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.

The EU is run by rules, and you can't dip in and out to suit. It would be great if the EU would help Greek citizens more, and many others with other problems, but they are sovereign and the EU can't dictate domestic policy to this level.

I accept that in general. But it all rather depends on how valuable a member state is and how near the edge of leaving it is, or how important an outcome is to the EU.

To extend your example, there are - incredibly important - budgetary rules for Eurozone members. But they’re being fudged where necessary. Have a look at Italy’s revised deficit goal, for example.

Every single voter at every single election votes for things that they don't get. There were many things in the 2015 and 2017 Conservative manifestos which haven't been implemented and probably won't be.

@nos123 undemocratic organisation

How so?

You have to weigh up 'budgetary' arrangements with social/citizen arrangements. Many countries will never match the capabilities of others and this is accepted as part and parcel of being in 'the union.
Just as much as your sister may be a profligate arse, it doesn't stop her being your sister.
Attempting to be 'purist' about the EU is to fail to understand what it is about. If you can't accept a bit of give and take then you should leave.

What you're missing here, Kissing, is that the EU makes decisions in the EU's interests. Fudges almost always come with obligations, as is the case with Italy. Allowing some leeway enables the EU to tighten the thumbscrews as we saw with the Italian budget.

I thought that the concessions offered to Cameron were surprisingly generous, given that the EU had little to gain, and the primary beneficiary of free movement in the EU has been ... the UK.

Attempting to be 'purist' about the EU is to fail to understand what it is about. If you can't accept a bit of give and take then you should leave.

That’s exactly my point! The Commission was trying too hard to be (near) purist before the vote. Some squinting at the free movement arrangements would have worked wonders. If that had had knock-on effects, well, they would have been far, far less than the risk of massive currency crisis that the EU is skirting at the moment.

What you're missing here, Kissing, is that the EU makes decisions in the EU's interests.

In what way does the EU benefit from the UK’s exit?

I thought that the concessions offered to Cameron were surprisingly generous, given that the EU had little to gain, and the primary beneficiary of free movement in the EU has been ... the UK.

Generous? Really?

We have indeed benefited from free movement. But that’s not the unfortunate and false political reality of many people’s perceptions.

And the thumbscrews are selective too. They’re not being applied to France. (Not that they should be. I’m not saying tucking and trimming in the face of political imperative is a bad thing for the EU; quite the opposite.)

In what way does the EU benefit from the UK’s exit?

It doesn't. But it preferred to risk Brexit rather than risking the integrity of the single market. And you know what, it's been proved right. Those German car companies never did come pleading to keep the U.K. in, because they also know that the single market is more valuable than any single member.

Brexit looks shit because the prime minister decided that her version of leave was the one we would go with. She decided her red lines and she negotiated the deal with the EU without consulting parliament or ever asking MPs what version of brexit they would support.

She has spent 3 years on her deal, and her blinkered approach has boxed her into a corner unable to break the deadlock because everyone has realised at the 11th hour that the whole thing is screwed.

I voted to remain, when I saw the result I was desperately sad because so many opportunities for my children were inevitably going to be lost. However, I accepted the result and trusted that those we have elected into power would act in the best interests of the country when implementing the result of an incredibly close vote. I accepted we would leave, given how close the result was I assumed something would be negotiated that would honour the referendum result whilst not screwing up our country.

Had brexit been handled differently at the start, by the people we elect into power, had they worked for a cross party consensus and tried to bring remain voters on board, I think the situation would be vastly different now.

As it stands though, remain voters have been largely mocked and ignored for the last 3 years. We are told to shut up because the will of the people, we are told it's democracy that we don't get any say in how our future relationship with the eu will look. At the same time, we have a prime minister who is paying for the dup to prop her party up, she has no qualms about presenting her deal repeatedly for mps to vote on because she didn't get the result she wanted, she is acting like the result to leave was 80/20 not 52/48 and she is acting like her position as PM was a landslide when in fact she has no control at all.

I'm not convinced a 2nd referendum is the way forward, I believe it could further entrench some of the frankly vile and hostile behaviour and I don't trust the prime minister to act in any of our interests. However, to say it is undemocratic for people to have another vote is just not true. When we cast a vote we accept it may or may not be the majority vote, that doesn't prevent you from casting future votes and the suggestion that the people who voted for the first in the referendum would never vote again if there was a 2nd...how many of those people have since voted in elections? How many took part in the general election (which was called 3 years early because the PM wanted a strong mandate for brexit)

Democracy is not a single, rigid, snapshot in time that must be adhered to forevermore. It is about holding to account the people that we pay to run the country for us, for expecting them to act in our interests and not just for their own benefit, it is trusting that the people we elect are more knowledgeable and aware than joe public and giving them the mandate to go forward and work to achieve the things in their manifesto if they are feasible and work for the country.

Part of democracy is being able to say hang on, why are you causing a national crisis and ripping up 40 years of history? Why is the prime ministers interpretation of brexit the correct one, when she has come up with alone and will not consider other options? Why wasn't the referendum treated in law the way an election would be, to prevent interference in the results? Why does this government continue to screw every last penny out of the people that desperately need help, and yet has billions to throw at buying support and failed projects?

You ask why remainers want a second vote, I ask you in any other situation where life would be completely and utterly ravaged by politicians looking to line their own pockets, would you not be standing up too and saying hang on, why are you doing this to our country?

It doesn't. But it preferred to risk Brexit rather than risking the integrity of the single market.

We’ll have to disagree on that. It has already made many concessions to many members over many years that affect the integrity of the single market.

They misjudged it - as did Cameron and Osborne - and neither side can back down now. It’s all a big fuck up.

I’d bet Italy’s budget deficit that if any of the larger members wanted freedom of movement changes now in advance of a major domestic vote on relationship with the EU, the Commission wouldn’t react in the same way as it did with the UK.

{I’d bet Italy’s budget deficit that if any of the larger members wanted freedom of movement changes now in advance of a major domestic vote on relationship with the EU, the Commission wouldn’t react in the same way as it did with the UK.}

Maybe not. You are talking about a decision made 3 years ago and a considerable amount has happened since then.
Many of the 1million or so immigrants/ refugees that came from Syria etc have found places to live, although I doubt it is ideal.
The problems presented by the rise of the far right groups, which are present in all EU countries, the USA and elsewhere needs urgent attention and a strategy to prevent it gaining too much traction.

NoMoreMonkeys You express that perfectly.

One person I definitely know voted to Leave, has had two chances to vote - once in the Witney by election when Cameron ran away and once in Theresa's General Election. How did he vote? He didn't, either time. Yet somehow we have to respect his democrat right more than mine, who has voted in every election since I was first able to vote.

Either apathy or riots due to the treachery of the MPs.
We'll get treated like turds by Europe. Nothing like coming back with your tail between your legs to lose face.
CHURCHILL and Thatcher would be spinning in their graves.

Thatcher signed and negotiated the Single European Act.

The Single European Act was crucial to European integration, so she may be spinning in her grave because we are leaving.

....And Churchill proposed a union of Great Britain and France in 1940 and after the war called for what he called a "United States of Europe."

The UK has been instrumental in many of the better ideas in the EU with the irony that it was often luke warm over actually implementing them.
Of course now it has lost the plot completely.

Excoriating. Uncomfortable. And well worth your time - whatever your Brexit views

www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-4c03-11e9-bde6-79eaea5acb64

Unfortunately I think that if Brexit is 'cancelled' then the nasty atmosphere that the winning of the referendum by the 52% leave voters brought above ground will result in some really, really unpleasant behaviour towards 'foreigners'. I say this as someone married to a 'foreigner' with mixed race children. I voted remain but I feel that any revokation on the original 'call of the people' will end badly, for innocent people, like my dh and our children. It's all horrible. And for those of you who voted to leave for reasons other than immigration, please be honest enough to accept that vast swathes of that 52% voted leave specifically because they wanted rid of the 'immigrants', whoever they are, and however they personally think they can identify them.

If the referendum hadn't been 'influenced' by illegal use of 'external' funds then the result would have been closer to a 'tie'.

Speculation. Any evidence to prove the above statement?

I despise the little Englander mentality of so many leavers. But I’m not so arrogant as to say their votes don’t count

Wow. A remain voter has agreed that leave voters count too.

Wow. A remain voter has agreed that leave voters count too.

Awww, there there, you won get over it

NoMoreMonkeys

Just wanted to say what a great post.All of your post is great but especially the fifth paragraph which deserves repeating..

As it stands though, remain voters have been largely mocked and ignored for the last 3 years. We are told to shut up because the will of the people, we are told it's democracy that we don't get any say in how our future relationship with the eu will look. At the same time, we have a prime minister who is paying for the DUP to prop her party up, she has no qualms about presenting her deal repeatedly for MPs to vote on because she didn't get the result she wanted, she is acting like the result to leave was 80/20 not 52/48 and she is acting like her position as PM was a landslide when in fact she has no control at all.

I always wonder how the Farage,JRM, Duncan Smith lot and their supporters have squared the we~won~get~over~ it stance towards remain voters with allegedly being polite gentlemen.

If you're lucky enough to
back a winner generally it's
etiquette to be modest, go out of
your way to make the
loser feel better and never to.

gloat over the less fortunate
who lost.

CHURCHILL and Thatcher would be spinning in their graves
Ignoring the fact that Churchill advocated the EU, making decisions on the basis of what two long dead politicians may think of us is stupidity in the Nth degree. Almost as stupid as the amount of Brexiters who invoke the Blitz spirit (although Churchill and his chums were eating lobster and quaffing champagne while the people were eating bread made of chalk) and those who say 'Well we didn't need a visa to get into France in 1945' of 'I hope France don't come running to us next time they need help' every single time the French Prime Minister or anyone French dares to say anything on behalf of the EU. It just goes to show how embarrassing we are. Why not just go round chanting 'Two World Wars, One World Cup' just to prove what an international laughing stock we are?

Wow. A remain voter has agreed that leave voters count too

Its comments like this that are fanning the flames

Just sayin'

ny evidence to prove the above statement

Ive noticed that you don't provide any evidence, ive asked twice myself

Why do you expect others to provide you with evidence when you dont have the common courtesy to do so yourself