Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum


Results are only viewable after voting.
Not what I meant. Hypotehtically are the british too proud to reverse it when theywant to reverse a decision?
"They" voted and came to a decision. It's not much different than having an election and having one candidate win by a slim margin and then deciding a year later you don't like them so you just have another election. I don't think that's what any rational person wants.
 
"They" voted and came to a decision. It's not much different than having an election and having one candidate win by a slim margin and then deciding a year later you don't like them so you just have another election. I don't think that's what any rational person wants.

Not really this isnt a decision that has periodic elections or voting. I just know some people from england who really want to reverse the decision. Is there a law that prohibits a referendum to reverse the decision?
 
Not really this isnt a decision that has periodic elections or voting. I just know some people from england who really want to reverse the decision. Is there a law that prohibits a referendum to reverse the decision?
Nope, the government didn’t even need to inact Brexit, they chose too.

A referendum isn’t legally binding, it’s an advisory vote in which the government uses to gauge public opinion.
 
Nope, the government didn’t even need to inact Brexit, they chose too.

A referendum isn’t legally binding, it’s an advisory vote in which the government uses to gauge public opinion.
True, but unfortunately a reversal of Brexit is not so easy - triggering Article 50 was done by an act of Parliament (i.e. legally binding) and is prescribed by EU law... reversing it would require both an act of Parliament (slow, but relatively easy) and a legally binding agreement from the EU - unfortunately the GTP swear filter prevents me from accurately describing how unlikely that is to happen quickly.
 
Not really this isnt a decision that has periodic elections or voting. I just know some people from england who really want to reverse the decision. Is there a law that prohibits a referendum to reverse the decision?
I said it was like an election, not the same as an election. The sameness is that the people voted and their voices were heard. To not follow those results would be the first step towards tyranny IMO. Referendums are not uncommon in democracies and voting ballots sometimes contain questions for voters to decide upon various propositions. Yes, I know people in England that don't want it either. Unfortunately the time to vote on it has passed. The old folks turned out in droves and won that day.
 
It's in the EU's best interests to reject anything UK offers and make them suffer, this way no one else will think of doing the same.

You won't see a democratic vote on that one.
 
PM's statement in full:

Yesterday, I was in Salzburg for talks with European leaders.
I have always said that these negotiations would be tough - and they were always bound to be toughest in the final straight.
While both sides want a deal, we have to face up to the fact that - despite the progress we have made - there are two big issues where we remain a long way apart.
The first is our economic relationship after we have left.

Here, the EU is still only offering us two options.
The first option would involve the UK staying in the European Economic Area and a customs union with the EU.
In plain English, this would mean we’d still have to abide by all the EU rules, uncontrolled immigration from the EU would continue and we couldn’t do the trade deals we want with other countries.
That would make a mockery of the referendum we had two years ago.
The second option would be a basic free trade agreement for Great Britain that would introduce checks at the Great Britain/EU border. But even worse, Northern Ireland would effectively remain in the Customs Union and parts of the Single Market, permanently separated economically from the rest of the UK by a border down the Irish Sea.

Parliament has already - unanimously - rejected this idea.

Creating any form of customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK would not respect that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, in line with the principle of consent, as set out clearly in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
It is something I will never agree to - indeed, in my judgement it is something no British Prime Minister would ever agree to. If the EU believe I will, they are making a fundamental mistake.
Anything which fails to respect the referendum or which effectively divides our country in two would be a bad deal and I have always said no deal is better than a bad deal.
But I have also been clear that the best outcome is for the UK to leave with a deal. That is why, following months of intensive work and detailed discussions, we proposed a third option for our future economic relationship, based on the frictionless trade in goods. That is the best way to protect jobs here and in the EU and to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, while respecting the referendum result and the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Yesterday Donald Tusk said our proposals would undermine the single market. He didn’t explain how in any detail or make any counter-proposal. So we are at an impasse.

The second issue is connected to the first. We both agree that the Withdrawal Agreement needs to include a backstop to ensure that if there’s a delay in implementing our new relationship, there still won’t be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
But the EU is proposing to achieve this by effectively keeping Northern Ireland in the Customs Union.

As I have already said, that is unacceptable. We will never agree to it. It would mean breaking up our country.

We will set out our alternative that preserves the integrity of the UK. And it will be in line with the commitments we made back in December - including the commitment that no new regulatory barriers should be created between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK unless the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree.
As I told EU leaders, neither side should demand the unacceptable of the other.
We cannot accept anything that threatens the integrity of our union, just as they cannot accept anything that threatens the integrity of theirs.
We cannot accept anything that does not respect the result of the referendum, just as they cannot accept anything that is not in the interest of their citizens.

Throughout this process, I have treated the EU with nothing but respect. The UK expects the same. A good relationship at the end of this process depends on it.
At this late stage in the negotiations, it is not acceptable to simply reject the other side’s proposals without a detailed explanation and counter proposals.
So we now need to hear from the EU what the real issues are and what their alternative is so that we can discuss them. Until we do, we cannot make progress.

In the meantime, we must and will continue the work of preparing ourselves for no deal.
In particular, I want to clarify our approach to two issues.

First, there are over 3 million EU citizens living in the UK who will be understandably worried about what the outcome of yesterday’s summit means for their future.
I want to be clear with you that even in the event of no deal your rights will be protected. You are our friends, our neighbours, our colleagues. We want you to stay.

Second, I want to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that in the event of no deal we will do everything in our power to prevent a return to a hard border.

Let me also say this.
The referendum was the largest democratic exercise this country has ever undergone. To deny its legitimacy or frustrate its result threatens public trust in our democracy.
That is why for over two years I have worked day and night to deliver a deal that sees the UK leave the EU.
I have worked to bring people with me even when that has not always seemed possible.
No one wants a good deal more than me.
But the EU should be clear: I will not overturn the result of the referendum. Nor will I break up my country.
We need serious engagement on resolving the two big problems in the negotiations. We stand ready.


This speech is problematic, to say the least.

 
It's in the EU's best interests to reject anything UK offers and make them suffer, this way no one else will think of doing the same.

You won't see a democratic vote on that one.
I think you are right in so much as your assessment of how the EU is behaving, but it is no way to behave.

The UK is not a naughty child that won't do what it's told - nor does leaving the EU constitute an infringement of EU law in any way, unlike several other member states who are currently in flagrant violation of EU laws, rules and values, some of which the EU had to break its own rules in order to let in in the first place - and yet, when it comes to the idea that any of these member states should want to leave, suddenly the rule book is written in stone.

Frankly, the EU have enough problems without making a hash of Brexit, what with the breakdown in respect for the rule of law in Hungary and Poland, a growing list of countries that are refusing to accept any migrants, countries in violation of EU law for forcibly removing migrants once they have landed in that country, countries unilaterally closing their internal borders when and where it suits them, populists across Europe gaining in strength and already in power in Italy, a festering sovereign debt crisis in Greece that has ruined the country, a looming banking/debt crisis in Italy that could destroy the Eurozone, a rampant Germany in violation of more EU rules than anyone else (including running a huge trade surplus that violates the EU's rules), but yet it is the UK that needs to be punished?!
 
Last edited:
I said it was like an election, not the same as an election. The sameness is that the people voted and their voices were heard. To not follow those results would be the first step towards tyranny IMO. Referendums are not uncommon in democracies and voting ballots sometimes contain questions for voters to decide upon various propositions. Yes, I know people in England that don't want it either. Unfortunately the time to vote on it has passed. The old folks turned out in droves and won that day.

I guess the difference is that a referendum isnt bound by law. I just hope populism/ rightwing politics wont get a bigger foothold in the EU.
 
I think you are right in so much as your assessment of how the EU is behaving, but it is no way to behave.

The UK is not a naughty child that won't do what it's told - nor does leaving the EU constitute an infringement of EU law in any way, unlike several other member states who are currently in flagrant violation of EU laws, rules and values, some of which the EU had to break its own rules in order to let in in the first place - and yet, when it comes to the idea that any of these member states should want to leave, suddenly the rule book is written in stone.

Frankly, the EU have enough problems without making a hash of Brexit, what with the breakdown in respect for the rule of law in Hungary and Poland, a growing list of countries that are refusing to accept any migrants, countries in violation of EU law for forcibly removing migrants once they have landed in that country, countries unilaterally closing their internal borders when and where it suits them, populists across Europe gaining in strength and already in power in Italy, a festering sovereign debt crisis in Greece that has ruined the Greek economy, a looming banking/debt crisis in Italy that could destroy the Eurozone, a rampant Germany in violation of more EU rules than anyone else (including running a huge trade surplus that violates the EU's rules), but yet it is the UK that needs to be punished?!

Punishment isn't, I don't think, the correct word.
The UK has had special voting powers and rights other EU nations have not, this has been seen to have been unfair. The EU are now seeing that there is an availability to balance this imbalance and put themselves (as a whole) into a more advantageous position.
 
I'm still at a loss to see why the EU have trashed Theresa May's Chequers plan - it is so tipped in their favour that hard Brexiteers like Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Davis are foaming at the mouth in anger over it, and yet, ironically, it is evidently too much like having EU membership for the EU's liking, so it is toast.
Exactly, they have no faith in the UK to uphold the Chequers plan when they already reneged on last December's backstop agreement. It's been trashed by Leavers and Remainers alike.
 
True, but unfortunately a reversal of Brexit is not so easy - triggering Article 50 was done by an act of Parliament (i.e. legally binding) and is prescribed by EU law... reversing it would require both an act of Parliament (slow, but relatively easy) and a legally binding agreement from the EU - unfortunately the GTP swear filter prevents me from accurately describing how unlikely that is to happen quickly.
Getting 27 Turkeys to vote for Christmas?
 
Punishment isn't, I don't think, the correct word.
No, it's exactly the right word - purposefully seeking to inflict damage to serve as a warning to others is the definition of punishment.

The UK has had special voting powers and rights other EU nations have not, this has been seen to have been unfair.
Erm, no.

The UK's relationship with the EU has been legally negotiated and ratified by all member states every step of the way for decades - and it is not 'unfair' at all... the UK are a net contributor to the EU after all. That the EU has chosen a different direction than what is acceptable to the majority of British people is regrettable (though the Euro has made it inevitable), but other member states have chosen to accept their relationships with the EU irrespective of what differences other countries (like the UK, Denmark and Sweden) have negotiated.

The EU are now seeing that there is an availability to balance this imbalance and put themselves (as a whole) into a more advantageous position.
I'm glad you said this, because this (the bolded part at least) has been my point about the dangers of second vote all along - I agree that the EU will most likely attempt to use Brexit to achieve the polar opposite of what the UK actually voted for, which is not only to prevent the UK from leaving, but to force the UK to accept entirely new terms of membership, in spite of the fact that only a tiny minority (if any) of the British people actually want that.

Unfortunately, the best way to avoid this possibility is to not give the EU a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity which would be handed to them on a silver platter if the UK voted to reverse Brexit.
 
Last edited:
The UK's relationship with the EU has been legally negotiated and ratified by all member states every step of the way for decades - and it is not 'unfair' at all... the UK are a net contributor to the EU after all. That the EU has chosen a different direction than what is acceptable to the majority of British people is regrettable (though the Euro has made it inevitable), but other member states have chosen to accept their relationships with the EU irrespective of what differences other countries (like the UK, Denmark and Sweden) have negotiated.

I didn't say it wasn't legal, but having spent many debates with my European friends, it is a point of political contention and exacerbation(I've no idea if that's the right spelling). It was just something that always comes up, like oh yeah the uk veto'd it of course they did. I guess I should have been more clear.

I'm glad you said this, because this has been my point about the dangers of second vote all along - I agree that the EU will mot likely attempt to use Brexit to achieve the polar opposite of what the UK actually voted for, which is not only to prevent the UK from leaving, but to force the UK to accept entirely new terms of membership, in spite of the fact that only a tiny minority of the British people would accept that.

I agree, but I still think those terms would be better than no-deal. The British public voted for less power and less influence within the EU... and that's essentially what we will get, regardless
 
I didn't say it wasn't legal, but having spent many debates with my European friends, it is a point of political contention and exacerbation(I've no idea if that's the right spelling). It was just something that always comes up, like oh yeah the uk veto'd it of course they did. I guess I should have been more clear.
The UK has no more voting rights that any other member state. What your European friends are complaining about is the fact that the UK is exercising its rights as a member state, not that we have any special privileges.

The British public voted for less power and less influence within the EU... and that's essentially what we will get, regardless
Sorry, but again this is totally incorrect. The UK people voted to leave the EU, not to have 'less power and less influence within the EU'.

People who voted Remain voted for the opposite - to maintain the UK's position as a member state and all the voting power and influence that entails.

What you describe - less power and influence within the EU - is called Soft Brexit (aka EEA membership, aka the 'Norway Option') - effectively staying in the EU but without a seat at the table. No-one voted for that.
 
Sorry, but again this is totally incorrect. The UK people voted to leave the EU, not to have 'less power and less influence within the EU'.

People who voted Remain voted for the opposite - to maintain the UK's position as a member state and all the voting power and influence that entails.

What you describe - less power and influence within the EU - is called Soft Brexit (aka EEA membership, aka the 'Norway Option') - effectively staying in the EU but without a seat at the table. No-one voted for that.

Typo, I meant *WITH* not within. So outside (the EU) we have less power and influence over the EU.

In reality, no one voted for us to be in the situation and position we are in now. Yet I'm told that his IS what we voted for and just because I don't like it don't mean it should simply be changed to something I do like.
 
Typo, I meant *WITH* not within. So outside (the EU) we have less power and influence over the EU.
Less as in none - ironically, if I were one of your European friends, I'd be delighted with that idea.

In reality, no one voted for us to be in the situation and position we are in now. Yet I'm told that his IS what we voted for
Again, I have to disagree with this. Leaving the EU is what the UK voted for - while virtually none of the detail was specifically voted for (and most of it isn't even clear to this day), the fact remains that a majority of people did vote, quite simply, for the UK to leave the EU.

The fact that the EU and the UK government are both making a total pig's ear of it is something that most people I know anticipated from the word go.
 
Last edited:
Again, I have to disagree with this. Leaving the EU is what the UK voted for - while virtually none of the detail was specifically voted for (and most of it isn't even clear to this day), the fact remains that a majority of people did vote, quite simply, for the UK to leave the EU.

They did, because they where be told they would be better off.
Edited to make sense


@Touring Mars I'm curious your thoughts on May's speech today (I quoted it in a post above)
 
Last edited:
Corbyn remains frustratingly vague when it comes to his views on the EU, but now he and the Labour leadership have seen a way to change tack from 'respecting the referendum result' to calling for a second vote - by allowing the membership to decide. So Labour will very shortly announce that they formally support a second referendum (or 'People's Vote'), which will, in turn, guarantee that no possible Tory deal with the EU can succeed, even if they do somehow manage to strike such a deal.

Meanwhile, when asked about Labour's own alternative plans on the Andrew Marr show today, Jeremy Corbyn's answer to every Brexit question was "we will judge any Brexit deal against Labour's 'Six Tests'", which are:
  • Fair migration system for UK business and communities
  • Retaining strong, collaborative relationship with EU
  • Protecting national security and tackling cross-border crime
  • Delivering for all nations and regions of the UK
  • Protecting workers' rights and employment protections
  • Ensuring same benefits currently enjoyed within single market
As if I need to say it (again), but this last one guarantees that Labour cannot deliver Brexit.

The Tories are very upset that the EU has rubbished their proposals without giving a proper explanation for why, but the last line of Labour's Six Tests explains it perfectly - the EU could not do a better job of explaining so succinctly what their principle red line is. This is not only the reason why the Chequers Plan will not be accepted by the EU, but also explains why there is no possible plan that Labour can craft that will pass muster either. In other words, Labour have ruled out leaving the EU in any form that is acceptable to the EU.
 
Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell has said that a 'People's Vote' (second EU referendum) should not include an option to Remain in the EU

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-referendum-should-not-include-remain-option

I guess it should come as little surprise.
What a worthless vote that would be; do you want this exit plan (that the EU won’t agree too), or no exit plan?

Why do ministers still think we can negotiate ourselves a better deal? Why do they continue this lie?
Jezza seems to have done a better job of splitting his parties base than Tony did



:lol:
 
You can't change the rules of supply and demand by government decree unless you intervene by force. The supply side of the market is going to react whether you like it or not. It has nothing to do with being humane and everything to do with hundreds of years of economic research into how markets work. The solution to any government problem is always more funding and with more funding comes more inefficiency and more waste...and more funding...etc. etc. etc. People will die when the government is slow to react to changing market conditions just as surely as they will die when they can't afford treatment. One of those ways makes you feel a lot better though.

The government will always come to late? Why won't companies?

Also when certain diseases are so rare they are not financially interesting to find cures for, then a market won't. At least a government could do this out of 'altruism' due to the empathy of the voters.

And then that last part, you seem to find to have one of those issues feel a lot better but I'm baffled as I can't tell which one.
Situation 1 mismanagment, could have been prevented with correct policy and funding.
Situation 2 could have been prevented with a sensible healthcare system.
In other words both situations someone dies due to lack of the government taking action when it notices this is something the free market (or should we start calling it god?) won't fix.
 

:ill:

The best we can hope for now is that the penny has now finally dropped with a majority of MPs that Soft Brexit is dead, and that the Cabinet will now come up with a proposal more in line with what the ERG have recommended (e.g. a Canada-style deal). Cool-headed pragmatism may yet come to the rescue.

Unfortunately, even a Canada-style deal doesn't resolve the single biggest sticking point - the Irish 'backstop' - but then again, neither does no deal. However, the ERG do at least stress the important point that there is already a de facto customs border between NI and the UK, and that the backstop solution proposed by the EU could well never come into effect in any meaningful way. It would force the UK (and Ireland) to make a technological solution work during the transition period, which will render the backstop moot.
 
Why do ministers still think we can negotiate ourselves a better deal? Why do they continue this lie?
Maybe it's not a lie to think there is all to play for when two parties are still negotiating? The EU is floundering under enormous pressures and intractable weakness/problems of its own. The pragmatic negotiator will realize this and prepare to turn up the heat on a compromised and wounded negotiating party. "Chaos is a ladder" - George RR Martin, A Game of Thrones
 
Back