• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Brexit: Former Chancellor Philip Hammond says PM's demands 'wreck' chance of new deal

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,686
2,795
700
In a Times article, Mr Hammond said a no-deal Brexit would be "a betrayal" of the 2016 referendum result.
He told the BBC he was "confident" that Parliament "has the means" to express its opposition to a no-deal exit.
A No 10 source said the UK would leave on 31 October despite Mr Hammond's "best efforts to the contrary".
The source added that Mr Hammond, as chancellor, "did everything he could" to block preparations for leaving and had "undermined negotiations".
The former chancellor rejected this suggestion in a tweet, saying he wanted to deliver Brexit "and voted to do so three times".

'Wrecking tactic'
He said that agreeing to changes now would "fragment" the EU, adding: "they are not going to take that risk".
"Pivoting to say the backstop has to go in it its entirety - a huge chunk of the withdrawal agreement just scrapped - is effectively a wrecking tactic," he said.
He also told Today that he was "very confident" MPs would be able to pass legislation to express their opposition to a no-deal exit.
However he said he did not favour the tactic of replacing the PM with a national unity government designed to prevent no deal, saying: "I don't think that's the answer".

'Travesty of the truth'
In his Times article, Mr Hammond criticised "the unelected people who pull the strings of this government know that this is a demand the EU cannot, and will not, accede to."
BBC political correspondent Tom Barton said that remark was an apparent aim at the prime minister's closest adviser, Dominic Cummings - the former Vote Leave campaign director.
It was a "travesty of the truth", Mr Hammond wrote, to pretend that Leave voters backed a no-deal Brexit in the 2016 referendum.
But Leave-supporting former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, also speaking on the Today programme, said he was "astounded" by Mr Hammond's remarks.
"Talk about hubris. This man did nothing to prepare us for leaving with no deal," he said.
"The fact we are now doing that means we have a much better chance to get some kind of agreement from them because they now know we're going to leave with no deal and he's undermining that."

BBC


Boris Johnson does indeed look like being interested in Brexit, but I don't quite get why.
Is it "EU will chicken out" play? Or does he truly want to have customs between EU and UK?
 

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
314
71
290
Was it Micheal Barneir that said

“ I have done it my job is complete I have made the terms so bad that the British will have no alternative to stay in the union.”

So it’s not like the EU themselves were negotiating in good faith they are trying to fuck us over. The backstop has 3 locks inside it that are designed to keep the UK tied to the EU forever and annex NI from the mainland.

With the EU facing so many problems they could have engaged in a different manor to make sure no deal doesn’t happen. Germany is in rescission, France still has the yellow vest riots going on and has 99% GDP debt, the Mediterranean states are still massively in debt, Poland is still having issues with the ecj vs their own courts not to mention the SJW fight back that has started in Poland and Hungary is following Poland’s lead.

But instead of engaging the British in good faith and achieving the best outcome they are prepared to let us leave on a no deal and wreck everything that has been built in 40 years of economic/political integration but they proved their point leaving the EU is bad.

I’m fed up of been told that the UK will end on the 1/11/19. Lets just leave and do a deal or remove the backstop altogether the EU could quite easily stop this if not I’m fully prepared for us to leave no deal.
 
Last edited:

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,586
443
1,250
Texaa
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MilkyJoe

AV

Gold Member
May 31, 2018
2,459
4,623
560
Leeds, UK
Pretty tired of staunch remainers telling us that the sky is falling over and over again. It’s them who have fucked up the chances of getting a good deal.
Lol don't try and pawn this shitshow off on remainers. I stopped caring what we do a long time ago, the whole thing is boring, but don't act like the other half the country wasn't warning you "our government is a shamble, they aren't equipped to do this, it will be a complete mess" 3 years ago.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
Lol don't try and pawn this shitshow off on remainers. I stopped caring what we do a long time ago, the whole thing is boring, but don't act like the other half the country wasn't warning you "our government is a shamble, they aren't equipped to do this, it will be a complete mess" 3 years ago.
Remainers have been protesting against a democratic vote and their parliamentary representative counterparts have been colluding to sabotage brexit. I was a remainer to save my job, I don't like to rock the boat, but i'm now a hard leaver to save democracy. No matter how scary the future may seem it is nothing compared to the future we will have if the government overturns a democratic vote.
 
Last edited:

AV

Gold Member
May 31, 2018
2,459
4,623
560
Leeds, UK
The only mess has been the parliamentary representatives that have been colluding to sabotage brexit. I was a remainer to save my job, I don't like to rock the boat, but i'm now a hard leaver to save democracy. No matter how scary the future may seem it is nothing compared to the future we will have if the government overturns a democratic vote.
The government was always able to overturn it, from day 1, and they made that incredibly clear at the time, but people have forgotten over the course of 3 years. Not to mention thanks to the democratic process of voting for or against Brexit, we've now had two prime ministers that none of the public asked for.

I'm not saying it's pretty, but I'm not gonna pretend people weren't saying "this is in no way set in stone" from before the vote even happened.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,114
2,658
490
Moore Park Beach
The backstop was so out of this world I can not imagine anyone would accept it.
It was designed to be the condition that would make a deal impossible.

Imagine if EU would demand Spain to recognize Catalonia as a sovereign nation. That is what the backstop is to UK.

UK should threathen to recognize Catalonia as an independent state if EU does not back down.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
The government was always able to overturn it, from day 1, and they made that incredibly clear at the time, but people have forgotten over the course of 3 years. Not to mention thanks to the democratic process of voting for or against Brexit, we've now had two prime ministers that none of the public asked for.

I'm not saying it's pretty, but I'm not gonna pretend people weren't saying "this is in no way set in stone" from before the vote even happened.
The population overwhelmingly re-enforced their position during the European elections. Set in stone or not, the side is chosen and if the government overturned it there will be.... trouble.
 

AV

Gold Member
May 31, 2018
2,459
4,623
560
Leeds, UK
The population overwhelmingly re-enforced their position during the European elections. Set in stone or not, the side is chosen and if the government overturned it there will be.... trouble.
Not quite. The people who cared enough when that election rolled around made their voices heard, which was just over half the people that voted for/against Brexit 3 years ago, and even then, it was hardly "overwhelming" if you look at the split between pro/anti Brexit parties. If anything it's indicative that the majority of the population stopped caring what we do a long time ago.

I don't think the government would straight overturn it at this point but what do you really think is going to happen? Riots in the streets? People that aren't staunchly pro-brexit (i.e. the vast majority of the country) will move on and forget about it incredibly quickly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: llien

GingerNathan

Member
May 23, 2014
548
16
350
The population overwhelmingly re-enforced their position during the European elections. Set in stone or not, the side is chosen and if the government overturned it there will be.... trouble.
Uh the majority of MEP's are from remain parties, the situation is exactly as it has been for years now, a deeply divided nation, with incompetent leaders stuck between offending those that won with a slight majority and screwing up the country financially and most probably breaking the Union.
Thankfully /s now we have a Tory leader who will push through a no deal, as it's the most likely way of saving his party from a landslide defeat at the next election regardless of the consequences to the rest of us.
 

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
314
71
290
Uh the majority of MEP's are from remain parties, the situation is exactly as it has been for years now, a deeply divided nation, with incompetent leaders stuck between offending those that won with a slight majority and screwing up the country financially and most probably breaking the Union.
Thankfully /s now we have a Tory leader who will push through a no deal, as it's the most likely way of saving his party from a landslide defeat at the next election regardless of the consequences to the rest of us.
Unless you are including Labour as a pro-eu party, it was the pro-brexit parties that took the most votes.

The Country doesn’t have to break up and I doubt it will. We’ll be fine stop paying attention to all the doom mongers we’ll be ok, yeh we could lose a percent or 2 of GDP but staying as we are in constant Brexit limbo will hurt us more then just leaving and if the EU removed the backstop then there is a deal to be done.

Even after 3 years of brexit uncertainty we still haven’t gone into recession even though it is coming but it took 3 years to get there. Remember all that project fear crap Osbourne was spouting pre-ref and none of it happened. Oh no we should have had a recession worse than the one in 08/09 but didn’t happen, our currency is way down but that is to be expected.

Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement without the backstop isn’t actually that bad and I’m surprised she got what she did. If Corbynov was negotiating than it would have been equivalent to the treaty of Versailles after WW1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MilkyJoe

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
Uh the majority of MEP's are from remain parties
I stopped reading after this.





My advice it to try thinking for yourself and not parrot what the atomic liberal BBC tells you.


Not quite. The people who cared enough when that election rolled around made their voices heard, which was just over half the people that voted for/against Brexit 3 years ago, and even then, it was hardly "overwhelming" if you look at the split between pro/anti Brexit parties. If anything it's indicative that the majority of the population stopped caring what we do a long time ago.

I don't think the government would straight overturn it at this point but what do you really think is going to happen? Riots in the streets? People that aren't staunchly pro-brexit (i.e. the vast majority of the country) will move on and forget about it incredibly quickly.
I imagine there would be a fair bit of rioting, yes. If London was set on fire because a known criminal, with a gun, was shot for pointing said gun at an armed policeman, then yes I imagine there would be a fir bit of civil unrest over the government turning dictatorship. Though I think the people losing all belief in the voting system for years to come would be the most damaging.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GamingKaiju

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,114
2,658
490
Moore Park Beach
Not quite. The people who cared enough when that election rolled around made their voices heard, which was just over half the people that voted for/against Brexit 3 years ago, and even then, it was hardly "overwhelming" if you look at the split between pro/anti Brexit parties. If anything it's indicative that the majority of the population stopped caring what we do a long time ago.

I don't think the government would straight overturn it at this point but what do you really think is going to happen? Riots in the streets? People that aren't staunchly pro-brexit (i.e. the vast majority of the country) will move on and forget about it incredibly quickly.
You lost. Deal with it. Boris Johnson will deliver your referendum result.


Or do you rather want the joke of democracy that is like Sweden.
In 1980 the referendum said to remove all nuclear plants before 2005.
(They are still running)
but you just either re-run the referendum til you get the result you want or
you just declare the referendum non-binding and only advisary.


You lost. Fucking deal with it, It is how democracy works, You win some, you lose some, and you accept your loss as part of the process.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MilkyJoe

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
314
71
290
I imagine there would be a fair bit of rioting, yes. If London was set on fire because a known criminal, with a gun, was shot for pointing said gun at an armed policeman, then yes I imagine there would be a fir bit of civil unrest over the government turning dictatorship. Though I think the people losing all belief in the voting system for years to come would be the most damaging.
I don't know about rioting it isn't the British way :messenger_tears_of_joy: but yeh my belief in our democratic process would be broken if we are either to vote again on the EU or if article 50 is withdrawn. Both of these are not ideal outcomes, we'll have Nigel Farage as PM if they do happen which I fear more than Boris's no deal Brexit.

If and I mean IF the EU decided to alter the conditions of membership and tackled the problems brought up in the referendum such as FoM and agreed to reduce EU rules and bureaucracy and take a step back than I think another referendum would be fine because it would be new terms vs Brexit but we can't have a rerun of the '16 referendum that is done, and only the EU agreeing to change can another referendum be held. But we know they won't that is why Brexit happened whenever we ask Brussels for something the answer is always no, nein, non and it is this absolute refusal to budge that will end the EU.
 
Last edited:

NutJobJim

Member
Apr 15, 2007
10,334
1,629
1,415
London UK
This problem has been caused by shitty Conservative governments (specifically Dave 'The Pig Fucker' Cameron's government) who rushed through a referendum for a very complex issue without giving it the necessary time and attention that it needed.

The original vote was whether government should trigger article 50 to begin the process of leaving the EU - This has 100% been honoured as that is exactly what our government did following the referendum result.

The problem with the original referendum is that leaving the EU can mean multiple things. It can mean completely divorcing from the EU in a 'hard' Brexit style with no ties to the EU at all, or it can mean leaving the EU in name only while still being very tied to the EU in a 'soft' Brexit style (or a number of other 'deals' with varying conditions and terms).

Those of you that voted in the referendum will remember that there were only two choices on the ballot, leave or no leave. The problem is that 'leave' can mean multiple different things and no consideration was given to this.

We still don't even know how many of the people that voted leave wanted a hard Brexit because the referendum did not have enough options to be able to show this.

The whole thing has been a fuck up from day one and the only party that can realistically be blamed for that is the Conservative party.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: llien

AV

Gold Member
May 31, 2018
2,459
4,623
560
Leeds, UK
You lost. Deal with it. Boris Johnson will deliver your referendum result.

You lost. Fucking deal with it, It is how democracy works, You win some, you lose some, and you accept your loss as part of the process.
You must have glazed over the bit where I said I lost interest long ago. I'd rather we just leave than mess about anymore. But the standard staunch leaver chest-puffing "we won shut up" is always good for a laugh, cheers. It's how democracy works, just like how we have an unelected PM and a Queen, both of whom can decide what they want to do without you. We're not a proper democracy just like we're not a proper socialist state (edit: like some turbolibs seem to think we are), we just have social systems in place, and we have democratic systems in place.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
This problem has been caused by shitty Conservative governments (specifically Dave 'The Pig Fucker' Cameron's government) who rushed through a referendum for a very complex issue without giving it the necessary time and attention that it needed.

The original vote was whether government should trigger article 50 to begin the process of leaving the EU - This has 100% been honoured as that is exactly what our government did following the referendum result.

The problem with the original referendum is that leaving the EU can mean multiple things. It can mean completely divorcing from the EU in a 'hard' Brexit style with no ties to the EU at all, or it can mean leaving the EU in name only while still being very tied to the EU in a 'soft' Brexit style (or a number of other 'deals' with varying conditions and terms).

Those of you that voted in the referendum will remember that there were only two choices on the ballot, leave or no leave. The problem is that 'leave' can mean multiple different things and no consideration was given to this.

We still don't even know how many of the people that voted leave wanted a hard Brexit because the referendum did not have enough options to be able to show this.

The whole thing has been a fuck up from day one and the only party that can realistically be blamed for that is the Conservative party.
I've brought this up before, and I'm certain plenty in the UK have brought it up as well, but why wasn't there a follow-up vote/referendum/whatever to determine how the populace wished to leave the UK?

It seems like the argument has been -- for the longest time -- whether to leave or remain and whether the original referendum was valid. Remainers don't want to have a vote on the details of how to leave the EU because that would admit defeat, but Brexiters don't want to hold the vote either because "it flies in the face of democracy" or some such.
 

GingerNathan

Member
May 23, 2014
548
16
350
've brought this up before, and I'm certain plenty in the UK have brought it up as well, but why wasn't there a follow-up vote/referendum/whatever to determine how the populace wished to leave the UK?
I think the answer to that is simply everybody was caught like Rabbits in head lights, the leave campaign was as shocked for winning as the remain was for losing. The referendum was supposed to pull back Tory voters that had moved towards UKIP and stop Labour from getting into power. Once the vote was over it was expected that life was to continue as before, Cameron's move backfired.
 

AV

Gold Member
May 31, 2018
2,459
4,623
560
Leeds, UK
I've brought this up before, and I'm certain plenty in the UK have brought it up as well, but why wasn't there a follow-up vote/referendum/whatever to determine how the populace wished to leave the UK?

It seems like the argument has been -- for the longest time -- whether to leave or remain and whether the original referendum was valid. Remainers don't want to have a vote on the details of how to leave the EU because that would admit defeat, but Brexiters don't want to hold the vote either because "it flies in the face of democracy" or some such.
It's also why I voted remain originally, because simply "leave vs remain" is such a horse shit joke of a vote. Give me the option to "leave if we can come to a sensible arrangement"? Maybe I'd have voted differently. But for some reason, people that hate and distrust our government (not unreasonable) decided to trust our government to handle it well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Dontero

Gold Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,724
1,574
565
This problem has been caused by shitty Conservative governments (specifically Dave 'The Pig Fucker' Cameron's government) who rushed through a referendum for a very complex issue without giving it the necessary time and attention that it needed.
It was not rushed. 50% of population who wants to quit EU didn't just pop up from nowhere. Public had the biggest pro-EU approval after they joined EU and since then every year like clock that sentiment was going down and down again regardless of who ruled to point where in year of brexit there was around the same peopel who want to quit EU.

Cameron was in fact trying to do contingency plan with this vote. It was clear that in 2-3 years or 4 sentiment against EU would be so high that any vote to leave EU would be deal done. Instead he wanted to do this now when all polls showed that remain will win to basically stop this talk for next 10-20 years.

The plan backfired as no one predicted that Brexit support will be so high taking by surprise everyone.

As for "not enough time to present complex subject". Imho it is false. Anyone living in EU understand more or less how EU works, they also understand that trade is important and leaving EU could mean for few years worse economy. They also probably assumed both UK and EU would not do violent divorce and hurt each other. I don't remember people arguing pros and cons when my country joined EU but i have no doubt that if we would want to leave suddenly people would be talking that it is not enough time to present arguments etc. Voting doesn't work like that. Either you follow what is happening from start or you don't and have to pick blind.


The original vote was whether government should trigger article 50 to begin the process of leaving the EU - This has 100% been honoured as that is exactly what our government did following the referendum result.


No speak of any art.50 or preparations. IT was clear vote to leave or not to leave EU and government was to follow will of people. Much like you pay taxi to get your somewhere and you don't ask how they do it. Effect only matter and so far government did not follow will of the people.

The problem with the original referendum is that leaving the EU can mean multiple things. It can mean completely divorcing from the EU in a 'hard' Brexit style with no ties to the EU at all, or it can mean leaving the EU in name only while still being very tied to the EU in a 'soft' Brexit style (or a number of other 'deals' with varying conditions and terms).
Original meaning is clear. To leave EU means to leave European Union. In case of interpretation there is only one interpretation here. Be country like Ukraine which is not in European Union or be European Union member.
Soft/Hard brexit is just technical definitions and both achieve same thing.

Those of you that voted in the referendum will remember that there were only two choices on the ballot, leave or no leave. The problem is that 'leave' can mean multiple different things and no consideration was given to this.
No sorry it doesn't mean multiple things.

We still don't even know how many of the people that voted leave wanted a hard Brexit because the referendum did not have enough options to be able to show this.
The whole thing has been a fuck up from day one and the only party that can realistically be blamed for that is the Conservative party.
Hard brexit and soft brexit are tools for negotiation. Public shouldn't assume role of negotiator when they are not in position to negotiate. This is a function of government.

Hard brexit currently seems like only option because EU want to eat cake and have a cake where UK has to follow rules while UK doesn't have any input in those rules which effectively makes UK still a member of EU despite not having vote and official status.

UK on other hand also wanted something from EU like services working in EU but at least those services would have to follow EU rules then.

So this is effectively powerplay between UK and EU. EU thinks that it can make out of UK example for everyone else to see while to public saying they are working for people while UK doesn't budge and looks like doesn't have the will to say no at the same time and make clear cut which would reset EU stance to 0 and make them reconsider (at least it didn't until Boris was chosen).

What UK needs right now is strong leader that will say no and does hard brexit. Yes it will hurt uk for few years but in longer therm it will seat straight relationship with EU which still thinks UK is kid who need discipline.
Only when hard brexit will happen and EU heads will roll then new people will take over and will start to think with their head how to pick up broken pieces.
 
Last edited:

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
Labours MEP's campaigned on a second referendum, maybe you should continue to read, that way you won't come across as arrogant.
During the euro elections Labour were leave, the people that voted for Labour did so on the understanding that they were a LEAVE PARTY. Ergo the point still stands

Labour having suddenly announced that they back a second referendum, is because if there's one thing that'll make Corbyn (the biggest Euro-skeptic in UK politics) swap to the remain camp, is the chance it'll give him to get into number 10. Corbyn sees 48% of the population voting for him, knowing the 52 % would be split between Boris and Nigel. Don't try and school me on what has and has not happened, I listen to this crap every day on LBC.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,152
23,849
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I think the answer to that is simply everybody was caught like Rabbits in head lights, the leave campaign was as shocked for winning as the remain was for losing. The referendum was supposed to pull back Tory voters that had moved towards UKIP and stop Labour from getting into power. Once the vote was over it was expected that life was to continue as before, Cameron's move backfired.
If nothing else, this shines a light on the inefficacy of the Establishment Left and the lengths to which they will go when democracy goes against their desired plan. It's no secret how the USA's Left reacted to the shocking victory of Trump.

It's also why I voted remain originally, because simply "leave vs remain" is such a horse shit joke of a vote. Give me the option to "leave if we can come to a sensible arrangement"? Maybe I'd have voted differently. But for some reason, people that hate and distrust our government (not unreasonable) decided to trust our government to handle it well.
This last part seems to be a struggle for many Western nations right now. Distrust of gov't paired with brain-dead reliance on gov't to make the issue better. Is it any surprise that the gears of gov't have sludged to a near-halt? The populace is divided on what it wants, which will naturally reflect in how the democratically-elected branches of office behave.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
I don't know about rioting it isn't the British way :messenger_tears_of_joy: but yeh my belief in our democratic process would be broken if we are either to vote again on the EU or if article 50 is withdrawn. Both of these are not ideal outcomes, we'll have Nigel Farage as PM if they do happen which I fear more than Boris's no deal Brexit.

If and I mean IF the EU decided to alter the conditions of membership and tackled the problems brought up in the referendum such as FoM and agreed to reduce EU rules and bureaucracy and take a step back than I think another referendum would be fine because it would be new terms vs Brexit but we can't have a rerun of the '16 referendum that is done, and only the EU agreeing to change can another referendum be held. But we know they won't that is why Brexit happened whenever we ask Brussels for something the answer is always no, nein, non and it is this absolute refusal to budge that will end the EU.
The only second referendum should be;

Deal

No-Deal

The stay / leave vote has been taken. Re-voting until you get the result you want is worse than just overturning the result.
 

Kenpachii

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,821
1,305
540
The only second referendum should be;

Deal

No-Deal

The stay / leave vote has been taken. Re-voting until you get the result you want is worse than just overturning the result.
This so much.

And this is how communist europe works.

1) Directly accept outcome if it fits your bill
2) Keep re-voting until you get the answer you want
3) don't get the answer and people interfere? kill of the democratic process that allows voting in the first place or simple don't listen to the population or put in a vote to start with
4) Ignore your own rules by writing new ones that are "better" and more "fitting".

Uk said no against EU and that's final any revote or any of the above i mentioned means ur country is a joke of a democracy.

EU refused any better deal by not wanting to deal with the UK when they where in it, they had there time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MilkyJoe

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,686
2,795
700
To get a deal you need to put NO DEAL back on the table. Only a complete fucking idiot cannot see that. The EU does not want a no deal exit, it is not good for them either. We'll probably leave on the Norway model.
May did that already.
With all those games, she got the deal she got.
What Hammond is saying and, I'd say is apparently true, is that "just drop the backstop" is nothing, but "fuck you, I want hard brexit".

Pretty tired of staunch remainers telling us that the sky is falling over and over again. It’s them who have fucked up the chances of getting a good deal.
There is little doubt that hard brexit would damage UK as well as (to a lesser extent) EU.
Tell us about possible "good deal" please.

So it’s not like the EU themselves were negotiating in good faith they are trying to fuck us over. The backstop has 3 locks inside it that are designed to keep the UK tied to the EU forever and annex NI from the mainland.
What is the alternative? How can you be in pool and outside it at the same time?

"Boris Johnson has the support of more than half of the public to deliver Brexit by any means, including suspending Parliament, according to a poll."
Public hasn't asked for a hard brexit in that poll, just for the circus to end.

Leavers voted for this,
Leavers voted for brexit, not for hard "let's create some chaos and damage our and EU economy" brexit.

The plan backfired as no one predicted that Brexit support will be so high taking by surprise everyone.
Well, it's notable that brexit campaign was filled with lies, from vastly exaggerating Brussel's authority, to lying about number of "pillow" regulations, and ending up with biggest lie of them all, about financial aspect of the deal.


And this is how communist europe works.

1) Directly accept outcome if it fits your bill
2) Keep re-voting until you get the answer you want
3) don't get the answer and people interfere? kill of the democratic process that allows voting in the first place or simple don't listen to the population or put in a vote to start with
4) Ignore your own rules by writing new ones that are "better" and more "fitting".

Uk said no against EU and that's final any revote or any of the above i mentioned means ur country is a joke of a democracy.

EU refused any better deal by not wanting to deal with the UK when they where in it, they had there time.
Communist Europe? Huh?
This is how Europe works:
1) with blackmailing you can get small concessions (Trump did)
2) attempt to harm strategic EU direction (e.g. UK getting better deal outside) are not even remotely imaginable
3) stop pretending that UK voted for ANY particular kind of brexit

EU spent 3 years negotiating with UK government (which DID try "hard brexit" leverage, mind you, EU was mildly amused). There is no way a "king of the world" populist can pop out of nowhere and make major last minute changes in the agreement. Not to say, I have yet to see a viable alternative to the backstop.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Aintitcool

Aintitcool

Banned
Sep 3, 2017
1,366
1,016
605
Vienna, Austria
Of Course the EU would love a no-deal brexit. It is free money for the EU states that do individual trade deals with the UK. Italia gonna get damn rich via brexit food imports. And here's a secret behind the scenes thing told to me by a politician from italy. The EU has a plan to remove lots of Gold out of the UK with a no-deal(EU will get to decide value and force the trade) and make the swiss/german banks more powerful to remove UK's political advantage holding many nations gold. Which will in the long term cause the UK to lose influences especially in latino america and east asia .

The only second referendum should be;

Deal

No-Deal

The stay / leave vote has been taken. Re-voting until you get the result you want is worse than just overturning the result.
ROFL because the EU doesn't have a say in the deal? WTF how do you think this works? The people of the UK decide the fate of trade with EU ? There is no extensions anymore.
 
Last edited:

GingerNathan

Member
May 23, 2014
548
16
350
During the euro elections Labour were leave, the people that voted for Labour did so on the understanding that they were a LEAVE PARTY. Ergo the point still stands
People voted for Labour based on what was in their manifesto, if you're a leaver you aren't going to vote for a party which wants a referendum. The current opinion of the general public is not cut and dry, with maybe the exception that everybody has had enough of Brexit discussion dominating Parliamentary time and want the whole thing finished. That's apathy not pro-leave (or pro-remain for that matter).

Labour having suddenly announced that they back a second referendum, is because if there's one thing that'll make Corbyn (the biggest Euro-skeptic in UK politics) swap to the remain camp, is the chance it'll give him to get into number 10. Corbyn sees 48% of the population voting for him, knowing the 52 % would be split between Boris and Nigel.
I agree 100, that's why I class votes for Labour MEP's as a remain votes.
The only second referendum should be;

Deal

No-Deal
I agree with this, lumping a 'do you want to stay' vote with that would guarantee a remain win, and that would be undemocratic. Regardless how much I think leaving is a mistake, the integratory of our democracy is more important.
 

Kenpachii

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,821
1,305
540
May did that already.
With all those games, she got the deal she got.
What Hammond is saying and, I'd say is apparently true, is that "just drop the backstop" is nothing, but "fuck you, I want hard brexit".


There is little doubt that hard brexit would damage UK as well as (to a lesser extent) EU.
Tell us about possible "good deal" please.


What is the alternative? How can you be in pool and outside it at the same time?


Public hasn't asked for a hard brexit in that poll, just for the circus to end.


Leavers voted for brexit, not for hard "let's create some chaos and damage our and EU economy" brexit.


Well, it's notable that brexit campaign was filled with lies, from vastly exaggerating Brussel's authority, to lying about number of "pillow" regulations, and ending up with biggest lie of them all, about financial aspect of the deal.




Communist Europe? Huh?
This is how Europe works:
1) with blackmailing you can get small concessions (Trump did)
2) attempt to harm strategic EU direction (e.g. UK getting better deal outside) are not even remotely imaginable
3) stop pretending that UK voted for ANY particular kind of brexit

EU spent 3 years negotiating with UK government (which DID try "hard brexit" leverage, mind you, EU was mildly amused). There is no way a "king of the world" populist can pop out of nowhere and make major last minute changes in the agreement. Not to say, I have yet to see a viable alternative to the backstop.
Lol dude, EU can make up tomorrow a entire new deal if it suits them. That's exactly what they always do. No clue where you think any deal is set in stone. Currently nobody profits out of the UK leaving and EU wants to put a big fucking target on the UK with if you leave u get fucked. Any negative and unstability in UK is a bonus for the EU.

What UK needs to do is grow some fucking balls instead of begging at the doorstep of germany leave and make the EU look like as bad as possible to anybody by saying look this is how tyranical the EU is and start to make there own version of it and make new deals with individual country's. NL aint going to stop dealing the UK even if the EU forbids it or not. It will put massive negativity on the EU and UK can basically push in on that.

However sadly the EU lovers in that country which is most likely probably the media which sits in city's obviously and only profit out of EU solutions while everybody else gets there ass handed towards themselves keep supporting those EU people even while they spit in there faces.

Sorry but anybody that is still pro EU in England are just complete idiots that get played hard like die hard liberals in america by there media.
 
Last edited:

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,686
2,795
700
EU can make up tomorrow a entire new deal if it suits them.
The deal needs to suit both sides. 3 years were spend to compromise.
There is no "deal tomorrow" that could change major parts of the already agreed deal.

That's exactly what they always do.
Try to find a single example.

EU is a club. Nobody forced UK into it, in fact, De Gaulle was blocking the deal, it wasn't until he was ousted, that UK could join the EU.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Aintitcool

Aintitcool

Banned
Sep 3, 2017
1,366
1,016
605
Vienna, Austria
Lol dude, EU can make up tomorrow a entire new deal if it suits them. That's exactly what they always do. No clue where you think any deal is set in stone. Currently nobody profits out of the UK leaving and EU wants to put a big fucking target on the UK with if you leave u get fucked. Any negative and unstability in UK is a bonus for the EU.

What UK needs to do is grow some fucking balls instead of begging at the doorstep of germany leave and make the EU look like as bad as possible to anybody by saying look this is how tyranical the EU is.

However sadly the EU lovers in that country which is most likely probably the media which sits in city's obviously and only profit out of EU solutions while everybody else gets there ass handed towards themselves keep supporting those EU people even while they spit in there faces.

Sorry but anybody that is still pro EU in England are just complete idiots.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-25/johnson-pledges-to-turbo-charge-no-deal-brexit-preparations .- EU Rejects Boris Johnson’s Demands.


Why do you think the people of the UK can decide deal or no deal? That is up to the parliament. You're all talking nonsense if you think a referendum can dictate to the EU via a UK vote what the international trade conditions are of a country.
 
Last edited:

Dontero

Gold Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,724
1,574
565
Well, it's notable that brexit campaign was filled with lies, from vastly exaggerating Brussel's authority, to lying about number of "pillow" regulations, and ending up with biggest lie of them all, about financial aspect of the deal.
As someone from Poland i can see for myself that those exaggerations were not exaggerations at all.

1. No EU treaty says that someone must accept migrants, in fact wording is about help to other nations.
Against a treaty EU worked on EU wide system to redistribute migrants to nations who don't want migrants under threat of penalties.
If not for eastern block somehow pulling together in last minute right now flood of migrants would be redistributed by quotas. We still have to accommodate on other hand some numbers but we were effectively bullied into this state as majority of public doesn't support that.

2. Polish constitution says outright that it is job of government to set retirement age of judges.
In last few months we discovered that EU courts have right to interpret themselves polish constitution and they said nope you can't despite constitution saying this clearly. By treaties signed EU has right to create new law for nations to follow but no treaty says that EU had right to interpret someone constitution for themselves.

3. When EU tried to go with constitution public DECLINED which crashed beurocrats hopes for united states of europe. Instead of asking public they went into bureaucracy and without public vote they transformed EEC into EU with Lisbon treaty which required only government agreements completely skipping public vote. Lisbon treaty effectively contains most of provisions of EU constitution.

Just those three alone should change minds of everyone trying to join EU. When my country joined EU it wasn't even named as such. IT was mostly economical union but thanks to idiots in my gov and far more idiotic beurocrats in Brussels now we have superstate which only job is to increase its power over its members, ever increasing amount of laws passed to ensure that real power will be in EU itself rather than in national parliaments.

I don't see ever being pro-EU if it won't change its ways and have Liberum Veto rule it had before signing Lisbon treaty. That rule effectively assured unity as it required all states to agree on subject which effectively removed completely power struggle and created union of minimums where everyone agree on everything.

Either way thanks to latest bunch of EU non-sence about rule of law in eastern europe a lot of people teach themselves about what is effectively EU and how their dream of economical union is not actually true and their vote years ago for such union hardly has anything to do with current union.

The only bad part is that EU already exists which means being outside of it makes you a target for it. The best case scenario would be either reform and back to pre-lisbon treaties or destruction and forming new union only focused on trade and basic stuff.

So yeah good luck that UK leaves it, my nation will have now to deal with increased retardation of french-german axis which will end up corupting EU and destroying it.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,586
443
1,250
Texaa
Public hasn't asked for a hard brexit in that poll, just for the circus to end.
Can you educate me on what suspending parliament entails? Is it a big deal, like state of emergency temporary authoritarian powers, or just "hey we are going to hold snap elections"?

I did google it myself and the first hits were all about how BJ could suspend parliament to force a no deal Brexit without the House of Commons rejecting it. So I would think that a poll question about suspending parliament is in fact a proxy for no deal Brexit.
 
Last edited:

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,686
2,795
700
As someone from Poland i can see for myself that those exaggerations were not exaggerations at all.
When politician says "we pay X", but in reality country pays "X/2", it is an exaggeration, regardless of the country from which you are looking at it.

1. No EU treaty says that someone must accept migrants, in fact wording is about help to other nations.
Against a treaty EU worked on EU wide system to redistribute migrants to nations who don't want migrants under threat of penalties.
If not for eastern block somehow pulling together in last minute right now flood of migrants would be redistributed by quotas. We still have to accommodate on other hand some numbers but we were effectively bullied into this state as majority of public doesn't support that.
That is true, although unrelated.

2. Polish constitution says outright that it is job of government to set retirement age of judges.
In last few months we discovered that EU courts have right to interpret themselves polish constitution and they said nope you can't despite constitution saying this clearly. By treaties signed EU has right to create new law for nations to follow but no treaty says that EU had right to interpret someone constitution for themselves.
Polish government tried to get more control over judiciary, by effectively FIRING supreme court judges.
It got pushback from Polish citizens, got sued, the government lost the case.
It got pushback from judges themselves, stating that it contradicts Polish constitution.
The whole point of supreme court is that government has no control over it. Isn't that part of Polish constitution?
EU court essentially stabilized your country, blocking way to more authoritarian rule.

3. When EU tried to go with constitution public DECLINED which crashed beurocrats hopes for united states of europe. Instead of asking public they went into bureaucracy and without public vote they transformed EEC into EU with Lisbon treaty which required only government agreements completely skipping public vote. Lisbon treaty effectively contains most of provisions of EU constitution.
Lisbon treaty was signed by European member states, including Poland and the major change was unanimity replaced with qualified majority (which is orthogonal to what you are stating, no public vote is directly asked in either case, but it is elected governments who are making decisions)


Can you educate me on what suspending parliament entails?
It depends on the context, doesn't it?
When one wants to ask about hard brexit, there is no need to roam about, the question could easily be asked directly.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,586
443
1,250
Texaa
It depends on the context, doesn't it?
When one wants to ask about hard brexit, there is no need to roam about, the question could easily be asked directly.
Yea, I am not a Brit so I am asking what the relevant context is. I am not trying to trap you or anything.

But on this we can agree. Poll questions and especially the news articles that cover them are often intentionally indirect because they are pushing an agenda. In the US, I could ask 3 questions: 1) Do you think Trump wants to take direct action that harms non-white races? 2) Do you think Trump is racist. 3) Do you think Trump has said racist things?. What will happen is they will ask something like 3, but in the news reporting report it like they asked 1 or 2.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: llien

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,950
3,767
625
To get a deal you need to put NO DEAL back on the table. Only a complete fucking idiot cannot see that. The EU does not want a no deal exit, it is not good for them either. We'll probably leave on the Norway model.
Seriously, how the hell does anyone get to participate in this ordeal if they don't understand the basic dynamics of negotiations. If someone says don't leave, and you say "don't worry, I will only leave if you sign a deal to make me happy after I am gone", the person you said that to has all the reason in the world to never agree to something you can accept. One of the most asinine things I have ever seen, although if the people pushing that position just don't want to leave it does make sense. But it also makes them liars if they are telling people they are actually trying to reach a deal, unless they are mentally deficient and just that dumb.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,586
443
1,250
Texaa
Mr. Auto Salesman, I am definitely going to buy this car no matter what. This car right here, in this dealership, from you. Now how much are you going to give me off MSRP?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickFire

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
Seriously, how the hell does anyone get to participate in this ordeal if they don't understand the basic dynamics of negotiations. If someone says don't leave, and you say "don't worry, I will only leave if you sign a deal to make me happy after I am gone", the person you said that to has all the reason in the world to never agree to something you can accept. One of the most asinine things I have ever seen, although if the people pushing that position just don't want to leave it does make sense. But it also makes them liars if they are telling people they are actually trying to reach a deal, unless they are mentally deficient and just that dumb.
Which was what May did. It was so fucking obvious she was in colluion with the EU over the sabotage too

Look at this shit when she was supposed to be hard negotiating

 
  • Fire
Reactions: NickFire

Dontero

Gold Member
Apr 19, 2018
1,724
1,574
565
Polish government tried to get more control over judiciary, by effectively FIRING supreme court judges.
It got pushback from Polish citizens, got sued, the government lost the case.
It got pushback from judges themselves, stating that it contradicts Polish constitution.
The whole point of supreme court is that government has no control over it. Isn't that part of Polish constitution? EU court essentially stabilized your country, blocking way to more authoritarian rule.
No not effectively. LAWFULLY doing what constitution required of them. That retirement age was changed multiple times and never it had any effect on EU saying anything. It is clear that recent attacks from EU side are due to Polish stance toward migrants and way for them to effectively force Poles to pick other government by force. The only thing that changed is that EU doesn't like polish government and tries to use its power to change that government.

Secondly no. Some judges saying something isn't any lawful opinion nor gov lost the case because only CT has right to say if that bill was lawful or not and for sure they would say it was lawful because constitution directly states that goverment has power to set retirement age for judges.

Finally no there is no authoritarians in Poland. PIS is perhaps corrupt but they are not autoritarians. They just doing reform of judiciary and most of people in Poland support them in that because judicary is something that needed overhaul as Poles had no illusion that polish judiciary was corrupt to the bone. PIS plans for judicary reform were open for literally 10 years+. They started them when they previously ruled for short period of time back in 2006 (2 years after Poland joined EU) and those are effectively same changes updated with many new findings. They reform is based on German judiciary.

The problem here is that:

a) most of media played ball with previous government and they still do despite the fact that they lost. Since PIS won they effectively non stop attack them on all occasions. Sometimes they have right to do that but 90% of time they just want to overthrow government. Hint: People see that and don't care about them. But it works for people who don't live in poland and outsider politicians who read those newspapers rather than listening to people.
b) judiciary is corrupt and fears reform and they fight with it all they can because it will mean dissolving their caste and creating judiciary that is not based on who you know which is basically requirement today to became part of judiciary. I know it perfectly well because 2 of my friends wanted to become lawyers and they couldn't because after finishing their school they couldn't get practice anywhere as they were not kids of other lawyers.

Those two points together creates this myth that there is some problem in Poland. Which is why you have such drastic difference between media and normal poles. It is effectively Trump like situation in Poland where someone got elected against wishes of media. So now you have perfect duet media with big tube and judges and judiciary that cries fault to reforms.

Media is prime reason why the whole thing even exist. Days after PIS winning election they went completely batshit insane and started to write opeds about PIS being bad party etc. And they got their perfect storm when PIS lawfully used trick in law to disallow ex-gov party supreme court judges. Only thing as non Pole you heard from that was probably that PIS usurped 2 extra Supreme Court seats but reality was much more complicated and imho PIS was right:

- Before migrant conundrum PO ex-gov party was still polling well and they were on shaky path to win 3rd therm.
- They cooked up scheme where they forced early selection of 2 supreme judges to get supreme court stacked with their people. PIS cried foul obviously no one cared. Not EU, not media, only PIS and other judges who you never hear of when people talk about rule of law in poland. PIS didn't go to Constitutional Tribunal because CT was stacked with PO judges (8 year therm for CT judges in Poland and PO ruled for 8 years)
- Then whole migrant thing exploded and PO made huge mistake. They didn't deny that they are considering taking migrant quotas. PIS outright said no and they will fight with it. This tanked their support by at least 20% and PIS gained most of those people. PIS reached barrier where they would form not only government but single party government.
- PO realized that scheme they cooked up will now backfire. Instead of gaining unlawfully 2 extra judge they will lose 2 extra ones because that choice would be after elections where PIS would be in power.
- They went to Constitutional Tribunal to check their own bill on that. Naturally CT said yup this is unlawful. Shoker that EU, media etc stayed quiet about rule of law in poland ? Without PO going themselves to CT PIS would have no way of fixing this as their motion would be easily overturned by CT which was stacked at the time with PO judges.
- From now it was race with time. As above happened just before election. PO quickly changed bill to have this choice of 4 new judges before election and they picked 4 but whole process needed time and by law they were supposed to be received by president which gives them nomination.
- Election happens and PIS wins elections. PIS goes to offensive.
- This is where shit starts to fly.
- PIS used their law mastery (heads of party are themselves lawyers, prosecutors, judges and party name is literally Law and Justice) and they figured out that without president confirmation those judges can't be appointed. So president at the time declined to meet with judges effectively making their choice irrelevant.
- This naturally caused huge media outrage about lack of respect to rule of law. (despite it being completely lawful) media went into feeding frenzy, cried faul to EU and so on.
- Since previously picked judges didn't finish their appointment and President doesn't want to confirm them new parliament picked up 4 new judges.
- This instantly caused panic in PO and they send new bill to CT which stacked by their judges said that this appointment is unlawful because it assumes that 4 previous judges were already appointed. Problem ensued: CT can only consider bills and acts of law in other words they can't make opinions that create new law CT does not have lawmaking power (you know separation of power). So in other words they just said that what President did was unlawful despite constitution being clear what appointment looks like. So CT directly broke polish constitution with such opinion. Not only that but they also input themselves into how someone is appointed despite not being part of executionary branch. It is police and army not judges that say what President did was right or wrong. Constitution doesn't say President must accept new CT judges.
- So we already are swimming up to neck in shit but this is not the end of story. THERE IS MORE !
- PIS again used trick in book. Polish constitution says that for CT judges opinion to have power of law it needs to be first printed and exposed to view by prime minister on kind of legal board. Guess what they did ? At the time prime minister just ignored printing and said "he will do it" but didn't put up date suggesting he won't do it.
- Which means that CT now had to rule on what they did and say that constitution part about CT and printing is unconstitutional lol.
- After few months of back and forth with legalities, cadency of head of supreme court and two other judges was gone and now PIS just appointed their CT head and whole problem went away

As you already see from that reading PIS is playing by law and opposition both political and media don't play by those rules. When something doesn't work for them they go to EU and cry which in return after years of their rule made them some friends which in return want to scratch their back.

When you read this you have right to think:
- Polish constitution is mess and should be reworked or written anew.
- Polish highest court CT is not independent body
- Polish media and politics is retarded business

And you would be right on all accounts.

So what is the deal with Supreme Court (body lower than CT) ?:

- they oppose any kind of reform that removes family connections
- they found perfect way to stop reform by attacking government on rule of law so like previously they raised stink to EU that rule of law in Poland in under threat despite not showing what law PIS broke.
- PIS wish for longest time was to destroy polish corrupt judiciary system to point where they named themselves as i already stated Law and Justice and finish reform they started.
- supreme court which is filled with family clans opposition infuriated PIS and theu confirmed only PIS in their goal.
- so like in case of CT they went to law book and used polish constitution to deal with about 1/4 of them as a retaliation. Polish constitution says that goverment picks up retirenment age and retirenment age is only thing you can't use for discrimination case. Judges in poland when they reach retirement age don't get fired, they are judges till death but they go into sleep mode where they are given work only by appointment.

Here is the part that media doesn't like to talk about:
- PIS would have CT either way in less than 2 years, so them going after 2 extra slots was just opportunism rather than some authoritarian move. It was previous gov that was autoritharian in this case.
- Supreme Court cadences are even shorter than CTs. Meaning that in 4 years most of those judges would be swapped either way and PIS didn't have to do anything. It was clear retaliation of PIS in corrupt system to show clans that old days are gone.
- Last year it was found that one of Supreme Court judges in communist era send people to death without evidence in sham trials. But hey SC is perfect like press says !

Meanwhile PIS made already huge reforms to judiciary:
- random selection of cases for judges to ensure lack of corruption
- lowering bar to become lawyer/prosecutor/judge in courts to ensure clans will quickly get overwhelmed by young blood outside of clans. Now if you end up lawyer school you can apply to court directly instead of looking for private law company that will give you 2 years of experience which you won't get because they don't hire people outside of family.
- debt collectors now are required to check if stuff they secure is actually owned by debtors. Previously if you visited your friend or lend him your car debt collectors could take your car and sell it with no recourse for you.
- creating body from very credible judges that will review very controversial cases (controversial meaning judges were probably corrupt and give almost no punishment or failed completely at their work which means bribery). This body will take cases from minister of justice or other judges.
- Putting up limits to ensure that judges can't indefinitely hold cases
- changing method of how supreme court judges are picked to ensure that president and government has input in this rather than letting judges themselves pick candidates which created families problem in first place.

Everyone of those is horror for polish corrupt judiciary system. This is why judicary fight so much now. Every month with PIS in power new changes ensure that a lot of people who previously swam like fish in this corrupt system will now have problems.

Secondly PIS will probably try also to do something with Polish constitution. Already president talked few times on need to reform constitution to ensure cases like PO tried to do and what PIS did to not happen again, yes PIS isn't happy they had to play their tricks because suprise suprise they try to respect law and they don't want law being weak. They will probably do it next therm because PIS actually has huge chance to win next elections and possible get enough support to create with other minor parties super-majority and rewrite constitution and give it to people to sign.


And before you say it was written by PIS fanatic or something. I voted for previous government 2 times and along with rest i laughed on PIS and was furious about first CT crisis.

But then i researched CT subject and read actual opinions of common judges from various places and it was clear that media was biased, whole subject was far more complicated than people said. Those common judges in opposition to mainstream knowledge said that while they don't like how PIS did it it was still lawful.

Lisbon treaty was signed by European member states, including Poland and the major change was unanimity replaced with qualified majority (which is orthogonal to what you are stating, no public vote is directly asked in either case, but it is elected governments who are making decisions)
Question: if joining EEC required referendum then why they required same referendum for EU constitution that failed. Answer: Legitimacy. Governments change every 4 years sometimes 8 and no government should have so much power alone to decide such important thing like transferring your nation sovereign power from nation to state under superstate.

Lisbon treaty should have been something that public votes on not governments.

If you don't agree with that you are against democracy period.

It depends on the context, doesn't it?
When one wants to ask about hard brexit, there is no need to roam about, the question could easily be asked directly.
You mean creating second referendum ? IF that doesn't go well you will also create third saying other stuff like for example Do you agree that UK should keep its fish trailers ? If that doesn't work another one asking if people are ok with cost of redistributing new passports with EU sign ?

soft/hard brexit is just minor issue. Even in case of hard brexit at best UK will have troubles for few years and then it will go along like nothing happened.
 
Last edited:

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
314
71
290
The only second referendum should be;

Deal

No-Deal

The stay / leave vote has been taken. Re-voting until you get the result you want is worse than just overturning the result.
As I said the IF EU were willing to reform and give national parliaments more power so they could run their countries their way then I would view that as different referendum because the terms have changed so the people should get another say but not a straight re-run of the 2016 referendum that shipped sailed in June'16.

There is 0% chance a re-run will happen, there is only 2 months left until no-deal. I would however prefer to leave with a deal (with no backstop) and have a good trading, friendly relationship with the EU but not to be ruled by them after Brexit.


What is the alternative? How can you be in pool and outside it at the same time?
Sorting out a thorough and deep trading relationship without asking us to be forever tied to the them might help.
 
Last edited:

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
As I said the IF EU were willing to reform and give national parliaments more power so they could run their countries their way then I would view that as different referendum because the terms have changed so the people should get another say but not a straight re-run of the 2016 referendum that shipped sailed in June'16.

There is 0% chance a re-run will happen, there is only 2 months left until no-deal. I would however prefer to leave with a deal (with no backstop) and have a good trading, friendly relationship with the EU but not to be ruled by them after Brexit.




Sorting out a thorough and deep trading relationship without asking us to be forever tied to the them might help.
If we leave with no deal we'll soon enough make a deal anyway. We manufacture an awful lot of their requirements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GamingKaiju

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
314
71
290
If we leave with no deal we'll soon enough make a deal anyway. We manufacture an awful lot of their requirements.
Come Brexit day if Boris has survived a VoNC, stopped Parliament from blocking no deal and thwarts any other attempt to stop him then I think a deal will be done in the wee hours on the 1st. The EU are relying on Parliament to stop him. We will leave on the 31st I'm very confident of it Boris isn't taking any shit and has surrounded himself with people that he trusts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MilkyJoe

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,950
3,767
625
Come Brexit day if Boris has survived a VoNC, stopped Parliament from blocking no deal and thwarts any other attempt to stop him then I think a deal will be done in the wee hours on the 1st. The EU are relying on Parliament to stop him. We will leave on the 31st I'm very confident of it Boris isn't taking any shit and has surrounded himself with people that he trusts.
There's a good chance of a last minute deal if he prevents obstruction. The EU has a lot to lose if a no-deal Brexit occurs and the departed gets through it ok. It would be like a match thrown into a pit of gasoline for anyone with anti-EU sentiments in the remaining countries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GamingKaiju

jep_uk

Member
Nov 5, 2014
286
46
325
Warrington, England
Hammond was on Radio 4 this morning and said that a no deal Brexit would be a bigger betrayal of the country than staying in would be. Glad no deal is back on table, it should always have been there. Likewise we should have been pushing back saying we'll only negotiate withdrawal deal alongside future trade deals. EU had it so easy, they get the withdrawal deal they want and then are free to fuck us over on trade afterwards as we will have no leverage what's so ever by then.