[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Personally I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we can keep on going back over and over again. If I were the EU negotiator I'd be pissing myself at all our bickering and amateur night approach to all this. And then at some point I'd get fed up, stop tolerating our nonsense and say take it or leave it.

If Therese May and the negotiating team stick to their guns "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" then there is still leverage in the process. There's also the small matter of €39B contribution to the EU at stake which, although it's not, should be steadfastly anchored to an acceptable trade deal. It seems we also have the right to unilaterally retract our notice under Article 50, but that wouldn't honour the outcome of the referendum.

The EU has always maintained that this is the divorce bill (i.e. separate to a trade deal) but if the terms of the divorce prove to be unacceptable to the UK (i.e. a potentially never-ending customs backstop) then we have the right to an 'acrimonious' divorce rather than just handing over a huge amount of cash for an unacceptable outcome. Or the EU can work with us to find acceptable revised terms.

The transition terms would be legally binding and the wording of the agreement is therefore critical. Political platitudes and statements of best intent are not enforceable and are therefore meaningless. Nothing is final until it's signed.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Personally I think we're kidding ourselves if we think we can keep on going back over and over again. If I were the EU negotiator I'd be pissing myself at all our bickering and amateur night approach to all this. And then at some point I'd get fed up, stop tolerating our nonsense and say take it or leave it.

Agreed with many of the points about how shit we have been but on the take it or leave it front we may just say "Thanks, we will leave it..." Their worry then is that our economy doesnt completely tank and other countries start to think maybe they will follow.... would only take one or two more net contributors and they are f*cked...

[antjos1]

Interesting read
Frederick Forsyth

Best-selling author and political commentator

Yet time to fight Campaign of Fear, says FREDERICK FORSYTH
As I thought, we have all been subjected to the most hysterical and mendacious campaign of fear in my lifetime.
By FREDERICK FORSYTH









British Prime Minister Theresa May
We have been told to accept Theresa May's disastrous scuttle or something akin to global war will engulf us. Many of the media, who are supposed to be sceptical of official lies, have gone along with this. The main theme has been that we must grovel to the EU as per the May scuttle because there is nowhere else to go. As usual, the BBC has been slavish in its obedience. I once (as foreign correspondent) spent a year in East Germany.

They had the same media-obedience as we do now. Hardly a single mention of the World Trading Organisation, so permit me.

It is not too late for true independence, says FREDERICK FORSYTH

Brexit must have been sabotaged, says FREDERICK .




The WTO is a UN agency set up years ago with British help to preside over global trade. We still have 60 per cent of our import/ export trade with the world outside the EU under WTO rules, and we have a thumping surplus.

On our 40 per cent under EU rules we have an £80billion a year deficit. Ninety per cent of world trade is done under WTO rules.

It is friction-free, smooth and lucrative. We could easily switch to it. There would be about a year of dislocation and changeover costs - like moving house and all the stress that involves - but I bet most of us have moved house at least once. When it is over, you settle down and have a better life. B UT the WTO has been demonised (if mentioned at all) as if it were run by Adolf Hitler.





This whole episode in our country's life has been the biggest mess-up since Munich in 1938 and the biggest lie since suez in 1956. Both led to the departure of an utterly failed prime minister. Let us pray this one will.

By the by, we are paying £39billion to Brussels to remain its servant; we might as well pay half that to switch systems. We could use the other half to create ultra-low-tax startup zones, suck in foreign investors, create a million new jobs and (outside the EU rule book) there is nothing anyone could do to stop us.

But, of course, we would have opponents. Not Merkel in Berlin, not Macron in Paris (and both are on the skids anyway), but the British Civil service.

There is much talk of reform of the Commons and the Lords. The really vital reform needed is a huge reduction of the stranglehold of bureaucracy on all our lives. That used to be the leitmotif of the Conservative Party, which was why it won elections. But that was before it lost its soul and its leadership.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I also don't understand what a general election would achieve.

IMHO for the UK it would at best achieve nothing and at worst would be very damaging if comrade Corbyn and his crew were to form a government.

However, they're not pushing for an election because they seriously think they can make a better fist of Brexit, they just see the Tories in a mess and hence for them it's quite simply an opportunistic attempt at a power grab. In a sense I suppose you can't blame them for trying but in calling for a general election Labour don't have the best interests of the country at heart, they have only their own.

[JNW1]

So as expected the ECJ has upheld the view of the Advocate General and ruled that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally (which basically means the UK can change its mind and stay in the EU with no change to existing terms).

The whole process is feeling more and more like it's going to have a "Bobby Ewing" ending....

[JD6]

Originally Posted by JNW1

So as expected the ECJ has upheld the view of the Advocate General and ruled that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally (which basically means the UK can change its mind and stay in the EU with no change to existing terms).

The whole process is feeling more and more like it's going to have a "Bobby Ewing" ending....

As you say, this was expected following the advocate general's view last week.

It may perversely, slightly increase the chances of May's deal, or some amended version getting through, since the swivel-eyed loons will see their prize slipping away from them.

The betting market implied probability of a second referendum continues to creep up - now 42-44% and may climb a little further this morning.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by JNW1

So as expected the ECJ has upheld the view of the Advocate General and ruled that Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally (which basically means the UK can change its mind and stay in the EU with no change to existing terms).

The whole process is feeling more and more like it's going to have a "Bobby Ewing" ending....

The Remoaners will be in a right state today; overturning a democratic vote is SO close, but the government is standing firm : honour the referendum.

It must be a bit like tantric sex : waves of heightened arousal, but no climax.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Watsey

The Remoaners will be in a right state today; overturning a democratic vote is SO close, but the government is standing firm : honour the referendum.

It must be a bit like tantric sex : waves of heightened arousal, but no climax.

Yes, a democratic vote based on zero facts could be overturned in the future by another democratic vote based on all the facts.

How very undemocratic.

Is your last sentence describing Brexit? A euphoric wave of emotion when making a decision, followed by, erm, pretty much nothing.

[MashinBenzin]

Oddschecker now has the market average odds of a second referendum at 67%.

For what it's worth, it seems a completely democratic solution to me. If the result changes then that can only be because people's opinions have changed and/or the balance changes as older voters die and younger ones become eligible. Whether the result changes or not, a second vote on that basis is very democratic.

I don't understand anyone being against another vote unless they are leavers who think the result will be different.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

Oddschecker now has the market average odds of a second referendum at 67%.

For what it's worth, it seems a completely democratic solution to me. If the result changes then that can only be because people's opinions have changed and/or the balance changes as older voters die and younger ones become eligible. Whether the result changes or not, a second vote on that basis is very democratic.

I don't understand anyone being against another vote unless they are leavers who think the result will be different.

It's very simple and of hugely fundamental significance : it would set a precedent to challenge any (every ?) future vote if one group were to decide that it didn't like the outcome. Chaos would/could ensue.

Imagine a general election situation. Voter backlash inadvertently elects a Labour government by a narrow margin. The minority decides that a Labour government isn't in the best interests of the country; demands a second general election. It could happen. Just watch Labour batten down the hatches and argue 'til blue in the face that a second vote would be undemocratic in that situation.

What else ? Scots demand a second referendum to try and overturn the original decision to remain as part of the UK.

Everything is up for grabs if the original results of official referenda are regarded as debates rather than the will of the people.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Watsey

It's very simple and of hugely fundamental significance : it would set a precedent to challenge any (every ?) future vote if one group were to decide that it didn't like the outcome. Chaos would/could ensue.

Imagine a general election situation. Voter backlash inadvertently elects a Labour government by a narrow margin. The minority decides that a Labour government isn't in the best interests of the country; demands a second general election. It could happen. Just watch Labour batten down the hatches and argue 'til blue in the face that a second vote would be undemocratic in that situation.

What else ? Scots demand a second referendum to try and overturn the original decision to remain as part of the UK.

Everything is up for grabs if the original results of official referenda are regarded as debates rather than the will of the people.

Everything is up for grabs, that's how democracy works. The Brexit vote was 2 and half years ago. General elections have often been closer together than that when there have been changes in the political landscape.

We could easily end up in with TWO general elections since the Brexit vote was cast the rate we are going! And by definition a referendum IS advisory, therefore it SHOULD stimulate debate. One or two of our stupid politicians forgot to point that out in advance as they should have done.

Anyone who genuinely believed in democracy would only want us to do this if the majority still believed in it. Do you know that to be the case?

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Watsey

It's very simple and of hugely fundamental significance : it would set a precedent to challenge any (every ?) future vote if one group were to decide that it didn't like the outcome. Chaos would/could ensue.

Imagine a general election situation. Voter backlash inadvertently elects a Labour government by a narrow margin. The minority decides that a Labour government isn't in the best interests of the country; demands a second general election. It could happen. Just watch Labour batten down the hatches and argue 'til blue in the face that a second vote would be undemocratic in that situation.

What else ? Scots demand a second referendum to try and overturn the original decision to remain as part of the UK.

Everything is up for grabs if the original results of official referenda are regarded as debates rather than the will of the people.

I really don't think that's true. We have 3 examples from the recent past of EU referendums which were rejected, only to be accepted on a second referendum:

1. The Maastricht Treaty was rejected by Denmark in June 1992, but that decision was overturned by a second referendum in May 1993.
2. The Treaty of Nice was rejected by Ireland in June 2001, but that decision was overturned by a second referendum in October 2002.
3. The Treaty of Lisbon was rejected by Ireland in June 2008, and overturned by a second referendum in October 2009.

As far as I can tell Denmark and Ireland are still functioning democracies, and anarchy hasn't broken out ...

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by JD6

I really don't think that's true. We have 3 examples from the recent past of EU referendums which were rejected, only to be accepted on a second referendum:

1. The Maastricht Treaty was rejected by Denmark in June 1992, but that decision was overturned by a second referendum in May 1993.
2. The Treaty of Nice was rejected by Ireland in June 2001, but that decision was overturned by a second referendum in October 2002.
3. The Treaty of Lisbon was rejected by Ireland in June 2008, and overturned by a second referendum in October 2009.

As far as I can tell Denmark and Ireland are still functioning democracies, and anarchy hasn't broken out ...

Good to see that you e mastered Copy /Paste from the BBC news page.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Good to see that you e mastered Copy /Paste from the BBC news page.

Actually I haven't seen this on the BBC or any other news site. I'll be interested to see the link. I got the info from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refere...European_Union

It's not surprising that they include this though as it does rather destroy the argument that a second referendum is somehow the end of democracy as we know it

[Wills2]

So the vote is off, well well this is going to be interesting.

[Bryans69]

Originally Posted by Wills2

So the vote is off, well well this is going to be interesting.

Having spent £100k on Facebook adds trying to persuade those that can't vote anyway to encourage (????) those that can vote to vote yes in a vote that now isn't taking place......

The idea of Corbyn McDonald and Abbot scares me sh*tless, but I'm really struggling to see how much longer May and the tories can carry on.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Bryans69

Having spent £100k on Facebook adds trying to persuade those that can't vote anyway to encourage (????) those that can vote to vote yes in a vote that now isn't taking place......

The idea of Corbyn McDonald and Abbot scares me sh*tless, but I'm really struggling to see how much longer May and the tories can carry on.

To the bitter end, we now realise why Cameron ran off after the result it's an impossible task.

Labour couldn't do any better and would ruin the country at the same time, brexit deadlock and a far left socialist government would be a double whammy.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Wills2

So the vote is off, well well this is going to be interesting.

Reminds me of Laurel and Hardy : one digging a hole while the other fills it in.

How could this go ?

May approaches EU for amendments regarding the backstop.
EU refuses.
UK reminds EU that €39B is part of a mutually acceptable withdrawal agreement, and introduces a new condition that half should be tied to a free trade agreement.
EU capitulates. New deal is agreed which improved assurances regarding free trade.
Government maintains its line 'no second referendum'.
New deal presented to The Commons and is passed as it delivers on Brexit.

Of course, there are other potential versions of events and outcomes.

[JD6]

Watsey still waiting for the link to the page you accused me of copying from...

[mikeoz]

Its a National embarrassment.

[Kyuuseishu]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Reminds me of Laurel and Hardy : one digging a hole while the other fills it in.

How could this go ?

May approaches EU for amendments regarding the backstop.
EU refuses.
UK reminds EU that €39B is part of a mutually acceptable withdrawal agreement, and introduces a new condition that half should be tied to a free trade agreement.
EU capitulates. New deal is agreed which improved assurances regarding free trade.
Government maintains its line 'no second referendum'.
New deal presented to The Commons and is passed as it delivers on Brexit.

Of course, there are other potential versions of events and outcomes.

You're putting a lot of emphasis on this 39bn. If we actually held that much swaying power in negotiations over this sum of money we wouldn't be in the terrible position we are in now.

[Wills2]

One thing is sure no one on this forum has got the answer.