The problem with chosen mild forms of Brexit now is they were not being offered prior to the referendum. Without fully repeating myself as far as I remember only what some refer to as 'hard brexit' was on offer. The UK public voted for, soveignty, end of mass immigration, ability to trade with the rest of the world and an end to subsidising Brussels.
I think you cannot answer with certainty what they voted for. People voted for a whole plethora of things. It is disingenuous to heap them all together like you have done. As TM so clearly put... Brexit is Brexit... And that can mean a whole range of things... Sent from my G3121 using Tapatalk
There have been studies done since, my 'reasons' cover the most popular. All groups promised Brexit would mean out of single market and customs union so we had a fairly good idea what Brexit would be like. Nobody suggested it would be a wishy washy half in / hall out softly softly mismatch.
No - there you are really mistaken. Norway and Canada models as well as Switzerland were all very prominent in the campaign. I can understand someone arguing that the Norway model is not really like leaving the EU - although technically it is as Norway is not in the EU. However that and just about every other form of brexit were contemplated. As a result no specific form of brexit was chosen and just as remainers should accept the referendum result so brexiters should accept that many widely different forms of brexit were on offer. You see the UK public could NOT vote for any of the things you suggest as they were not on the ballot paper. All of those things may have been reasons why someone voted for brexit - for one or other or all or maybe something else. The only vote was to leave the EU and even a die hard brexit supporter cannot deny Norway is not in the EU - therefore if we ended up with an identical arrangement we would have complied with the democratic decision of the UK public (although I concede it would upset 90+% of those who voted brexit).
Well you'd actually agree with me judging by your previous posts. My comment was in direct response to SH (quite correct) statement that the whole thing had been vigorously debated etc, etc. However the starting point was wrong. They ignored this fact - a bit like building a football stadium over a swamp and not putting in the correct foundations... and it's sinking as a result. What I did not say was: "our parliamentarians are not fit for purpose" although some most certainly aren't if the idea is to do the best thing for the majority of the population and strive to a fair society.
OK - just was not sure in what we they are not fit for purpose. Agree with starting point - and swamp is good analogy and that they seem to forget that we should be trying to create a good society.
Ha ha. Not surprised. However you have to admit it was put forward as one route for brexit. Personally I think it is the worst of all worlds.
Serious question? Not really - as it could describe some people but it is not a polite term and is certainly not PC
Although the man is no longer a sitting member of the States, his views carry weight as he is still the Bailiff, which is the head of the legal system on the island: https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2018/06/23/independence-may-be-only-option-if-brexit-deal-is-bad/ When he was a States Member, a lot of people thought he had a conflict of interest, as he was a part of the body that passed new laws, but head of the group that enforced them. To use a comparable example with the UK, it would be the equivalent of the Lord Chief Justice becoming an MP. There was a mention on the news last night about EU nationals having to re-register for residency after Brexit, but I think that only applies to those born outside a British territory, whether they have since obtained British citizenship or not, but I couldn't find that on the internet.
Why have those walking around London asking for another referendum not been told it is all done and dusted. The PM has defeated every challenge and the government will now decide whether to accept a deal with the EU or be in a position to walk away without a deal. The horse seems to have well and truly bolted.
The idea of a referendum to see what people think of the final agreement or non-agreement might be interesting in terms of how many Brexiters agree with the government/EU Brexit outcome. I tend to agree its not going to make a lot of difference now.. Still just under a year till we "leave2 though.
It's called democracy and freedom of speech. God knows we had enough anti EU protests over the last 20 years or so. Lots of pro Brexit supporters marched today too. Do you not think they should stay at home and enjoy their victory as the government is delivering what they want anyway?
