Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BACK TO THE FUTURE – Part 1  Europe has changed – We can’t put

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BACK TO THE FUTURE – Part 1  Europe has changed – We can’t put  Humpty together again.

As the Brexit debate rolls on the recent ruling by the ECJ Advocate General that the UK can unilaterally revoke article 50 brings a new angle to proceedings. Suddenly it is a lot easier to stay in.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    First?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    Re Brexit: why don't we ask the Queen to draw a winner (No Deal, Deal or Remain) out of a hat, since neither parliament not the electorate seem to want to decide?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 9,385

    First?

    Until not.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    'All talk of influence and soft power should be forgotten as someone once said can you imagine an EU with a British President?'

    Remember Roy Jenkins?

    Sad. It'll take a while to get back to that state.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 453
    Puzzled by the Irish Border problem. We have a few thousand troops in Ulster. They could be in Dublin by lunchtime. End of border. End of problem. JRM thrilled as we go back to the days of Edward VII.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,958
    A really interesting header, thank you.

    The one factor I would add is that the post-war geopolitical consensus is also breaking up. The US is pivoting East rather than to Europe; Russia is reverting to an aggressive hostile stance; the Middle East has gone backwards; and strong authoritarian but fundamentally illiberal and undemocratic countries - such as China (but see also Brazil, Turkey) - are willing to throw their weight about and are perhaps seen as more of a model to follow by other parts of the world.

    Europe - neither the EU nor Britain - have really taken these developments on board. We can't go back in time to the post-war settlement either. What comes next is very unclear and could be very worrying and unstable.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 11,562
    Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,226
    Gerard Batten live now on UKIP's Periscope...

    https://www.pscp.tv/w/1MnxnNOkNbXxO
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 677
    All this pales into total insignificance with the clear and present danger to the credibility of the U.K. as a progressive, modern nation founded on rationality, wisdom and a sense of togetherness... namely the announcement of Harry Kane as SPOTY. 1-0 up in a World Cup semi-final with a teammate stood five yards away in front of an open goal and he decides to shoot from the impossible angle with defenders in the way... just to shore up his golden boot chances. Still, doesn’t matter if we lose the semi, he can turn up to the next international in a pair of golden boots, FFS.
  • I absolutely agree that you can’t unscramble the eggs. The EU has bigger problems than Britain but a surly Britain returning to the EU with an enlarged extremist section that regarded the return to the EU as an assault on democracy would be a huge headache all round.

    The alternative, a Britain run by those extremists lobbing invective at the EU from outside for the foreseeable future, looks no more appetising. It’s a mess.
  • Interesting header thank you and let's not forget France which has gone through a turbo powered version of the last 2 years with the rise and fall of Macron leading to the protests in Paris.
  • 'All talk of influence and soft power should be forgotten as someone once said can you imagine an EU with a British President?'

    Remember Roy Jenkins?

    Sad. It'll take a while to get back to that state.

    Yes, the article could have done with a little more research.
    https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137515292
  • I absolutely agree that you can’t unscramble the eggs. The EU has bigger problems than Britain but a surly Britain returning to the EU with an enlarged extremist section that regarded the return to the EU as an assault on democracy would be a huge headache all round.

    The alternative, a Britain run by those extremists lobbing invective at the EU from outside for the foreseeable future, looks no more appetising. It’s a mess.

    There is an old expression that good fences make good neighbours.

    If we leave properly and are not entangled within a backstop etc then we will get over the EU. Our own issues will be in our own nation. Canadians are more likely to laugh at Trump's America than get into fights with it most of the time. So long as we cut our ties properly that will be our future.
  • BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113

    First?

    Whatever happened to “First, like Mrs May and Leave”?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    Fenman said:

    Puzzled by the Irish Border problem. We have a few thousand troops in Ulster. They could be in Dublin by lunchtime. End of border. End of problem. JRM thrilled as we go back to the days of Edward VII.

    You're about as sensible as Priti Patel.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 24,263

    I absolutely agree that you can’t unscramble the eggs. The EU has bigger problems than Britain but a surly Britain returning to the EU with an enlarged extremist section that regarded the return to the EU as an assault on democracy would be a huge headache all round.

    The alternative, a Britain run by those extremists lobbing invective at the EU from outside for the foreseeable future, looks no more appetising. It’s a mess.

    There is an old expression that good fences make good neighbours.

    If we leave properly and are not entangled within a backstop etc then we will get over the EU. Our own issues will be in our own nation. Canadians are more likely to laugh at Trump's America than get into fights with it most of the time. So long as we cut our ties properly that will be our future.
    “Good fences”

    “Forget the backstop”

    Have you thought this through?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274

    'All talk of influence and soft power should be forgotten as someone once said can you imagine an EU with a British President?'

    Remember Roy Jenkins?

    Sad. It'll take a while to get back to that state.

    Yes, the article could have done with a little more research.
    https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137515292
    The site quoted includes the following as part of Lord Jenkins achievements
    'smoothing Greece’s path to EC membership. '

    Not entirely sure that worked out as well as it might have!
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Fenman said:

    Puzzled by the Irish Border problem. We have a few thousand troops in Ulster. They could be in Dublin by lunchtime. End of border. End of problem. JRM thrilled as we go back to the days of Edward VII.

    You're about as sensible as Priti Patel.
    I see. Starve 'em first *then* invade. Strategic genius.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 1,448
    edited December 2018
    Good article - shame we have to use that evidently sneering photo again highlighting some person's poor grammar and spelling. They may have been dyslexic!

    Even a few pro remain pro EU types aren't always perfect in their use of apostrophes!

    Roll on the people's vote - its going to be such a 'coming together' experience!
  • I absolutely agree that you can’t unscramble the eggs. The EU has bigger problems than Britain but a surly Britain returning to the EU with an enlarged extremist section that regarded the return to the EU as an assault on democracy would be a huge headache all round.

    The alternative, a Britain run by those extremists lobbing invective at the EU from outside for the foreseeable future, looks no more appetising. It’s a mess.

    There is an old expression that good fences make good neighbours.

    If we leave properly and are not entangled within a backstop etc then we will get over the EU. Our own issues will be in our own nation. Canadians are more likely to laugh at Trump's America than get into fights with it most of the time. So long as we cut our ties properly that will be our future.
    “Properly”.

    This deal is only the transitional deal. Even assuming a deal is struck now, the next one looms. All the extremists will continue to bay betrayal and carry nooses for anyone prepared to engage in the slightest constructive discussion.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 38,291
    Seems about right. The path to remain is probably now easier, and I'd put it at a good 50% chance now, but it's not the end of problems.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    If we do finally Stay........ gather that's being considered as a more Anglo-Saxon word........ then those of us who were for staying all along must seriously consider the reasons the Leavers professed, and try and do something about them.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760
    For me the Euro is the EU. Its future prospects are completely tied up with it. It is remarkable that the Euro has survived to date, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the concept of a single currency but because of the lack of unity of its constituent parts. This is not a euro-sceptic point: the currency would not have survived had there not been a political determination to make it work in the face of the economic incoherence. Only a fool would underestimate that commitment even if some of its stronger proponents, such as Merkel, are now moving to the edge of the stage.

    The people who are committed to the Euro recognise that they cannot go on like this. What is the point in having a rule that public debt is not to exceed 60% of GDP if Italy has more than 120% and is increasing it? At what point do the Target 2 balances become unsustainable? Are they already creating liquidity problems in the Mediterranean countries and an excess of liquidity in Germany and Holland? How do you fix this?

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753

    First?

    Whatever happened to “First, like Mrs May and Leave”?
    I just didn't have the time... Mrs P had the Scrabble board out :smile:

    Apologies, back now, good thread header @Alanbrooke, thought provoking for Europhiles like me. Makes me think that maybe the EU does need us more than we need them they realise at any rate... UK has been and can continue to be a good moderating influence on the EU.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035
    Neil Hamilton sticking with UKIP.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    Pulpstar said:

    Neil Hamilton sticking with UKIP.

    They are well-suited tbf.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,347
    Has the court published its judgment then? I thought that wasn't expected until Monday, and we'd been given a preview opinion.

    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753

    If we do finally Stay........ gather that's being considered as a more Anglo-Saxon word........ then those of us who were for staying all along must seriously consider the reasons the Leavers professed, and try and do something about them.

    Very wise words. Sadly, the likelihood is it will get forgotten but won't go away.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    AnneJGP said:

    Has the court published its judgment then? I thought that wasn't expected until Monday, and we'd been given a preview opinion.

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    "...the recent ruling by the ECJ Advocate General..."

    It's only the AG's recommendation at the moment - ECJ ruling is published at 8:00GMT tomorrow.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 7,965
    Somewhat agree with this analysis. Brexit makes the problems vastly more acute for the UK than remaining a member however. That's because the EU's problems aren't mostly of its own making, but are problems it has to deal with. The UK is one of their problems...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753

    'All talk of influence and soft power should be forgotten as someone once said can you imagine an EU with a British President?'

    Remember Roy Jenkins?

    Sad. It'll take a while to get back to that state.

    Yes, the article could have done with a little more research.
    https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9781137515292
    The site quoted includes the following as part of Lord Jenkins achievements
    'smoothing Greece’s path to EC membership. '

    Not entirely sure that worked out as well as it might have!
    It arguably protected Greece from a further round of military dictatorship.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,600

    If we do finally Stay........ gather that's being considered as a more Anglo-Saxon word........ then those of us who were for staying all along must seriously consider the reasons the Leavers professed, and try and do something about them.

    Seems most of the reamainers on here have been telling leavers that they are thick and xenophobic.

    Do you seriously expect those remainers to listen and engage?

    LOL
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,855
    I imagine Boris might well cast himself as God.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760
    BTW, anybody who doubts the instability being caused by Target 2 balances really ought to look at the charts found here: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

    Essentially all of the liquid capital in the EZ is in Germany and those wanting to invest elsewhere are dependent upon their banks recycling that surplus. Any Italian with any serious capital has already moved it out of the country and beyond the reach of the authorities there making it impossible to defy the ECB, hence the Italian government's climb down.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,647
    edited December 2018
    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    brendan16 said:

    Good article - shame we have to use that evidently sneering photo again highlighting some person's poor grammar and spelling. They may have been dyslexic!

    Even a few pro remain pro EU types aren't always perfect in their use of apostrophes!

    Roll on the people's vote - its going to be such a 'coming together' experience!

    The spelling's ok tbf. But what was the printer thinking? Surely any printer worth their fee would have gently pointed out the error.

    Did this poster post-date Tezza's vacuous mantra or did she actually pinch a key message from an illiterate poster?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    If we remained in the EU we would still be outside the Eurozone.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    If we remained in the EU we would still be outside the Eurozone.
    For the time being.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,647

    If we remained in the EU we would still be outside the Eurozone.

    Sure but the point is that eventually we won't be one of 28, the core will be a state in itself and the notion of Britain having meaningful influcence will be laughable.
  • OortOort Posts: 96
    edited December 2018
    Floater said:

    If we do finally Stay........ gather that's being considered as a more Anglo-Saxon word........ then those of us who were for staying all along must seriously consider the reasons the Leavers professed, and try and do something about them.

    Seems most of the reamainers on here have been telling leavers that they are thick and xenophobic.

    Do you seriously expect those remainers to listen and engage?

    LOL
    Regarding "Stay" versus "Remain", I'm glad to hear the penny has dropped at last. Offering a choice between "Remain and Leave" in a country where the vast majority of commonly used words are Anglo-Saxon in origin and where the issue concerned relations with the continent was cueing people who valued the specificity of their culture to vote "Leave" (Anglo-Saxon) against "Remain" (Romance). Ideally the question will be phrased as "Stay" versus "Depart" this time, but they might have a hard job successfully framing it like that because Leavers will grok what's happening. Whoever managed to frame it as "Leave or Remain" did a good job for Leave.

    As for Leavers being thick and xenophobic, that may not be true of most Leavers who post here but they are not representative of Leave voters. It's true for 95% of those voters and xenophobia was why they voted how they did.






  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,226

    Pulpstar said:

    Neil Hamilton sticking with UKIP.

    They are well-suited tbf.
    Having watched a bit of the UKIP rally - about as much as I could stomach - UKIP now appears to be the Tommy Robinson Party. No wonder Nige quit. He can't stand being eclipsed. Might just be that particular crowd but UKIP seems to be well on its way to becoming a working class street movement rather than Tories on holiday.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    On the subject of Remain or Stay, I hadn't considered the EC's choice of words before but I wonder why it wasn't Leave against Stay... or Quit versus Remain if we wanted Norman-French rooted words.

    Anyway I am reliably informed that next Wednesday's government proposal for a 2nd referendum will be worded:

    Desert
    or
    Stand firm

    (only with Stand firm first)
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited December 2018

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    If we remained in the EU we would still be outside the Eurozone.
    The changes in majority voting that came in last year mean that the UK will struggle to build a blocking minority under QMV. Not that I want a Remain/Rejoin UK act as a dog in the manger, mind you. @DavidL has it right; the EU should and will be the Eurozone. We're one of two countries with an opt out from Euro membership - all the non-EZ members are playing silly sods with the ERM II conditions. That won't be sustainable in the medium term.

    Being inside without adopting the Euro is a strategic cul-de-sac - we can't stop the EZ doing as it pleases, nor should we. I think @SandyRentool and I are members of a very exclusive club; we believe that we should either be all the way out, or all the way in.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
  • On the subject of Remain or Stay, I hadn't considered the EC's choice of words before but I wonder why it wasn't Leave against Stay... or Quit versus Remain if we wanted Norman-French rooted words.

    Anyway I am reliably informed that next Wednesday's government proposal for a 2nd referendum will be worded:

    Desert
    or
    Stand firm

    (only with Stand firm first)

    Remain is the upper class word and probably felt more natural to David Cameron.

    ISTR an episode of Morse turned on this point.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    John_M said:

    I think @SandyRentool and I are members of a very exclusive club; we believe that we should either be all the way out, or all the way in.

    Me too.

    If the metropolitans get their way and the referendum result is overturned I will promptly join the European Movement and work for the UK to join the euro and Schengen.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057

    On the subject of Remain or Stay, I hadn't considered the EC's choice of words before but I wonder why it wasn't Leave against Stay... or Quit versus Remain if we wanted Norman-French rooted words.

    Anyway I am reliably informed that next Wednesday's government proposal for a 2nd referendum will be worded:

    Desert
    or
    Stand firm

    (only with Stand firm first)

    "Stay" is what you command a dog to do....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753

    On the subject of Remain or Stay, I hadn't considered the EC's choice of words before but I wonder why it wasn't Leave against Stay... or Quit versus Remain if we wanted Norman-French rooted words.

    Anyway I am reliably informed that next Wednesday's government proposal for a 2nd referendum will be worded:

    Desert
    or
    Stand firm

    (only with Stand firm first)

    Remain is the upper class word and probably felt more natural to David Cameron.

    ISTR an episode of Morse turned on this point.
    Actually 'Hold Fast' might swing a few deckhand votes.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
  • Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    I think it would be a serious mistake for the country for the reasons this thread explains. Whether a 60:40 split was a demonstration of our inalienable right to make serious mistakes would very much depend on the circumstances. If it had a similar turnout to the last one then it probably would. If there were was a widescale boycott, which seems very likely to me, then it might not.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018

    On the subject of Remain or Stay, I hadn't considered the EC's choice of words before but I wonder why it wasn't Leave against Stay... or Quit versus Remain if we wanted Norman-French rooted words.

    Anyway I am reliably informed that next Wednesday's government proposal for a 2nd referendum will be worded:

    Desert
    or
    Stand firm

    (only with Stand firm first)

    "Stay" is what you command a dog to do....
    Funny that - we probably spend more time telling our Pointer to "Leave!" something long since dead (I appreciate Leavers will see a metaphor there) or a tasty morsel we don't want him to have (metaphor that!).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 16,100
    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    Others might want to reflect on the fact that we successfully declined to enter into the fiscal compact last time round.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited December 2018

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    This has been one of my continuing points. Despite our shambolic negotiation and ineffectual parliament, we've at least followed proper constitutional processes. If parliament decides to hold a second referendum, that's perfectly legitimate. If it abrogates Brexit, that's legitimate too - though obviously there will consequences for either decision. Democracy is a process, not an event. Here endeth the sermon.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 6,293
    Donny43 said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    If we remained in the EU we would still be outside the Eurozone.
    For the time being.
    We have a permanent opt out, as do the Danes, and in pracice there is no pressure on the non EZ coutries to join.

    We either Remain part of the decision making bodies of Europe, or meekly trail in the footsteps of those who do decide.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    I think it would be a serious mistake for the country for the reasons this thread explains. Whether a 60:40 split was a demonstration of our inalienable right to make serious mistakes would very much depend on the circumstances. If it had a similar turnout to the last one then it probably would. If there were was a widescale boycott, which seems very likely to me, then it might not.
    Nope sorry, no Leavers gave any credence to the fact that only 37% of the electorate voted to leave; if you don't vote, your view doesn't count. Leave boycott? Bring it on!
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    John_M said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    This has been one of my continuing points. Despite our shambolic negotiation and ineffectual parliament, we've at least followed proper constitutional processes. If parliament decides to hold a second referendum, that's perfectly legitimate. If it abrogates Brexit, that's legitimate too - though obviously there will consequences for either decision. Democracy is a process, not an event. Here endeth the sermon.
    Establishing the principle that inconvenient decisions can be ignored or waited out sets a dangerous precedent.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    Foxy said:

    Donny43 said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    If we remained in the EU we would still be outside the Eurozone.
    For the time being.
    We have a permanent opt out, as do the Danes, and in pracice there is no pressure on the non EZ coutries to join.

    We either Remain part of the decision making bodies of Europe, or meekly trail in the footsteps of those who do decide.
    That would change if we now were to Remain.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    John_M said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    This has been one of my continuing points. Despite our shambolic negotiation and ineffectual parliament, we've at least followed proper constitutional processes. If parliament decides to hold a second referendum, that's perfectly legitimate. If it abrogates Brexit, that's legitimate too - though obviously there will consequences for either decision. Democracy is a process, not an event. Here endeth the sermon.
    Well, I agree with you on that one John - but not on your earlier all-in or all-out post.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    Donny43 said:

    Foxy said:

    Donny43 said:

    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    If we remained in the EU we would still be outside the Eurozone.
    For the time being.
    We have a permanent opt out, as do the Danes, and in pracice there is no pressure on the non EZ coutries to join.

    We either Remain part of the decision making bodies of Europe, or meekly trail in the footsteps of those who do decide.
    That would change if we now were to Remain.
    I think that is what is commonly know in anglo-saxon as utter beallucas.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,459
    Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.

    Most of the EU states are in the Eurozone. If the currency is going to be made to work in the long term then they are going to need to give more power and authority to the centre. They will also, over time, need to make more and more common or co-ordinated decisions. They will caucus, and eventually the ability of countries to block core EU initiatives by qualified minority will become redundant. Then the ring of non-Euro states - including us - will find themselves effectively in a similar place to Norway by default. Yes, we'll also have our seats in the European Parliament (although whether or not non-Euro MEPs will be treated, either formally or informally, as second class remains to be seen,) but on the other hand we won't have the limited freedoms or additional protections enjoyed by the EFTA states.

    In short, Britain will end up in exactly the position of powerlessness that today's Remain supporters claim as the key reason why we should reject any compromise Brexit deal such as that negotiated by Theresa May, and stay in the EU as a full member.

    Given these circumstances, there are only two courses of action that make long-term sense for the country:

    1. Accept that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are numbered, drop all our opt-outs and join the Euro. Then at least we would be a full participant in the project, and it should also solve the perfidious Albion problem at a stroke. We'd be locked in and we wouldn't be receiving any of the special perks that are resented.
    2. Declare that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are not numbered, and make a clean break with the EU project rather than sit permanently in its outer orbit as a protectorate.

    If people can't be persuaded to accept option 1 (and almost nobody in Britain, whichever side they were on in that accursed referendum, believes the Euro to be a success story,) then why not proceed directly to option 2? The longer we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.
  • Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.

    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum. I would back the deal if I were an MP since it effects Brexit in accordance with the mandate campaigned for. If as seems likely it is heavily defeated I would ask the public for their views as to next steps. This is a failure of the politicians but better to accept that than take irrevocable action without a suitable mandate.

    In those circumstances, if the public is going to be asked for its guidance, it would be appropriate to check it remained of the same view as to the ultimate outcome. It would be truly anti-democratic to exclude an outcome that was polling twice as well as at least one of the options under consideration.

    The most extreme Leavers are among those most upset by the idea of a second referendum. But if they aren’t prepared to take what’s on offer, they can’t expect either morally or practically to impose on the public a Brexit that was not campaigned for and which apparently does not command majority support in either Parliament or among the public.
  • The article fails to address the issue that it is not just the EC that has moved on but the world. For most of my life the barriers to free movement of people, goods and money have been coming down across the world. These barriers are starting to go back up again. My business is finding it harder to move money and goods around the world. The fight between China and USA is not going away anytime soon.

    The UK over the last 30 years has built a global services powerhouse using the EC market while assisting Germany to build a global manufacturing powerhouse. There is a view that Germany got the better of the deal so we need a plan B.

    I have been on this site for over 10 years on and off and believe I am the only owner of a SME manufacturer who posts regularly and this gives me a different perspective. I believe that a more balanced economy in which the UK produces more of its own consumption is good long term for the UK but I do not underestimate the challenge to get there.

    Tte failure of most Brexiteers to acknowledge the complexity and scale of the project they propose is what scares me not the general plan. Last week I met with the only producer of glass vials in the UK. This may not seem important but every vaciinne dose requires a glass vial. Their capacity is a fraction of local demand. Most product is imported from Germany and the USA. The demand for locally sourced product is very strong with Brexit however even in the JV we are setting up it will take us a year to be able to supply existing contracts without taking on any new business. For the UK to become self sufficient may take 5 years.

    Do we face a future with unemployed bankers, product shortages whilst we invest in capacity and frustrated youth who can no longer travel tte globe in the way they have become accustomed to?
  • Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.

    I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.

    Something that, needless to say, I want no part of.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Donny43 said:

    John_M said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    This has been one of my continuing points. Despite our shambolic negotiation and ineffectual parliament, we've at least followed proper constitutional processes. If parliament decides to hold a second referendum, that's perfectly legitimate. If it abrogates Brexit, that's legitimate too - though obviously there will consequences for either decision. Democracy is a process, not an event. Here endeth the sermon.
    Establishing the principle that inconvenient decisions can be ignored or waited out sets a dangerous precedent.
    As I said, there would be consequences (as an aside, that's not intended to be sinister. This is England, not France, just looking for a neutral term). I think it would do us lasting harm. But let's face it, all our Lords and Masters care about is the economic dimension.
  • Good afternoon, everyone.

    Mr. Rook, that's the crux of the decision we face.

    Good article, Mr. Brooke.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,959
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.

    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum.
    That's not a valid reason for telling the public "you got it wrong, vote again until you get it right", which is exactly how any further referendum with a Remain option would be seen.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760
    edited December 2018

    Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.

    Most of the EU states are in the Eurozone. If the currency is going to be made to work in the long term then they are going to need to give more power and authority to the centre. They will also, over time, need to make more and more common or co-ordinated decisions. They will caucus, and eventually the ability of countries to block core EU initiatives by qualified minority will become redundant. Then the ring of non-Euro states - including us - will find themselves effectively in a similar place to Norway by default. Yes, we'll also have our seats in the European Parliament (although whether or not non-Euro MEPs will be treated, either formally or informally, as second class remains to be seen,) but on the other hand we won't have the limited freedoms or additional protections enjoyed by the EFTA states.

    In short, Britain will end up in exactly the position of powerlessness that today's Remain supporters claim as the key reason why we should reject any compromise Brexit deal such as that negotiated by Theresa May, and stay in the EU as a full member.

    Given these circumstances, there are only two courses of action that make long-term sense for the country:

    1. Accept that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are numbered, drop all our opt-outs and join the Euro. Then at least we would be a full participant in the project, and it should also solve the perfidious Albion problem at a stroke. We'd be locked in and we wouldn't be receiving any of the special perks that are resented.
    2. Declare that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are not numbered, and make a clean break with the EU project rather than sit permanently in its outer orbit as a protectorate.

    If people can't be persuaded to accept option 1 (and almost nobody in Britain, whichever side they were on in that accursed referendum, believes the Euro to be a success story,) then why not proceed directly to option 2? The longer we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.

    As a peripheral power in the EU with our resented opt outs we have found leaving uncommonly difficult; far, far, more so than those who disputed the extent of the EU's influence on us ever admitted. If we join the Euro, as Greece and Italy have found, the price of leaving becomes incalculable and in the real world completely impossible short of a general collapse of the system.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753

    Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.

    Most of the EU states are in the Eurozone. If the currency is going to be made to work in the long term then they are going to need to give more power and authority to the centre. They will also, over time, need to make more and more common or co-ordinated decisions. They will caucus, and eventually the ability of countries to block core EU initiatives by qualified minority will become redundant. Then the ring of non-Euro states - including us - will find themselves effectively in a similar place to Norway by default. Yes, we'll also have our seats in the European Parliament (although whether or not non-Euro MEPs will be treated, either formally or informally, as second class remains to be seen,) but on the other hand we won't have the limited freedoms or additional protections enjoyed by the EFTA states.

    In short, Britain will end up in exactly the position of powerlessness that today's Remain supporters claim as the key reason why we should reject any compromise Brexit deal such as that negotiated by Theresa May, and stay in the EU as a full member.

    Given these circumstances, there are only two courses of action that make long-term sense for the country:

    1. Accept that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are numbered, drop all our opt-outs and join the Euro. Then at least we would be a full participant in the project, and it should also solve the perfidious Albion problem at a stroke. We'd be locked in and we wouldn't be receiving any of the special perks that are resented.
    2. Declare that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are not numbered, and make a clean break with the EU project rather than sit permanently in its outer orbit as a protectorate.

    If people can't be persuaded to accept option 1 (and almost nobody in Britain, whichever side they were on in that accursed referendum, believes the Euro to be a success story,) then why not proceed directly to option 2? The longer we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.

    You do appreciate that as the metaphorical good ship Britain cuts its ties to the EU and drifts off into the wide blue ocean, significant chunks of it are going to detach themselves from Britain and row as quickly as possible back to the EU?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274
    kyf_100 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Neil Hamilton sticking with UKIP.

    They are well-suited tbf.
    Having watched a bit of the UKIP rally - about as much as I could stomach - UKIP now appears to be the Tommy Robinson Party. No wonder Nige quit. He can't stand being eclipsed. Might just be that particular crowd but UKIP seems to be well on its way to becoming a working class street movement rather than Tories on holiday.
    Used to be called the BNP in blazers.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 38,291
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Ideally they shouldn't, but if parliament fails in its task there's not many other options. Voting again is problematic for many reasons, I'm certainly not a fan of the 'vote again and get it right this time you dummies' message that is implicit from some and explicit from others, but voting again is still a democratic exercise. It shouldn't be necessary, but parliament has proven inadequate..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 49,035


    Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum. I would back the deal if I were an MP since it effects Brexit in accordance with the mandate campaigned for.

    I think here is the key, if a second referendum does occur, it is no great moment of democracy - rather an abject failure of parliament.
    That's the view I'm minded to take right now and I don't intend to reward such failure in any potential second vote at the moment.
  • Donny43 said:

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
    That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    edited December 2018
    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Ideally they shouldn't, but if parliament fails in its task there's not many other options. Voting again is problematic for many reasons, I'm certainly not a fan of the 'vote again and get it right this time you dummies' message that is implicit from some and explicit from others, but voting again is still a democratic exercise. It shouldn't be necessary, but parliament has proven inadequate..
    If there is a further referendum it establishes that Parliament won't implement the result if the people get it wrong - in which case, why have a referendum?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    edited December 2018
    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    And how much better, when we do end up with either No Deal, May's Deal or Remain as the voters' answer, that the voters have been seen to support it.

    To my mind it either has to be May's Deal supported by parliament or a further referendum on the 3 principal options.
  • eekeek Posts: 2,638

    Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.

    I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.

    Something that, needless to say, I want no part of.
    It will also require (for decades probably) a willing transfer of money from Germany to the poorer parts of the Eurozone. As that looks highly unlikely that zone is eventually going to fall apart.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 13,274

    On the subject of Remain or Stay, I hadn't considered the EC's choice of words before but I wonder why it wasn't Leave against Stay... or Quit versus Remain if we wanted Norman-French rooted words.

    Anyway I am reliably informed that next Wednesday's government proposal for a 2nd referendum will be worded:

    Desert
    or
    Stand firm

    (only with Stand firm first)

    "Stay" is what you command a dog to do....

    Exactly; Anglo-Saxon. Or; I've stayed with my wife for 60 years (almost)!
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    The article fails to address the issue that it is not just the EC that has moved on but the world. For most of my life the barriers to free movement of people, goods and money have been coming down across the world. These barriers are starting to go back up again. My business is finding it harder to move money and goods around the world. The fight between China and USA is not going away anytime soon.

    The UK over the last 30 years has built a global services powerhouse using the EC market while assisting Germany to build a global manufacturing powerhouse. There is a view that Germany got the better of the deal so we need a plan B.

    I have been on this site for over 10 years on and off and believe I am the only owner of a SME manufacturer who posts regularly and this gives me a different perspective. I believe that a more balanced economy in which the UK produces more of its own consumption is good long term for the UK but I do not underestimate the challenge to get there.

    Tte failure of most Brexiteers to acknowledge the complexity and scale of the project they propose is what scares me not the general plan. Last week I met with the only producer of glass vials in the UK. This may not seem important but every vaciinne dose requires a glass vial. Their capacity is a fraction of local demand. Most product is imported from Germany and the USA. The demand for locally sourced product is very strong with Brexit however even in the JV we are setting up it will take us a year to be able to supply existing contracts without taking on any new business. For the UK to become self sufficient may take 5 years.

    Do we face a future with unemployed bankers, product shortages whilst we invest in capacity and frustrated youth who can no longer travel tte globe in the way they have become accustomed to?

    Good post. I'll nitpick one point. It's not been 'free movement' of people, at least not on a global scale. It's been 'easy movement'. I doubt we'll return to the olden days, but easy movement is perfectly acceptable and works for the RoW.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
    That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
    And there won't be food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies, so that's a moot point.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 16,511
    edited December 2018

    If we do finally Stay........ gather that's being considered as a more Anglo-Saxon word........ then those of us who were for staying all along must seriously consider the reasons the Leavers professed, and try and do something about them.

    You* won't. And neither will the EU. There will be open warfare (in a verbal and political sense) between the UK and the EU in very short order and they very quickly come to regret that they ever even considered letting us stay.

    A decision to reverse the referendum will be taken as vindication by both the EU and Remainers and they will fail to learn any lessons beyond don't let the plebs have a choice.

    *That is a collective you rather than a personal you.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 5,959
    Donny43 said:

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
    I don't think it reasonable to interpret the 2016 Referendum result as indicating a willingness to leave regardless of the terms or circumstances. I certainly did not vote Leave on that basis , and always wanted - perhaps naively assumed - that the final agreed terms of departure would be given to the people in a Confirmatory Referendum.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.

    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum. I would back the deal if I were an MP since it effects Brexit in accordance with the mandate campaigned for. If as seems likely it is heavily defeated I would ask the public for their views as to next steps. This is a failure of the politicians but better to accept that than take irrevocable action without a suitable mandate.

    In those circumstances, if the public is going to be asked for its guidance, it would be appropriate to check it remained of the same view as to the ultimate outcome. It would be truly anti-democratic to exclude an outcome that was polling twice as well as at least one of the options under consideration.

    The most extreme Leavers are among those most upset by the idea of a second referendum. But if they aren’t prepared to take what’s on offer, they can’t expect either morally or practically to impose on the public a Brexit that was not campaigned for and which apparently does not command majority support in either Parliament or among the public.
    I agree with all of that. If in Parliament I would vote for May's deal. If that is rejected I do not see how it is possible to exclude remain from any subsequent referendum. Possibly, if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, so it wasn't an option but not short of that.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
    That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
    And there won't be food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies, so that's a moot point.
    And your evidence for that assertion is based on... what exactly?
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    And how much better, when we do end up with either No Deal, May's Deal or Remain as the voters' answer, that the voters have been seen to support it.

    To my mind it either has to be May's Deal supported by parliament or a further referendum on the 3 principal options.
    There are only two principal options, as Black Rook has pointed out far more eloquently than I can.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited December 2018
    Donny43 said:

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
    I voted to leave the EU. If we use the analogy of a divorce, I wanted a reasonably amicable separation, with a view to not upsetting the kids unduly. I didn't want to strip myself naked and hurl myself out of the bedroom window.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 6,753
    DavidL said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum. I would back the deal if I were an MP since it effects Brexit in accordance with the mandate campaigned for. If as seems likely it is heavily defeated I would ask the public for their views as to next steps. This is a failure of the politicians but better to accept that than take irrevocable action without a suitable mandate.

    In those circumstances, if the public is going to be asked for its guidance, it would be appropriate to check it remained of the same view as to the ultimate outcome. It would be truly anti-democratic to exclude an outcome that was polling twice as well as at least one of the options under consideration.

    The most extreme Leavers are among those most upset by the idea of a second referendum. But if they aren’t prepared to take what’s on offer, they can’t expect either morally or practically to impose on the public a Brexit that was not campaigned for and which apparently does not command majority support in either Parliament or among the public.
    I agree with all of that. If in Parliament I would vote for May's deal. If that is rejected I do not see how it is possible to exclude remain from any subsequent referendum. Possibly, if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, so it wasn't an option but not short of that.
    Agreed. But if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, I suspect May's Deal would very quickly be voted through parliament upon being re-presented.
  • I was just listening to this but it seems to fit the mood around May's 11 December vote:


    Suspect she'll end up beneath the rubble before she shifts it.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
    That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
    And there won't be food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies, so that's a moot point.
    And your evidence for that assertion is based on... what exactly?
    I can't say too much Ben, for obvious reasons, but *nuclear weapons*. 'nuff said.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,306
    Donny43 said:

    kle4 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Ideally they shouldn't, but if parliament fails in its task there's not many other options. Voting again is problematic for many reasons, I'm certainly not a fan of the 'vote again and get it right this time you dummies' message that is implicit from some and explicit from others, but voting again is still a democratic exercise. It shouldn't be necessary, but parliament has proven inadequate..
    If there is a further referendum it establishes that Parliament won't implement the result if the people get it wrong - in which case, why have a referendum?
    Why indeed. There’s a good reason that we are a representative democracy and don’t ask people specific multifaceted questions which they have to answer in simplistic binary terms.
  • glw said:

    DavidL said:

    The only answer, in my view, is to address the underlying problems. That means persuading EU citizens that their money really is as safe in a Greek or Italian bank as it is in a German one. It means that the countries who are members of the Euro can no longer do their own thing, set their own budgets or disregard the rules that are supposed to control the Euro. So far this has been done behind the scenes in large part. Greece and now Italy have been brought to heel by using the ability of the ECB to limit the drawing rights of banks in the territory who are playing up forcing a government to choose between a banking crisis and backing off. This is rightly criticised as undemocratic but it is an inevitable consequence of a single currency.

    To make the currency work the EU needs to change and that change will be even more radical that @Alanbrooke is pointing out in his header. National elections will mean less and less as Parliaments are no longer allowed to determine fiscal policy as well as the monetary policy they have already given up. They will become more akin to local government, with some discretion on minor matters but doing what they are told on the major issues.

    The UK, as a large member of the EU outside the EZ, consistently attempted to put a break on this. Without us this process will accelerate. Even if we somehow remained we will not be permitted to get in the road. This is too important. The EU is on the path towards even more of a technocratic semi-democracy than we have seen to date. As Alanbrooke says, there is no going back.

    There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an opportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

    I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.
    Actually she went Further than that and said the EU needed comprehensive tax raising powers.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 22,057
    John_M said:


    I voted to leave the EU. If we use the analogy of a divorce, I wanted a reasonably amicable separation, with a view to not upsetting the kids unduly. I didn't want to strip myself naked and hurl myself out of the bedroom window.

    But we shouldn't be forced to live unhappily ever after, just because the solicitors have made an almighty cock-up of the divorce papers.....
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    justin124 said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    glw said:

    Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.
    I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?
    I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.
    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'
    That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.
    That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.
    And there won't be food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies, so that's a moot point.
    And your evidence for that assertion is based on... what exactly?
    That I don't believe the EU will impose an economic blockade.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,760

    DavidL said:

    Donny43 said:

    Donny43 said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:



    So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?
    Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.
    Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.
    When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

    When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

    When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?
    Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum. I would back the deal if I were an MP since it effects Brexit in accordance with the mandate campaigned for. If as seems likely it is heavily defeated I would ask the public for their views as to next steps. This is a failure of the politicians but better to accept that than take irrevocable action without a suitable mandate.

    In those circumstances, if the public is going to be asked for its guidance, it would be appropriate to check it remained of the same view as to the ultimate outcome. It would be truly anti-democratic to exclude an outcome that was polling twice as well as at least one of the options under consideration.

    The most extreme Leavers are among those most upset by the idea of a second referendum. But if they aren’t prepared to take what’s on offer, they can’t expect either morally or practically to impose on the public a Brexit that was not campaigned for and which apparently does not command majority support in either Parliament or among the public.
    I agree with all of that. If in Parliament I would vote for May's deal. If that is rejected I do not see how it is possible to exclude remain from any subsequent referendum. Possibly, if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, so it wasn't an option but not short of that.
    Agreed. But if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, I suspect May's Deal would very quickly be voted through parliament upon being re-presented.
    In any sane Parliament it would. This one, nothing can be taken for granted.
This discussion has been closed.