U.K. No it's not a great deal, of course it's not. But no deal is ever going to be as good as the one we've got and that was very clear way before the referendum if you listened to the facts. Unicorns don't exist, never have and never will, no matter how many red buses they appear on.

{Don't be frightened about WTO. We already do most of our non-EU trade under WTO terms (various minor bilateral deals notwithstanding) and it will be fine, for us anyway.}

One mention of idiots and up pops Whollyfather who can't remember the plot.

@Weetabixandshreddies

We had a democratic vote. This is the result

I have mentioned this before, those of you who have read it several times just skip over.

One Parliament can not be bound by another so we often have several votes on the same issue.

When a Bill passes through Parliament it is voted on several times.

During trade union negotiations. You have a branch meeting and a vote to decide if members are prepared to strike. You then negotiate the deal. The deal is taken back to members who vote on the deal.

Voting on a negotiated deal is common practice in many areas of a democracy.

One vote being a binding decision is absolutely not a feature of U.K. democracy. I'm sorry if you were lied to about this.

Another, referendum or a parliamentary vote is entirely legal and legitimate.

Moussemoose

In that case, who voted for the Con/Lib coalition? Why didn't we have a 2nd vote then to decide if that was what we wanted?

We don't have a vote when the PM changes (which has the potential to radically change the ruling party) or when an MP defects to another party mid term.

Lots of occasions where we have one election and have to accept the result.

Had the vote been to remain would you now be arguing for further referendums? What if it had been a small majority in favour of remaining? A second referendum if asked for by leavers?

What if we have a 2nd referendum now that says remain - can we have a 3rd in a couple of years just to double check?