I was reading about this the other day, didn’t really grasp that the original referendum was called for very much the same reasons as the last one - to isolate a noisy wing of the Labour Party (Benn and the hard left) who wanted out. The difference being that Wilson was savvy enough not to nail his colours to any particular mast, so whatever the result he would remain in control. There is truly nothing new in the world.
The ERG's paper on moving ahead on WTO or a Canada style deal will be out next month. It'll be interesting to see what response it gets. There's still huge brinkmanship coming from the EU to get May to water down the Chequer's deal. Could seal her fate, and then they'd have shot their golden goose
Does rather beg the question of why the ERG, which is about 70 Tory MPs only a tiny fraction of whom have ever held ministerial positions, have left it so long in publishing their manifesto - surely their vision is relatively consistent and easy to articulate, and it would have strengthened their case to have a their description of post Brexit Britain out there to refer to over the last two years of bickering? I would be particularly interested to hear what Rees Mogg et al would be prepared to compromise on, not with the EU but with the very many people, including the vast majority of Parliamentarians, in the UK who don’t share their vision, which Inam sure will include exhortations of ‘belief’ in Britain and how strong we are. A divided country isn’t strong.
Yes, I agree, this paper should have been put out long ago. Since WTO is Brexit back-stop, we have needed clarity on it, although the more I learn, the more it appears perfectly feasible, particularly since it would be unthinkable that the EU would not try to mitigate the effects for its members own benefits on things like airspace, security, ease of import/export etc. But obviously, it would be more disruptive than a Canada type deal, and that must be the target. Divisions, yes. If Brexit is a success, and I believe it will be, they will lessen and we then get on with trading with Europe and increasing our trade with rest of the world and particularly the emerging markets
To be fair Goldie the government should have put out a paper on what a WTO deal, or a Canada style deal, actually means, rather than leaving it to a bunch of backbenchers. If it is to be a WTO deal then so be it, but I really think we will be better off getting the exit treaty done and having the transition period to get the millions of little details of leaving as sorted as we can. I know we should all be altruistic and think in the long term, but for some of us the long term isn’t that long and I have never bought in to the philosophy that a little bit of even short term suffering is good for you. A no deal is all about the short term consequences for me. We might save £39bn (enough to keep the NHS going for 4 months) but we will spend much more coping with stuff as it emerges, will still have the Irish border question and will leave millions of EU and UK citizens living away from their home countries in limbo. Get the divorce done, then work out if we are still friendly enough for the occasional meal out.
Government paper on WTO? Agree, it should have been out long ago. Nobody wants WTO. But if the EU are totally inflexible, then that's the way it has to be. There will be huge disruption too, on the EU side, and at some stage, fingers will be pointing at Brussels and the main member state leaders like Merkel and Macron. We're two or three weeks away from one of the most fascinating times in modern British economic history. No one knows how this will play out. Stakes are huge. It'll be fascinating and this thread started by Stroller is going to get plenty of use. I'm confident that pragmatism will break out, with or without a deal, and any short term negative consequences will be minimal.
That's maybe true, Col, I wasn't that interested in politics at the time, TBH. I wish I didn't feel I needed to be that interested now! But even if it was true, two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Why would anyone want to deny leavers the chance to say what sort of deal they wanted? As far as a few decades time goes, I'll probably be pushing up daisies.
So we continue to have votes till every single person's concerns have been addressed? No, either we have referendums and abide by the results or we don't. Personally, I wouldn't trust the current useless politicians, of all persuasions, to make this kind of decision for me, so I'd like to keep referendums.
To be honest Col I think it would have been better if, like many other Member States, we'd had a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty back in 1992. I suspect if we had done so, and voted against, the EU would have looked rather different to what it does now and may have been to more people's liking. But you're right - it's done and the result has to stand. I just wish we could move on from moaning about the different things that happened in the referendum. It was two years ago FFS - no amount of complaining will change the result so we have to look to the future and hope we all get some of what we want.
Me too! I want a referendum to find out what sort of leave we'd like the government to enact for us. I fully accept we're leaving. It's far too late to stop that. I'd like the government to know what the will of the people is regarding the type of exit we'd like. They're just guessing at the moment, and doomed to fail. All they have to do is ask.
Still a lot of chat regarding the EU and we are still a member we helped the rules of the EU form to what it is today Yet we consider ourselves either better or righteous because of us leaving That is wrong imo plus 48% voted to remain It will be a big mistake not to let the general public have the final say on the exit deal I think we would only see a small minority supporting a no deal
I started to answer your question, Col. Then I realised something I should have understood a long time ago and it interrupted my thoughts. Some of the people who voted to leave the EU really do want to fall off the cliff, have the quickest, cleanest break possible and then deal with the aftermath of the pain it will give the country. Some are insulated from future pain by their wealth and position, of course - and we know who some of those people are. Others are prepared to suffer a little to shape the country into the country they want - and make others suffer with them. Their fear must be that any referendum will allow "remain" voters to select the closest possible relationship with the `EU to avoid that possibility (I would, for sure) and therefore they won't get the exit path they seek. That's why they're so resistant to another referendum - they don't want to give people who don't think like they do a chance to have their say. So, it doesn't matter how I'd word the referendum. In fact, why should I, a remainer, do the work of leavers? We've got enough remainers in the government trying to do that and failing to make both leavers and remainers happy. I'm not going to try and stop us leaving. I don't have to support it or actively assist, either. Those of you who are leavers want to leave. You won the vote. You guys do it. I'll just try and protect me and mine from the fallout.
Am I being thick or isn’t Dipper suggesting that we have a referendum not stay/leave, but on what type of leave? Which is a bit different, and I wouldn’t have a clue on how to design it. As you know in normal circumstances I would say that this is the job of elected governments, but the one we have at the moment clearly needs the people to give it direction. All a bit academic, it’s not going to happen, we are going to wander blindly into whatever happens.
He said that people like me don't want to give people who think differently a say. I simply pointed out that we all had a say. The problem with a vote on the kind of brexit is that, every version I've seen is designed to split the leave vote, with 2nd choices etc. I don't agree that we're going blindly into brexit. The government have been useless, but they are, finally starting to show some readiness for a no deal. I've already said that I wouldn't be against a Norway type deal by way of transition, but I firmly believe that a no deal resulting in WTO will be ok after some initial bumps in the road. I'd certainly prefer that to a fudge whereby we are still governed by EU regulations and judges, without any say whatsoever. Still, there we are, round full circle again mate.
Not really. If I wanted a Norway deal, that wasn’t on the ballot. The Leave campaign was intentionally ambiguous so everyone from the softest Brexiteers to the Kippers in Union Jack underwear was led to believe their preferred Brexit would be pursued.
Would you rather... A) jump off the ****ing cliff on the off chance you’ll land on a thousand pillows B) not jump off the ****ing cliff but we’re ****ed now either way so everyone gets one kick in the bollocks
