[JD6]

This won't come as a surprise to most here and it has been discussed here previously, but for those who weren't clear whether the UK had the right to unilaterally stop Brexit - here is clarification.

“It is in fact up to London how this will end, with a good deal, no deal or no Brexit,” Donald Tusk told MEPs as he reported on last week’s EU summit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...urges-eu-unity

This isn't to suggest that Brexit will be halted - I accept that is is more likely to happen than not, just that it could be halted unilaterally. If that is going to happen, the next step in that direction would be Labour backing a second referendum on the final deal.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Lobb come on , where are you Lobb, it's been twenty minutes and you haven't come along to write your usual response to this kind of thing.

[teaston]

A few months ago I would have said no way it could happen, but now I think it just might be able to! It makes sense that we can all vote on whether we leave the EU knowing exactly what it would entail, rather than a vote based on complete lies of what leaving would mean.

Problem is, there is that ignorant section of society that would just throw their toys out of their pram and cause riots because they didn’t get their own way!

[dopper99]

I think a second vote now makes a lot of sense, now the average Joe public are wiser (hopefully) to the shit Brexit is going to cause.

It's only going one way and will cost the country dearly, £100 billion mentioned last week.

Shame we got into the state we have because Joe public voted out "cos it seemed a good idea at the time". Not knowing the real consequences.

[mcoops]

I think there is no way this will happen with the current PM and cabinet in place. I think it would require a significant rebellion in the wider parliamentary base of Tory MPs teamed up with other parties, to deliver a no confidence vote or some other forcing mechanism. I still think a second vote is very unlikely though as it's not labour policy either last time I checked.

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by mcoops

I still think a second vote is very unlikely though as it's not labour policy either last time I checked.

I didn't think Labour had a policy on this. Didn't they just spend the whole of the last conference avoiding Brexit, because they are in fact just as devided

[mcoops]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

I didn't think Labour had a policy on this. Didn't they just spend the whole of the last conference avoiding Brexit, because they are in fact just as deviced

Autocorrect fail?

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by mcoops

Autocorrect fail?

Unfortunately not. Just crap typing

[Broncho]

Most of the people I know that were staunch brexit voters have now had second thoughts since they’ve seen the reality of the process.

Problem is though what precedent does it set that you can just have another referendum / vote on something that you change your mind on?

I for one would like to see us remain even more so after witnessing the absolute shambles this government has made of pretty much everything.

It’s still unlikely though IMO.

[TodmordenLad]

Having followed Martin Wolf in the FT on the dire economic consequences of Brexit for a long time now, there’s nothing I’d love more than to see a reversal. Most unlikely however as there’s division in both main parties over Europe, and so far, leadership on the left and the right have shown themselves to be worse than useless.
It was our politicians who got us into this mess in the first place through their own dishonesty, ineptitude and ignorance, and I very much doubt that they are going to get us out of it.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

I don't think a push for a further Brexit vote should focus on overturning the original decision. It should just be a vote on the deal we get.

I was in the Remain camp because I didn't think we'd get a great deal. Unlikely as it seems now, if we actually walk away with a great deal I might change my vote to Leave.

The first vote was for a principle, or even an emotion. The country didn't like the EU and what it stood for. A second vote makes perfect sense, a vote on what leaving is actually going to mean, good or bad.

The trouble is, all this process should have been considered prior to the original vote. But Cameron was so arrogant he couldn't see past a Remain result. It should have also been defined beforehand that a larger majority was required for a unilateral exit with no further consulting, or voting, but again, not enough thought put in in advance.

[DB118D]

Michael Bloomberg hit the nail on the head yesterday

"Brexit is the stupidest thing a country has done apart from electing Donald Trump as President"

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by DB118D

Michael Bloomberg hit the nail on the head yesterday

"Brexit is the stupidest thing a country has done apart from electing Donald Trump as President"

More stupid in fact as US presidents' terms are 4 years and a president can only serve two terms. The dire economic and political consequences of Brexit could last for decades

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Alex440

I don't think a push for a further Brexit vote should focus on overturning the original decision. It should just be a vote on the deal we get.

I imagine it was this referendum on the deal which Tusk had in mind when he said what he made it clear that the UK can still choose to stay.

The EU do have form in encouraging second referendums when the first one gives the wrong answer!

[ADS-UK]

For this to happen we need labour to elect a new party leader. With Corbyn at the helm, I wouldn't want to take my chances.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Lobb

It's excellent news.

Only 23% of the nation voted to remain in the EU.

On 29.03.2019 the UK will have left. At which point the EU will account for just 18% of the world's GDP.

Leave the EU.

Join the world.

Not many more voted for Leave. I think direct access to pretty much 1/5 of the worlds GDP is pretty good, especially as geographically they are much easier to get product and services to.

We still trade with other parts of the world now, its not suddenly going to be some floodgate opening. If anything it will be super slow trickle as we do, or probably do not, agree satisfactory trade deals with other nations.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Lobb

On 29.03.2019 the UK will have left. At which point the EU will account for just 18% of the world's GDP.

Leave the EU.

Join the world.

They we are. It usually only takes minutes, 12 hours late is better than not at all.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Lobb

Post 29.03.2019 we will still have access to the EU. You don't need to be a member of the single market to trade with it.

Doesn't that argument work just as well in reverse for your point?

[Herr Dreier]

Originally Posted by Alex440

They we are. It usually only takes minutes, 12 hours late is better than not at all.

Of course, it only took you 33 minutes to respond to a brexit post with an attempt to bait the poor innocent Lobb

[JNW1]

I don't think we'll get another vote and personally I never thought we should have had the first one; of all the issues to throw at Joe Public for an opinion one as complex as continued membership of the EU was probably one of the worst anyone could have chosen.

I'm also quite sceptical that Brexit will ever happen. As I've said on previous threads, we have a House of Commons full of Remainers and I think many of those will push for the sort of deal where it would actually make far more sense for us just to stay in. IMHO there's no point in paying loads of money for something akin to continued membership of the Single Market if you have no say in the rules for how that market works; might as well remain members if you're going to do that!

I know back in the summer others said the election result made no difference to Brexit but I disagreed then and I disagree now. If the EU knew it was dealing with a government that had a mandate to push hard - and if necessary walk away with no deal - their mindset would in my view be different from dealing with a government that's weak, has no overall majority and is unable to push through the policies it wants. The EU knows it's negotiating with a government that can't even count on all its own MP's never mind the House of Commons and that's strengthened their hand IMO.

It's also interesting to hear Donald Tusk talking in terms of defeats and victories; does rather suggest he sees the Brexit process as a war to be won rather a means of trying to work for the best compromise outcome for all concerned....

[TodmordenLad]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I know back in the summer others said the election result made no difference to Brexit but I disagreed then and I disagree now. If the EU knew it was dealing with a government that had a mandate to push hard - and if necessary walk away with no deal - their mindset would in my view be different from dealing with a government that's weak, has no overall majority and is unable to push through the policies it wants. The EU knows it's negotiating with a government that can't even count on all its own MP's never mind the House of Commons and that's strengthened their hand IMO.

It's also interesting to hear Donald Tusk talking in terms of defeats and victories; does rather suggest he sees the Brexit process as a war to be won rather a means of trying to work for the best compromise outcome for all concerned....

Yep, I agree that the election has made a difference to our negotiating strength, with the EU stronger in the process as a result, as you say. I think the EU is going to remain intransigent, unfortunately. As Martin Wolf in the FT wrote last week: "David Davis, who is in charge of the negotiations for the UK, complained to the House of Commons that “they are using time pressure to see if they can get more money out of us. Bluntly that’s what is going on — it’s obvious to anybody.” Indeed, it is. Stop complaining: that is what strong parties do." Davis's mock outrage in the Commons was risible.

Strengthening unity within the EU27 is the EU's priority, and if it means punishing the UK by allowing it to slide into a 'no deal' situation - which is in neither party's economic interests - I think they will do so rather compromise on their ideological stance. Just my 2p's worth....

[Blacktemplar]

.