Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Zarlak said:
I think anyone with even the slightest degree of intelligence wouldn't think like that, they'd understand that making important decisions based on gross misrepresentation of facts and outright lies is a terrible idea, and that if anything not allowing somebody to change their mind after realising they've been lied to, would make democracy pointless. I can't think of anything more democratic than allowing a population the freedom to make a decision based on new facts, rather than what you're suggesting which seems to be 'tough shit, deal with it, you made your bed and now you have to lie in it' which doesn't seem very democratic at all.
Click to expand...
Ok, but you are wrong.
 
Charles Miller said:
I dont think you should leave. You should use the power of the UK to fix the European Union. From an ecomomic point of view i think its a disaster. Majority of international markets are under nationalist pressures now. I dont think you can make a good trade deal with the United States and trying to compete against them its pointless anyway. The only part of the world where you can find an open market big enough to replace the EU its in Asia. But a trade deal with Asia is economic suicide.
Click to expand...

Leaving with no deal is guaranteed economic suicide. Even with a deal it's going to be extremely tough.
Frictionless trade with the EU is absolutely vital because of how they are massively interlinked, it doesn't matter how many deals the UK get outside of the EU.

By the way, I've already left the UK and live in France in the EU.

My point was though that how long do people have to wait to change their mind. The problem is that when the UK has left it will be very difficult for the UK to rejoin in a short period of time especially when people who voted to leave realise they've been conned.
 
Charles Miller said:
Ok, but you are wrong.
Click to expand...

If you say so. If you think that making important life decisions based on lies and misrepresentations is a good idea then all power to you. And if you think that forcing people to stick with something after realising they've been lied to is democratic, then again, power to you but in my opinion it's you that's wrong. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to live with something, and there is everything democratic about allowing a population to fluidly make informed decisions based on evidence that comes to light.

Out of interest, what is your definition of democracy? And how does what I posted, contradict it in any way?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Leaving with no deal is guaranteed economic suicide. Even with a deal it's going to be extremely tough.
Frictionless trade with the EU is absolutely vital because of how they are massively interlinked, it doesn't matter how many deals the UK get outside of the EU.

By the way, I've already left the UK and live in France in the EU.

My point was though that how long do people have to wait to change their mind. The problem is that when the UK has left it will be very difficult for the UK to rejoin in a short period of time especially when people who voted to leave realise they've been conned.
Click to expand...
In my opinion a vote in this subject should be one in the lifetime of a generation. But maybe i'm wrong, everything in the world is faster now.
 
Zarlak said:
If you say so. If you think that making important life decisions based on lies and misrepresentations is a good idea then all power to you. And if you think that forcing people to stick with something after realising they've been lied to is democratic, then again, power to you but in my opinion it's you that's wrong. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to live with something, and there is everything democratic about allowing a population to fluidly make informed decisions based on evidence that comes to light.

Out of interest, what is your definition of democracy? And how does what I posted, contradict it in any way?
Click to expand...
My problem with your previous comment was your presumption that only people who agree with your position are intelligent. I can't see how it would help you to convince brexiters if you are English.

I dont think i can define democracy to you. I work in a bank and i teach Physics to high school kids. Philosophy its not my field.
 
Charles Miller said:
In my opinion a vote in this subject should be one in the lifetime of a generation. But maybe i'm wrong, everything in the world is faster now.
Click to expand...

Say the UK leave without a deal, which Brexiters now insist was what they voted for, which isn't what was said at the time of the referendum and is not even true now because the government have been trying to negotiate a deal for the last two years with the EU.

No deal is exactly that, no agreements at all about anything. If that happens the UK will be paralysed in April. I have a feeling that even the Brexiters will be demanding a change of decision before the end of next year, not wait another 40 years to reverse that decision.
 
Charles Miller said:
My problem with your previous comment was your presumption that only people who agree with your position are intelligent. I can't see how it would help you to convince brexiters if you are English.

I dont think i can define democracy to you. I work in a bank and i teach Physics to high school kids. Philosophy its not my field.
Click to expand...

To convince Brexiters , they are not listening or wanting to understand. If they really understood what the EU was about and how it works and if they understood what the consequences of their vote. Even then if they still hated the EU and wanted to leave then they had to understand what would happen if they did leave. All they say is you are scaremongering. It's not an opinion of what might happen. It is guaranteed.

If they want to ruin the country while claiming they are patriots is extremely unintelligent. If they can't be bothered to be informed before they vote then that is also unintelligent.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
If you hadn't noticed 95% of Labour MP's are pro-Remain but because Mr Limp Lettuce doesn't like the EU if you vote Labour you are only voting for what the Limp Lettuce wants. The UK has the worst PM in living memory but somehow the Limp Lettuce can't even overtake her in the polls and as he's pro-Brexit as well, why hasn't he overtaken her? Even the majority of Tory MPs are pro-Remain.
It's wonderful how democratic the British system is.

You know and I know that the LibDems will never be the governing party in the UK.
I haven't even said that the majority of the British people don't want Brexit, I'm saying in a years time they will be sorely regretting it if they leave with no deal, which is what they supposedly voted for.
Click to expand...
All I'm seeing and hearing Paul is that there is an anti brexit party out there that no one wants to vote for. Please help me understand why.
 
Was trying to work out what agreements and treaties we had in place already so that no matter what outcome we get by 29/3/19 we'd know what we had and after asking a question on another forum I was given this link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ree-trade-agreements-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

A scenario in which the UK leaves the EU without agreement (a ‘no deal’ scenario) remains unlikely given the mutual interests of the UK and the EU in securing a negotiated outcome.

Negotiations are progressing well and both we and the EU continue to work hard to seek a positive deal. However, it’s our duty as a responsible government to prepare for all eventualities, including ‘no deal’, until we can be certain of the outcome of those negotiations.

For 2 years, the government has been implementing a significant programme of work to ensure the UK will be ready from day 1 in all scenarios, including a potential ‘no deal’ outcome in March 2019.

It has always been the case that as we get nearer to March 2019, preparations for a no deal scenario would have to be accelerated. Such an acceleration does not reflect an increased likelihood of a ‘no deal’ outcome. Rather it is about ensuring our plans are in place in the unlikely scenario that they need to be relied upon.

This series of technical notices sets out information to allow businesses and citizens to understand what they would need to do in a ‘no deal’ scenario, so they can make informed plans and preparations.

This guidance is part of that series.

Also included is an overarching framing notice explaining the government’s overarching approach to preparing the UK for this outcome in order to minimise disruption and ensure a smooth and orderly exit in all scenarios.

We are working with the devolved administrations on technical notices and we will continue to do so as plans develop.

Purpose
The purpose of this notice is to inform businesses and other interested parties about the government’s plans to ensure continuity for the UK’s existing trade agreements with partners outside the EU if we do not reach agreement with the EU on the terms of our withdrawal prior to 29 March 2019.

While the UK government is confident that it will agree a deal and a time-limited implementation period, as a responsible government it will continue to prepare for all scenarios, including the unlikely outcome that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal.

This is contingency planning for a scenario that the UK government does not expect to happen, but people should be reassured that the government is taking a responsible approach.

Before 29 March 2019
As a member of the EU, the UK currently participates in around 40 free trade agreements with over 70 countries. These free trade agreements cover a wide variety of relationships, including:

  • Economic Partnership Agreements with developing nations
  • Association Agreements, which cover broader economic and political cooperation
  • trade agreements with countries that are closely aligned with the EU, such as Turkey and Switzerland
  • more conventional free trade agreements
In 2017, ONS data showed that trade with third countries with EU free trade agreements accounted for around 12% of the UK’s total trade. Businesses in the UK, EU and partner countries are eligible for a range of preferential market access opportunities under the terms of these free trade agreements. These can include, but are not limited to:

  • preferential duties for goods. This includes reductions in import tariff rates across a wide range of products, quotas for reduced or nil rates of payable duties, and quotas for more relaxed rules of origin requirements.
  • enhanced market access for service providers.
  • access to public procurement opportunities across a range of sectors.
  • improved protections for intellectual property.
For continuity and stability for businesses, consumers and investors, we are committed to ensuring these benefits are maintained, providing a smooth transition as we leave the EU.

We are currently working with partner countries to prepare for a range of possible scenarios to maintain existing trading relationships.

After March 2019 if there’s no-deal
During any implementation period, arrangements would be put in place with partner countries so that the UK is treated as an EU member state for the purposes of international agreements, including trade agreements.

In the event of a ‘no deal’, there will be no implementation period. In this scenario, the government will seek to bring into force bilateral UK-third country agreements from exit day, or as soon as possible thereafter.

These new agreements will replicate existing EU agreements and the same preferential effects with third countries as far as possible, whilst making the technical changes needed to ensure the agreements operate in a bilateral context. Ministers and officials are engaging regularly with partner countries to complete this work. When we reach final agreements with partner countries will depend on our ongoing discussions with them.

Should arrangements to maintain particular preferences in a no deal scenario not be in place on exit day, trade would then take place on a ‘Most-Favoured Nation’ (MFN) basis, which is sometimes referred to as ‘World Trade Organization (WTO) Terms’, until such a new arrangement has been implemented. Under WTO rules, the principle of MFN treatment means that the same rate of duty, on the same good, must be charged to all WTO members equally. This principle is subject to certain exceptions, including if a free trade agreement is in place. For services, the MFN principle means WTOmembers are required to grant treatment no less favourable to services and service suppliers of any other WTO member, than that which they grant to like suppliers from any other country.

In leaving the EU, the UK is regularising the terms of our WTO membership because our commitments are currently contained within the EU schedules. We are working closely with WTO members to ensure a simple, fair, and transparent transition in establishing the UK’s independent WTO schedules, in a manner that minimises disruption to our trading relationships.

The UK is already a full member of the WTO, and negotiations are ongoing for us to become independent members of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, on the basis of its current commitments as a member of the EU. Separate to seeking continuity for existing free trade agreements, powers in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 enable the UK to put in place a UK unilateral trade preference scheme for developing countries as the UK leaves the EU. In the first instance, it is intended that this will provide the same level of access as provided by the current EU trade preference scheme. This will maintain tariff free access for Least Developed Countries and continue to offer generous tariff reductions to around 25 other developing countries.

Implications
In the event of a ‘no deal’, EU trade agreements will cease to apply to the UK when we leave the EU.

Our intention is that the effects of new bilateral agreements will be identical to, or substantially the same as, the EU agreements they replace. However, users of current EU free trade agreements should be aware that, in contrast to the current situation and during any Implementation Period, there may be practical changes to how they make use of preferences under these new agreements. For example, UK and EU content will be considered distinct, and each new agreement will individually specify what origin designations may be used to qualify for preferences. We will aim to limit these changes as far as possible, but the final form of new agreements and any resulting changes will depend on ongoing discussions with our trading partners. The Trade Bill contains a reporting requirement stating that the government will publish a report before these new free trade agreements are ratified on any significant changes to the new trade-related provisions.

Where arrangements to maintain particular preferences in a no-deal scenario are not in place by exit day, trade would take place on WTO terms. Under such terms, traders would pay the applied MFN tariff. This is the tariff applied equally to all countries in the absence of preferential arrangements. In the event of no-deal, the government will determine and publish a new UK MFN tariff schedule before we leave the EU. Information on the current tariff rates are freely available to view in the UK’s applied goods schedule and can be found on the UK Government’s Tariff Look Up tool. Further practical information on arrangements for the border and relevant contact information for guidance can be found in:

The specific commitments for services trade that WTO members apply to trading partners, independently of any preferential arrangements, are set out in each Member’s schedule of commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Some countries have liberalised beyond these specific commitments.

For more information on the WTO, visit the WTO website.

This notice is meant for guidance only. You should consider whether you need separate professional advice before making specific preparations.

It is part of the government’s ongoing programme of planning for all possible outcomes. We expect to negotiate a successful deal with the EU.

Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and participate in other EU arrangements. As such, in many areas, these countries adopt EU rules. Where this is the case, these technical notices may also apply to them, and EEA businesses and citizens should consider whether they need to take any steps to prepare for a ‘no deal’ scenario.
Click to expand...

The language surely needs updating to reflect that we're now in late October 2018 and we need some things solidly in place and in public view so we know what we're working with come leaving day?

Because right now after reading that, it suggests that all the treaties we have as part of the EU are null and void and we haven't actually put anything in place yet to replace them, just that we're endeavouring to do so. It says that no deal is an unlikely event and perhaps it is but don't we need the safety net of knowing what we've got in case it does happen?

Come no deal on 29/3/19 our planes won't be able to leave the country nor will planes be allowed to come in, same for boats and trains until such time as those agreements are in place right? And people want no deal? Technically beyond the laws of the land saying we can't kill people and that side of things, we can't actually DO anything? We'd have no economy beyond the pure trade in the UK (can that happen with no trade deals?) because we can't get goods in and out of the country? Or do we automatically go to WTO rules on that day? I'm sure I read somewhere that WTO rules had to be negotiated too?

EDIT - http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/no-deal-the-wto-option/

This shows we automatically go to WTO rules.

Basing all this off this article explaining the treaties and agreements we currently have that we're giving up:

https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e
 
Last edited:
Charles Miller said:
My problem with your previous comment was your presumption that only people who agree with your position are intelligent. I can't see how it would help you to convince brexiters if you are English.

I dont think i can define democracy to you. I work in a bank and i teach Physics to high school kids. Philosophy its not my field.
Click to expand...

If you can't define your version of democracy, then to be absolutely fair you can't tell me that mine is wrong. There's also no link between philosophy and defining democracy, I'm not really sure why you said that. I'm yet to meet anybody who says that philosophy is their field yet I can probably gather definitions of democracy from the first 100 people I ask on the street. They might not be right, but they could and would still take a stab at answering the question. I was just interested in why what I painted as democracy would differ from your opinion on what it meant.

I also didn't say that only people who agree with my position are intelligent, that's somewhat twisted as if I'd made a categorical statement. I said that I didn't think that anybody intelligent would say democracy was pointless if we had a second vote. It's an opinion, that I then quantified with why I believe that and if I was shown wrong and people did say that, I'd be happy to discuss it with them. There is no basis for that statement you mentioned to be made which is basically saying that doing democratic things makes democracy pointless. What would make democracy pointless, was if we voted for something and then they just didn't do it in spite of our vote. If they gave us a democratic choice and we voted, and then it transpired that we were lied to, we voted again and voted differently, that is democracy.
 
sullydnl said:
Voting once on an issue doesn't mean you can never vote on it again. As the Leave campaigners made clear before the initial vote.

If enough has changed in the meantime to make a material difference to the decision then there's no reason not to have another vote. People can always vote leave again if they maintain it's the correct decision in the face of all that's happened since, or if they object to a second vote in principle.

The only question ethically is whether enough has materially changed since the first vote to justify a second.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. If the leave had lost you can guarantee that there would have been another referendum at some point.
 
Charles Miller said:
Not my business but if you do a second referendum a lot of people will start to think that democracy is pointless. When you lose a vote in you need to accept it.
Click to expand...
If you call me up in the morning and ask me what the weather is and I say "it's freezing out there, wear your winter clothes", if you took my advice and then walked out of yoyr house and realised it's 28°C and sunny, would you leave your winter clothes on just because you wanted to stick to your original decision?

Democracy is exactly about stopping this type of stuff from happening. I think it says more about our society that we allow falsehoods to be disseminated in our public sphere.

Nothing that relates to public issues, particularly elections and referendums, that isn't 100% true shouldnt be allowed to be published by law. Any 'fact' should be 100% verifiable, none of this "sources" crap.
 
Green_Red said:
Excellent point. If the leave had lost you can guarantee that there would have been another referendum at some point.
Click to expand...

. . . . which is precisely why, paradoxically, the leavers winning is probably in Britain's best interests.

Most of them are a shower of loons but winning has exposed them. They've no clue, no plan, can't agree among themselves, and some are only in it for the battle to inherit the tory leadership crown.

Britain needed to hear from these crazies, and now they have, because it just would have carried on and on otherwise.

Referendums are an absolutely ghastly way of deciding such an issue as your average voter is more interested in Phil Mitchell in Eastenders than issues of trade with the EU. Such a volatile issue brought every racist out of the woodwork also. The atmosphere is sour, and will be for a long time.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Absolutely no chance imo, I know a tonne of leave voters that after 2 years, have finally realised they were completely bullshitted.

It'd be 60%+ to remain in a re-vote.

Whether or not a re-vote is democratic or not... hmmm, not sure, I just know the uninformed public should never have been the ones making this decision. Fecking Cameron and the conservatives.
Click to expand...


But you can't reason with the hardline brexiteers. They despise the European Union which they see as an emerging superstate (which it is) whilst they long for the days of the Empire. But those days are over, and they cannot accept it.

They're asking for the impossible because they can never be satisfied.
 
RW2 said:
But you can't reason with the hardline brexiteers. They despise the European Union which they see as an emerging superstate (which it is) whilst they long for the days of the Empire. But those days are over, and they cannot accept it.

They're asking for the impossible because they can never be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Also feel like they'd rather not let remainers get their way at the expense of the country.
 
Silva said:
the lib dems are anti brexit and right wing economically, if remain tories struggle to vote for the party that literally put them into power 8 years ago they're never going to vote for a left wing wing party
Click to expand...

Last year's election showed that there are some liberal Tories who'll plop for Labour depending on the circumstances. Most people don't vote Lib Dem because in the majority of the country they don't stand a chance. They aren't going to improve their chances because they're crap at marketing themselves, actually coming up with coherent policies, and continue to be tainted by the coalition years.
 
Green_Red said:
Excellent point. If the leave had lost you can guarantee that there would have been another referendum at some point.
Click to expand...

Farage said explicitly the fight wouldn't be over if Remain won narrowly.
 
VeevaVee said:
Also feel like they'd rather not let remainers get their way at the expense of the country.
Click to expand...

Brexiteers are lining up their entire failures and blaming anyone but themselves. They're blaming the EU, Ireland, "remoaners", May, judges, remainer MPs, . . . .

The hardliners have taken control and are sabotaging the very brexit they long for.

Brexit cannot even begin to succeed unless it recognises that nearly half of the UK don't want it in the first place. Politics is about bringing people with you, but the hardliners want it all and they're risking losing everything.

Next couple of months will be very interesting. A general election is probably more probable than a second vote. . . If a party offering a revote (Labour?) were elected then the EU would give time for that to happen.

I really think this is the only way around the UK not leaving, because the hardliner brexiteers cannot then claim that a new government has no mandate for a revote.
 
Green_Red said:
If you call me up in the morning and ask me what the weather is and I say "it's freezing out there, wear your winter clothes", if you took my advice and then walked out of yoyr house and realised it's 28°C and sunny, would you leave your winter clothes on just because you wanted to stick to your original decision?

Democracy is exactly about stopping this type of stuff from happening. I think it says more about our society that we allow falsehoods to be disseminated in our public sphere.

Nothing that relates to public issues, particularly elections and referendums, that isn't 100% true shouldnt be allowed to be published by law. Any 'fact' should be 100% verifiable, none of this "sources" crap.
Click to expand...
As i said leaving the EU its a bad idea imo. But how many referendums in this subject you think they should do? Because if the remainers win the second vote, i assume the brexiters are going to start a campaign for a third referendum in the next day.
 
Charles Miller said:
As i said leaving the EU its a bad idea imo. But how many referendums in this subject you think they should do? Because if the remainers win the second vote, i assume the brexiters are going to start a campaign for a third referendum in the next day.
Click to expand...
Yea it's difficult isn't it. Even in relation to the protest, how many of those that attended voted leave but now want remain. I am guessing nearly all voted remain in the first instance. But given everything that's come to light it would be better to have amother vote since people are a lot more informed now.

A wise man once said "it's better to make the wrong decision early, than the right one too late"
 
I'd want a second vote.
But how long after the next referendum do we have another? There's such strong support from both sides that it could go on indefinitely.
 
Charles Miller said:
As i said leaving the EU its a bad idea imo. But how many referendums in this subject you think they should do? Because if the remainers win the second vote, i assume the brexiters are going to start a campaign for a third referendum in the next day.
Click to expand...

If circumstances were to change materially after a victory for Remain in this hypothetical second referendum, then leavers can have a third referendum. But somehow I doubt the EU is going to turn around and say “on second thoughts, you can have some unprecedented bespoke deal that allows you to cherry pick some of the main benefits of membership”.

Ultimately, this question needs to be decided by pragmatism rather than appeals to political theory. A nation of 65m is about to take a very foolish course of action (Brexiteers still cannot suggest any tangible, quantifiable benefits) on the basis of an extremely narrow victory in a referendum campaign filled with wishful thinking and outright lies.

If a majority were to vote to leave a second time based on today’s facts, then so be it. In reality, I’d expect a c.55% victory for remain, with changing demographics then ensuring that the leave side could never obtain a majority again.
 
Pogue Mahone said:


The responses to this tweet are outstanding. An elected representative literally being schooled by the general public.
Click to expand...

There really should be a system in place in democracies where if you post shit like this or similar you're booted from your position there and then.
 
The way some people go on, you'd swear no country ever had a second people's vote before.

The funny thing is, if any referendum justifies a second vote, it's this one. It will have been almost three years since the original vote, and what was promised back then is now not remotely being delivered if you do leave, there's no extra money for the NHS and people aren't getting their glorious Britain back as they thought they would. When leave won, nobody mentioned any sort of 'deal', now everything hinges on getting one for the UK. The biggest problem of all, the Irish border - was basically not even mentioned (a massive failure by the remain campaign) during the referendum.

You hear all this shite about "respecting the people's decision", but surely almost three years after they originally made a decision, they're actually better equipped now to make it? It's just basic logic.
 
Pogue Mahone said:


The responses to this tweet are outstanding. An elected representative literally being schooled by the general public.
Click to expand...


Something that you won't see on pictures, there are fleets of mobile customs too. The roads are monitored and customs officers will go after you if they feel like it. There is also the border police in these areas.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
Something that you won't see on pictures, there are fleets of mobile customs too. The roads are monitored and customs officers will go after you if they feel like it. There is also the border police in these areas.
Click to expand...
The Customs Border is occupied by staff taking money for vignettes.
 
I do wonder how a basic maintenance of exit terms would have smoothed over or prevented Brexit. It seems like something very forseeble was kicked down the road indefinitely especially with the impact of the GFA etc.
 
Smores said:
:lol: oddly no reply back from him
Click to expand...

It will have done it jobs though. The original tweet has 1500+ likes despite all the corrections below it. The people who want to believe in sunny uplands will take him at his word without looking further. There really should be implications for lying on social media for politicians.
 
I voted Remain, but honestly how embarrassing is it that 700k people marched for a new referendum?

If it actually happened, I'd vote to leave, Brexit means Brexit after all :wenger:

DqBiwNAXQAM_fen.jpg:large
 
Pogue Mahone said:


The responses to this tweet are outstanding. An elected representative literally being schooled by the general public.
Click to expand...

From the replies
Just like Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who claimed during an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live that as an "Englishman" he could apply for an Irish passport because of a reciprocal arrangement. This is just weapons grade ignorance from elected representatives who should be more informed.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.