It's astounding that people would advocate putting us in a position where we do not have a trade deal with a single nation. Not sure I recall any leave campaigns advocating WTO defaults as part of their "plan" to "take back control".
If Parliament can agree a deal, then we should leave under those terms. If they can't then there should be a public vote. No deal vs No Brexit.
Will you please say another Referendum as that's what your advocating and not follow the politicians line of trying to call it a peoples vote
What you suggest is no different than the vote we had in 2016, basically in or out, seeing as we have had that vote then what's the point.
Both Leave and Remain campaigns said in the build up to the referendum that we not be able to stay in either the customs union or the single market as they are linked to freedom of movement, but the vote was still to leave the EU.
I would be happy to leave the EU with a Deal for course, but we should always have the option of no deal on the table even if we don't want to use it.
Will you please say another Referendum as that's what your advocating and not follow the politicians line of trying to call it a peoples vote
What you suggest is no different than the vote we had in 2016, basically in or out, seeing as we have had that vote then what's the point.
Both Leave and Remain campaigns said in the build up to the referendum that we not be able to stay in either the customs union or the single market as they are linked to freedom of movement, but the vote was still to leave the EU.
I would be happy to leave the EU with a Deal for course, but we should always have the option of no deal on the table even if we don't want to use it.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it
Yes, a second referendum is what I am advocating, IF Parliament cannot agree on a deal. 2016, the question was Leave the EU vs Remain, this would be a Leave the EU with No Deal vs Remain. A slightly different question, asked to a significantly different population.
If the majority are happy to leave under those terms, then so be it. If not, we stay and parties can spell out their plans for our relationship with the EU in their manifesto in the next GE.
What do you think would be the better outcome for the UK right now. No Deal, or No Brexit. And why?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Yes, a second referendum is what I am advocating, IF Parliament cannot agree on a deal. 2016, the question was Leave the EU vs Remain, this would be a Leave the EU with No Deal vs Remain. A slightly different question, asked to a significantly different population.
If the majority are happy to leave under those terms, then so be it. If not, we stay and parties can spell out their plans for our relationship with the EU in their manifesto in the next GE.
What do you think would be the better outcome for the UK right now. No Deal, or No Brexit. And why?
Long term leave no deal - the emerging markets are in Asia - and these countries will produce goods cheaper than EU even WTO tarifs. Time to move on
Yes, a second referendum is what I am advocating, IF Parliament cannot agree on a deal. 2016, the question was Leave the EU vs Remain, this would be a Leave the EU with No Deal vs Remain. A slightly different question, asked to a significantly different population.
If the majority are happy to leave under those terms, then so be it. If not, we stay and parties can spell out their plans for our relationship with the EU in their manifesto in the next GE.
What do you think would be the better outcome for the UK right now. No Deal, or No Brexit. And why?
The top and bottom of it is that both Parliament and the EU have to come to a deal or we will leave with no deal, if you are right and its not good for the uk, then equally its not good for the EU.
If we cannot agree a deal with the EU, then we leave with no deal, I am not sure which is better for the UK I have heard so called experts on both sides some saying it would be bad for us some saying it will be good. What I do know that a fact is that 80% of the British public voted and the majority voted to leave the EU, there was no caveat on a deal or no deal, just leave so democratically that's what we should do.
When you say it would be asked to a significantly different population, I can only assume you mean the people who have turned 18 since 2016, If that is the case I think your grasping at straws
If we do stay in as you say then how would the parties agree our future relationship with the EU in there manifestos, we don't get a choice we are just one of 28 countries. Before the referendum Cameron tried to get us more concessions but he came back with his tale between his legs with nothing.
If no decision can be agreed between our elected morons in the commons and another referendum has to to be then it should be the offer on the table or no deal. If no deal is as bad as you say then vote for the agreed deal. but I'm afraid my friend that in or out which ever way you and other retainers want to dress it up is not democratically an option thankfully.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
The top and bottom of it is that both Parliament and the EU have to come to a deal or we will leave with no deal, if you are right and its not good for the uk, then equally its not good for the EU.
While it is equally true that it is expected that it would be bad for the UK and for the EU, that doesn’t mean that it would be equally bad for both sides.
There’s the old joke news headline ‘fog in channel, continent cut off’. Well, they’re losing free access to a market of 60-odd million, we’re losing free access to a market of not far off half a billion. Also, I haven’t heard too many stories about companies switching investment from EU27 countries to the UK to take advantage of the exciting opportunities that Brexit offers. There’s a significant asymmetry in the likely level of impact, so trying to stare them down in negotiations is ill-advised.
Companies are screaming their concerns regarding a "no deal" scenario, but I suppose you're in the "Project Fear" camp & it's all a load of baloney.
It's nothing to do with project fear, the country voted to leave the EU end of, how we leave is now up to the people who we voted in as our representatives.
We should all be pressing our local MP's (as I have) as to how in your opinion we should leave the EU, either with the deal on the table at the time or no deal. Therefore, if no deal is such a bad option then you will ensure at least your Councillor would and should carryout the consensus, to be honest as a whole nobody knows what will happen in a no deal scenario, ive heard for and against.
The top and bottom of it is that both Parliament and the EU have to come to a deal or we will leave with no deal, if you are right and its not good for the uk, then equally its not good for the EU.
If we cannot agree a deal with the EU, then we leave with no deal, I am not sure which is better for the UK I have heard so called experts on both sides some saying it would be bad for us some saying it will be good. What I do know that a fact is that 80% of the British public voted and the majority voted to leave the EU, there was no caveat on a deal or no deal, just leave so democratically that's what we should do.
When you say it would be asked to a significantly different population, I can only assume you mean the people who have turned 18 since 2016, If that is the case I think your grasping at straws
If we do stay in as you say then how would the parties agree our future relationship with the EU in there manifestos, we don't get a choice we are just one of 28 countries. Before the referendum Cameron tried to get us more concessions but he came back with his tale between his legs with nothing.
If no decision can be agreed between our elected morons in the commons and another referendum has to to be then it should be the offer on the table or no deal. If no deal is as bad as you say then vote for the agreed deal. but I'm afraid my friend that in or out which ever way you and other retainers want to dress it up is not democratically an option thankfully.
Not sure how a vote could be considered undemocratic. Reason I would say a second vote should be no deal vs no brexit is that the only thing Parliament can reach a majority on is the fact the deal on the table is no good.
When I say parties can spell out their preferred relationship with the EU, I mean that that could include their terms for leaving the EU (would they want Norway style agreement, canada etc...) if they want their policy is to be out of the EU.
One thing we can agree on, is the commons being full of morons. Cameron being top of the list. Brexit could've been a success, if the referendum was called by a PM that had a vision and a plan for the country outside the EU. Cameron had neither, he called the Referendum purely because he thought it would strengthen his own position. May called a GE for the same reason, then when she didn't get the mandate she wanted, she paid the DUP for her mandate instead.
Sadly, there is no good outcome, thanks to the shambolic nature of how the tories have handled negotiations. I think my preference would be to extend a50 and have a genuine cross party brexit, in an attempt to have one united group negotiate with another. This won't happen though because individuals in all parts of the house are too busy playing party politics. Failing that, assuming a deal cannot be agreed, then I'd favour a second referendum, in which remain has to be an option, rather than asking people to pick out of two options that could make them worse off.
2nd Ref low on my list of preferences, but above No Deal.
