Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,870 comments
- 301,517 views
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
There will be no need for a public vote on May's deal because Parliament will have already either rejected or accepted it. There is no time left to negotiate another deal, hence there will be/can be no referendum that involves the government's deal.
As I've just said, a vote to leave with a deal won't/can't happen - another referendum would only happen if/when the deal is voted down by Parliament, therefore a vote on the basis of Remain v No Deal would be the only options left for a public vote...
I think it would be fair/legitimate because if those are the only two legal/viable/possible options left, then it would be a very good test of whether or not the original Leave vote was really a vote for No Deal, or whether a fraction (>4%) actually preferred a deal that, by the time of a second referendum, would be impossible to deliver.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Sure, but if/when Parliament accepts the government's deal, there will be no second referendum.
Ironically, if the PM miraculously does somehow get her deal through Parliament eventually, a 'People's Vote' would run the risk of putting the entire process back to square one at a point in time where no other options can be pursued in time to avoid an accidental No Deal/Hard Brexit.
The trouble would be that a second referendum with three or more options, some of which may not even be possible (i.e. 'Negotiate a new deal') would almost certainly fail to deliver a clear mandate for anything, but it could/would stop the agreed deal from going ahead. That would only increase the chance of an accidental No Deal.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
I don't really agree with a second referendum, I stated what I think should be on the ballot if there was one but if the MP's vote goes ahead (as it should) it would effectively make another referendum pointless because it mirrors what would be asked anyway. After the MP's vote why does it need to go to the public? We will have our answer. May's deal (which frankly is so much like Remain is should please Remainers) or No Deal which would satisfy the vast majority of Leavers that didn't expect one. My point is if the MP's reject her deal she can still but it through without their consent. She's trying to legitimise her plan with parliments approval hence the likely delay but failing that she might still put it through and out will come the 'best interest' speech.
I pretty much see either,
May's deal with MP's consent
May's deal without MP's consent
No Deal
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
She can't.
May can theoretically proceed whether the Meaningful Vote is won or lost, or even if it is not held at all - but sooner or later the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement needs to be formally passed into UK law in the form of the Withdrawal Agreement Implementation Bill, the passing of which would be a formality after a 'Meaningful Vote' had approved the deal, but becomes very far from a formality if Parliament has already (roundly) rejected the deal. Ultimately, the House of Commons as a whole will (and should) have the final say.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
It will very likely go ahead, maybe not tomorrow but it will do at some point. Whether she honours the outcome depends on how hard she works for the next week.
Actually it pretty much does and it has been widely reported by all sides of the argument that it does. It keeps us in the customs union and the single market, no hard border in NI, still paying into the pot and we will be under most laws for at least another 21 months after the leave date. Smells like the EU to me.
Here's an example,
Also if you have watched any news coverage when they interview remainers they nearly always say they didn't vote for a deal with the EU, they voted to leave. We could try to forge a new deal (such as a Canada deal) down the line although the EU has tried to insinuate that they wouldn't do any deal with us at a late date if we don't take May's deal because its 'cherry picking'.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I agree with @baldgye that Theresa May's deal is nowhere near as good as simply remaining in the EU in the first place.
Crucially, part of the attraction of remaining in the EU is that we still maintain full voting rights, a veto, and thus a full say in how EU laws that directly affect us are made - Theresa May's deal ensures that we lose all of that while still being subject to many EU laws which, over time, will inevitably work against our interests by virtue of the fact that we are unable to influence the making of laws that we have legally committed ourselves to abide by.
There's also the small matter of ending free movement of people between the EU and the UK - I know that this is why so many people voted to Leave, but it is also a major reason why so many Remainers voted to Remain... in order to prevent the ending of free movement of people, which will hamper our economy and impose unnecessary limits on where UK citizens can live and work in the future. Unfortunately, Theresa May's deal ends the free movement of people between the EU and the UK, and that will cost our NHS and economy very, very dearly.
Crucially, part of the attraction of remaining in the EU is that we still maintain full voting rights, a veto, and thus a full say in how EU laws that directly affect us are made - Theresa May's deal ensures that we lose all of that while still being subject to many EU laws which, over time, will inevitably work against our interests by virtue of the fact that we are unable to influence the making of laws that we have legally committed ourselves to abide by.
There's also the small matter of ending free movement of people between the EU and the UK - I know that this is why so many people voted to Leave, but it is also a major reason why so many Remainers voted to Remain... in order to prevent the ending of free movement of people, which will hamper our economy and impose unnecessary limits on where UK citizens can live and work in the future. Unfortunately, Theresa May's deal ends the free movement of people between the EU and the UK, and that will cost our NHS and economy very, very dearly.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
The EU stated multiple times that this is the ONLY deal on the table, she can try for more consessions but the EU are pretty firm on the fact there won't be a different deal. She is postponing it to try and further sell this deal to MP's more than anything else.
It's an attempt to keep everyone happy with this pseudo 'in the EU in everything but name' stance. It's ridiculous but not as ridiculous as cancelling Brexit and not honouring the vote of the people as she herself said she would.
Last edited:
It tries to please everyone and manages to please no one.
The vote of the people was split, 50/50, the number of people conned by the bus tipped the scales. This isn’t ‘what the people want’ no one won Brexit on the idea of stockpiling food and medicine.
The deal is *****, May has nothing left. If like youve said the EU won’t budge (your right) the only options are no-deal and remain. Thus a vote would have to have remain on it
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This is pretty much exactly what I would have said too.
Theresa May has virtually no chance of getting the necessary 'assurances' from the EU that are required to win over skeptical MPs - in real English, she's trying to persuade the EU that the UK must be able to unilaterally quit the Irish Backstop. The words 'snowball' and 'hell' spring to mind.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Is there any proof that the Brexit bus 'tipped the scales?' Sure it will have influenced SOME people but its a disservice to people who aren't stupid enough to be swayed by cheap reactionary slogans. Also that 'promise' was debunked almost immediately in the press as unrealistic nonsense.
Actually I think May's deal will regrettably happen, its dead with parliment but its crucially not dead with her, the EU and its actually not dead with the public despite being a terrible one. Polls have indicated that at this point many people are so fed up that they don't care what sort of deal we get as long as we get on with it. If she goes remain can you imagine the storm it would create?
Not a lover of democracy then? All this sounds like the general played on repeat misconception that leavers are all a bunch of uneducated bigoted hillbillies that had no idea what they were voting for and were totally conned by two men and a bus. 17 and a half million people, all idiots.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
As @Touring Mars touched upon she can proceed without the houses blessing FOR NOW but it will need a vote at some point. Maybe kicking the can down the line will bring parliament round to the idea. Dead now doesn't mean dead in a week given the speed at which all of this is moving, she just keeps biding time.
- 17,321
- United Kingdom
I know I'm jumping into this conversation from the side, but democracy is failing us by virtue of apathy, poor leadership, poor education, journalistic perversion and a flawed system of government.
Which is the minority of the population...
And the minority of the adult population...
And the minority of the electorate...
And is barely a majority of those that turned out....
34.8 million adults did not vote for Brexit, that trumps your 17.5 apparently representing the whole country... or "the people", and sure, you can say they don't count if they didn't vote, but that's a facile point of view, there was 62 million souls living, giving and taking from the UK when we voted... The Leave vote isn't "the people", it was 28% of the people.
Unsurprisingly my local MP - who I did not, and have never voted for - and does/did not hold the vote of the majority of even the electorate (not the people) in this constituency, is saying he will back May's deal. So just to re-cap democracy from my point of view... a person representing me, that I did not vote for, and the majority of the people in this constituency did not vote for, has agreed to support a deal proposed by a government that I, and the majority of people did not vote for (only 13.6m people of 52.3m adults... 26%), off the outcome of a referendum that only 33% of the adult people supported, offered by a party that I didn't, and only 21% of the adult population actually did, vote for... **** me.. even the Nazi's did better than that.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
But only 16.1 million voted to stay in the EU, and that is trumped by the 17.4 million who voted to leave.
To suggest that all of those who didn't vote or who were not eligible to vote should be counted as if they voted to stay in is a bogus argument - no democracy on Earth operates or has ever operated on that basis. The referendum was never about establishing an absolute majority of all citizens - given that a fair number are not even eligible to vote at all, it never could be.
I understand your frustration, but it is far too late to raise this kind of argument.
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Thats ridiculous, for that matter every democratic vote in history on leadership, government and laws had people, often a large amount of people, that didn't vote... does that de-legitimise the outcome of all of those desions?
If they threw away their vote when they had every opportunity to then they don't have a voice, pure and simple.
The entire UK fishing industry for one, any company (and its employees) that wants to forge trade deals with the rest of the world but can't unless its done under EU terms for another.
