If we cancel article 50 and stay in Europe then what?

[Cantdoright1]

Surely if the public vote for something and it doesn't happen because parliament don't agree with it so won't let it happen, then we no longer live in a democracy. No point voting ever again as parliament can do what they like with the result. I don't understand why people want is to stay in Europe just because the process of leaving has been so badly handled by those in power. Or do people just accept that when the going gets tough we give up on democracy?

What happens when remainers vote for something they care about but it never happens because the government don't want it to? If we remain were all shafted on any future votes.

I don't know how people can be so fixated on remaining that they are willing to ignore the impacts of remaining on democracy, and the far reaching consequences - much bigger ones than leaving or staying in the EU. There is much more to this now than remain or leave, so much more is at stake.

We've all been played.

Yes I agree we have. At least there's some consensus on this.

But some people are continuing to paint Brexit as some kind of revolution of the people for the people. A victory fo the peasants. It really isn't.. Look at the voting records of those who lead it.

Here are some quotes from those who led the campaign and are just about still controlling the balance of power:

Boris Johnson

The weight of employment regulation is now back-breaking: the collective redundancies directive, the atypical workers directive, the working time directive and a thousand more.”

Disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox –still in charge of all our Trade
It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees. (ha ha) It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable while output and employment are clearly cyclical.”
Priti Patel (Leave)
If we could just halve the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3bn boost to the economy.”

No-one should be fooled by the government’s claim that they will leave workplace rights intact. They tried to block exercise of all employment rights by introducing extortionate employment tribunal fees which were found to be unlawful.

The true intentions are shown by the fact that the promise to leave all employment legislation in national legislation was combined with power to vary or repeal laws without going through full parliamentary procedures (the Henry VIII powers).

Liam Fox would like to deregulate worker's rights- this exposes full maternity and paternity leave, working time, discrimination , safe working environments, redundancy rights, the right to paid holidays.

Previous governments agreed and helped draft these Europe-wide laws to avoid competition by low employee standards,

The Liam Fox vision of Brexit is to deregulate and put profit before peasants.Make no mistake -and he's still in control.

@shirleyschmidt - leaving HOW? Smoothest way is to leave and stay within single market and customs union. No Irish issue with this option. BUT it is SOME brexiteers which oppose this - who say it is not really leave.

As a remainer I also see this as a bad option because we have to accept pretty much all the rules, have no say in future rules and if we want to re join, lose our rebate. I am firstly a remainer but after that I’m torn because I think it’s bad to cause political crisis on Ireland (given UK’s terrible history of interference) but I think other options apart from no deal would be just a worse version of status quo.

On balance I think the Irish border issue is more important (because UK played a role in causing the mess) so my preferences: remain, customs union, single market. Not sure whether I would prefer wa to no deal as I can’t see which would be better on the Irish border question.

Hersymphony..."The blame for the absolute chaos falls squarely with the government who have handled this incredibly badly"

Abso-bloody-lutely!

Shirleysmidt...agree 100%

Get totally sick of being told...'ooh the Russians funded Leave'. The tax payer funded Remain!

Everyone I know who voted already knew what they wanted before the Referendum was actually given the go ahead...whether Leave or Remain.

No deal should never have been on the table. It should never have formed part of a negotiating position. Suggesting that no deal is an option is immoral and benefits only disaster capitalists and those who love chaos.

"I blame remain MPs of all parties who do stupid things like table amendments for removing No Deal, knowing that will completely undermine our negotiating position."

That really isn't how negotiation works. No wonder the general public are wondering why it's all taking so long, if they think that spending over two years saying "gimme what I want or I'll walk" on a loop, when the other side KNOWS you're bluffing and it would cost you too much to walk away, is an effective negotiation tactic. I blame television.

Surely if the public vote for something and it doesn't happen because parliament don't agree with it so won't let it happen, then we no longer live in a democracy. No point voting ever again as parliament can do what they like with the result

BUT that is our democracy!!! we vote in representative MPs, they enact or not a manifesto and 4 or 5 years later, we can vote again and judge them on their record.
At the next GE you can vote for the Brexit Party and get PM Farage.

Once we leave the EU, for 16m voters, they have nothing, there is no joining option.

But fret not, Brexit is almost certain to happen and you can sit back and admire the chaos you have caused.

Once the decision to leave had been made ALL of Parliment should have been working to make our leaving the EU as smooth as possible.

Why? I do think that the Tory party should have been behind May, instead of the ERG (a party within a party) dictating the red lines she chose to follow, and then saying that whatever agreement she got they would rip up at the first opportunity.

I also think that the Opposition should have been prepared to Oppose, which the LibDem, SNP and PC do, but half of Labour either falls in with the Tories or abstains. However with a PM determined not to bring issues back to the House when she thinks she will lose, their task isn't always easy.

one day yes the UK taxpayer funded Remain...and? At least they've got the UK's best interests at heart, unlike Putin.

Spectacular point-missing, of course, from a Leaver.

Thinking about it - 2nd referendum with several options is the MOST democratic way.

Because it is BREXITEERS who complain if we leave in the most simple pain-free way (ie single market, customs union).

{No deal should never have been on the table. It should never have formed part of a negotiating position. Suggesting that no deal is an option is immoral and benefits only disaster capitalists and those who love chaos.}

No deal is only on the table as a 'backstop' written in by the Brit (whose name escapes me this morning) only to be used to prevent a country that is leaving 'messing around' and causing untold damage to the rest of the EU.
At the time A50 was drafted the UK did not think it might leave.
Thus for logical reasons, the UK has put 'no deal' and it's legal consequences as the backstop.

The UK already has the 'best' trading deals as part of the EU. While Fox may be trying (not very successfully ) to get other deals he will struggle to do any better. OK he might get a lower tariff on some 'niche' goods from Iceland or Mozambique but trade with them is all but insignificant in what the UK wants to buy/sell.
Pilchards could go down to 1p per tin at the supermarket, but if everything else is going up by 10% you have 'lost' big time.

It is being shown that the referendum campaign was manipulated illegally. OK it might only have influenced 4% of the votes, but that would have taken the result to a 'tie'.

Negotiations for the details of leaving haven't started yet and they won't until the WA as it stands is signed.
The EU would like the UK to remain, and it is likely that in negotiations the UK will be looked on kindly, as there are many ties between the countries of Europe but the EU will not reopen the WA now.
Remember the EU is perfectly capable of telling the USA Russia and China 'where to get off' so once the UK leaves and becomes a third country if necessary the EU's gloves can come off.

{Thinking about it - 2nd referendum with several options is the MOST democratic way. }

At this stage there are only 3 possible choices.
Revoke (remain in)/WA/ crash out. There are NO more choices now.
The WA route is NOT a deal, but a routemap to leaving which will require 2 or 3 years of intense negotiation.
IF during this negotiation (transition) period, the UK were to have a change of heart and demonstrably wish to remain, there is a good chance the EU would make a strong effort to do this, and have said so in the past, although unofficially.

I bow to your greater knowledge leclerc but actually I meant that slightly differently - the UK should have approached the negotiations with the EU with “no deal is not an option we are prepared to consider - how can we collaborate to make leaving the EU happen in the optimal way for both of us”. But I realise this is idealistic and unrealistic. I know why it was kept on the table, but I still think it is immoral. If you are making plans for something that effectively amount to those you would implement if the country were at war - but it is entirely within your control to avoid that situation (we are not being threatened militarily by a foreign power despite how the more paranoid leavers would describe it!) then it is completely unacceptable

This argument just doesn’t hold - Brexit was attempted to be implemented but there is now deadlock. What we do next is a question of pragmatism not ideology. Politics moves on from one single vote. There’s no purity to politics.

I agree HerSymphony - the way May jumped in immediately with a belligerent attitude has done us no favours at all. It would be a difficult negotiation anyway with competing mutually exclusive demands for Leave, but it could have been done in a more co-operative spirit and we would have got a lot further.

We need a leader to stand up and say that, although the advisory referendum result showed people's dissatisfaction with the EU, and their preference to leave, in practice this has proved to be a terrible idea because of X, Y and Z (all the reports saying how bad it would be financially, the Irish issue etc) and therefore, as a parliament, we cannot knowingly be so irresponsible as to take that step. However, each and every MP should consult their constituents with immediate effect to find out the main issues with the EU and we will see how these can be addressed from within the EU. In other words, revoke, remain, reform.

Politicians have backed themselves into a corner by promising too quickly to enact the result of the referendum and now they don't want to do a u-turn as they are usually considered politically bad form. However, I have no problem with an evidence-based u-turn.

A soft brexit is no brexit at all for anyone. We're still tied to them so leavers aren't happy, yet we get no say so remainers aren't happy.

@HerSymphony - ERG brexiteers are responsible for that as EU will not give in on the freedom of movement thing and some BREXITEERS would not accept LEAVING with customs union/single market models. This is why it would be democratic to have a new vote as different Brexit/remain supporters have different preferences.

leclerc - I don’t know how easy it would be to carbon copy Norway deal and put that as an option (given that much stays same and no issues with ireland). Might we be able to get it sorted before European elections?

HerSymphonyAndSong
I think part of the problem is that so many think of the EU as an adversary. Currently, and until Friday at least the UK IS the EU, we are effectively arguing with our 'siblings'.
The EU project is not all about trade, it has a massive 'social' aspect to it, although it is downplayed by much of the UK MSM. Schemes to enable students to travel and study anywhere in Europe (Interrail and Erasmus being among them) to integrate the lives of all Europeans.
Having the 'right' to travel anywhere in Europe as easily as London to Edinburgh and although there are quite strict regulations you can live wherever you wish. Famously successive UK governments did not impose any valid regulations, part of the 'problem' behind Brexit.

Use of the army now is not because they are permitted to carry guns, but they have a strong command structure and an 'independent' supply of fuel, vehicles and secure premises and can be controlled under stricter rules than the general public.

The 'Norway' solution does not 'fit' the UK economy. They trade with a limited range of goods and are not concerned that they 'simply' take legislation (where applicable) from Brussels.
The UK has had too much power and influence for too long to just accept a 'deal' in the way that Norway does and there is a strong likelihood that it would cause unrest among the EFTA countries. The UK would need to set up a different range of trade deals, as has been hinted at by Norway ++ or whatever. So no, photocopying won't do the trick. It also means the UK would have to be in either SM/CU or both, I can't remember details, but this is 'unacceptable' to some Brexiteers.

Mr Barnier's team produced a 'staircase' plan of the various levels of integration that the UK could have with the EU, from 'all out' to 'remain'.
Had the UK engaged with this 2 years ago things could have progressed in an orderly manner. Instead Theresa deliberately wrote her red lines to bugger everything, in the full knowledge that it was outright confrontational. It is my belief that once the WA is signed, that the 'staircase' plan can be looked at and negotiations can be taken forward steering the degree of integration.
Remember, the UK NEEDS to buy food and many other things from the EU if it is to be affordable.

Cantdoright1

history.blog.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/11/robert-walpole.png

Can you explain to me why this man isnt still prime minister then please

Democracy doesn't work if you don't understand - or even know - what you are voting for. In fact, thats not democracy at all.

And that statement is absolutely NOT saying that those who voted leave are stupid. The bottom line is that at the time of the referendum, no one understood what they were voting for because there was detail to be known - no withdrawal agreement, no plans, no real indication of how the remaining EU members would respond and no idea of how leaving the EU would actually look. At that time no one - bar no one - actually knew precisely what they were voting for.

Now, we have a clearer picture.

Regardless, as others have pointed out, this is exactly how our democracy does work. We vote in one person (the MP for our constituency) to represent our views to parliament. We give parliament a mandate to make the decisions that are in the country's best interests for their fixed term. In the UK it is unusual to consult "the people" on every last decision. There are many things that "the people" might like to happen, but MPs don't agree with and never act on. We get then chance to vote for someone else 5 years later - with the knowledge of how well or badly the people we voted for last time did. (See the similarly here - why it is not undemocratic to allow people to make another choice new we can see how well or badly things are going....)

“I think part of the problem is that so many think of the EU as an adversary. Currently, and until Friday at least the UK IS the EU, we are effectively arguing with our 'siblings'.”

I agree

But that is what happens when you have a false “taking back control” rhetoric which fails to recognise how much sway the UK had within the EU and was actually instrumental in creating the EU as it is today

Namenic yes I agree

It's really not as simple as you position it. It's not right to say that we voted leave and although we now have way more information. And understand how damaging that will be, and that people voted to leave based on misinformation, we should simply fuck our economy and people and hold to the result of thr vote. That's not democracy it's highly undemocratic.

MPs are there to represent us, so in thr face of the information that we now have, they are there to make a decision on our behalf.

Are they capable of doing so? That's subjective, and clearly they have no alignment, but I'd say the british public is less well informed or capable of making a decision.

The bottom line is we should never have been asked in the first place, there was no information at the time, and even now, with a much clearer vision, there is clearly still many people who don't understand it and would still vote to leave based on that misunderstanding. Many of them the most vulnerable in society who it would be catastrophic for.