Fight "Brexit" if you want to

I think the best thing would be a few years in EEA / EFTA to avoid the cliff edge exit and the consequent disruption and economic disaster. Time then for a proper trade agreement to be worked out or a complete change of heart as the demographic changes.
A democracy that cannot change its mind is not a democracy.

I don't understand why some people think their view is more important than democracy. I understand it is frustrating if you don't get your own way but surely the whole country got to vote and it was an in out vote and there could only ever be one winner. If EU had given Cameron a decent deal as UK one of only four net contributors out of the 28 countries then I suspect the vote would have been to remain but they did not give a decent deal. In a way the inflexibility of the EU sealed their own fate in terms of Brexit. Now they appear to be unreasonable again as Junker is determined to punish UK for daring to leave EU and so UK may end up leaving without a deal and end up with World Trade rates. The EU will cut off its nose to spite its face. At the end of the day they don't want to lose UK cash cow. UK will need to be brave and forge free trade with other countries including Canada and US. We will still do trade with EU but through World Trade rates. We will probably develop new countries to trade with who are less dictatorial and bureaucratic and who don't expect us to fund another 24 countries to boot just to trade with them.

I agree Mamie that "a democracy that cannot change its mind is not a democracy". More than 4 decades ago a democratic decision was taken to join the common market. Last year a democratic decision was taken to leave the EU; our democracy changed its mind so why are some saying that Brexit isn't democratic?

newnanny people were voting with little/no/incorrect/misleading info initially, that's the whole point. Do you really feel that such a vast political/economic upheaval should rest on a single vote in those circumstances?

Whether it is better to leave the EU or not, surely what amounted to an opinion poll would be improved upon by having a second vote/

It frequently sounds as if leavers are afraid that they wouldn't get a majority again, but who knows? Would it be less democratic because the vote would be based on fuller information?

WT rates are 40% in some cases - not much of a bargain.
It was such a tiny majority and it was the exact figure Farage quoted as being insufficient to put the question to bed - in other words he would still be campaigning for another vote - so please allow the Remainers the same luxury.

We do understand democracy but it has to be a true fight without lies and also a bigger majority for such a decision - most referendum votes need a 60/40 split and 75% turnout - that is why some referendum need to be run a second time because the majority was too small.

I think the point is that the decision to leave was taken at a particular point in time. In a sense the why and the how of that decision are irrelevant now. The important thing is what happens next. If a cliff edge "hard Brexit" reduces the UK to long-term penury and chaos, it it still a valid decision? Why would people not want a measured, thoughtful, structured approach to change, that takes account of economic circumstances and the huge complexity of undoing forty years of legislation? Why would people be afraid to allow voters to change their minds if it doesn't work out as they hoped?
Why, for example, do people not want a longer transition such as EFTA / EEA.
If you take a bad economic decision in your own life, do you not seek to change it?
Is there no place for caution, prudence and moderation?

Thanks Cindersdad; I'm on several remain facebook pages but I'll check that one out.

The future is uncertain, whether we stay in, leave or have a half way house EFTA/EEA deal.

The problem with doing an 'EU Hokey Cokey' is that you're likely to end up in a permanent transition - 3 years going back in, 4 years coming out again ..... it would be chaos. How often would we vote - very general election maybe? Or do we stop once we get the result you want?

devongirl there was mis-information from both remain and leave camps. That being said the government sent a flyer to every house hold in the country setting out arguments to stay and what might happen if we left. Everyone with eligibility had the ability to vote if they wanted to/could be bothered to. I don't think it is feasible to keep voting until the government gets the vote response it wants. That is undemocratic. At the time of referendum it was understood there would be one opportunity to vote and it was in or out. Saying some people may not have understood is patronizing and implies the majority of people in UK cannot read information, watch televised debates and weigh up the information for themselves. If the UK had voted to remain would there even be this conversation about refusing to accept democracy? I think whether we voted in or out the whole country made the decision and we all have to accept it because to do otherwise would be to reject democracy. IN many ways it reminds me of Nicola Sturgeon. At time of Scottish referendum it was supposed to be once in a generation vote but because she did not get result she wanted she just wants to keep making Scots vote. It is wrong. Everyone should make their vote and then accept result because to do otherwise implies they think their view is more important then the majority view and it goes against democracy.

Very good post newnanny and what I think too.It may not be easy and may take quite a while but the UK will be all the better for it.

But the future wasn't uncertain before Cameron decided on a referendum to save his bacon...

That was to your first post....but the same applies to your last post too!

I didn't know about the history of referendums in the UK - looks like we've only had 3 and Brexit had the highest turnout.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

Welshwife Is this the report of the H0L/Verhofstadt meeting you posted about?
www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/eu-select-committee-/news-parliament-2017/barnier-verhofstadt-transcripts-published/

I think we need to try to sign up to World Trade rates in case we don't get a fair deal and I would be very surprised if we did as Junker determined to punish so as to deter other countries form leaving. We need to foster good free trade deals with other countries in commonwealth who have shown interest in doing free trade with UK and continue to trade with EU through World trade rates. I think a few difficult years whilst we sort out new trade deals but once up and running we can probably prosper. If EU want to cut off nose to spite face then they will end up suffering because we buy far more from EU then we sell to them. We could also do a lot with money not sent off to EU coffers such as start to sort out social care crisis, invest into nursery education/education, make injection into economy for jobs etc. At the moment because we had growing economy we are popping up most of Europe as one of only four net contributors. All 28 countries had equal voting rights but only 4 paid in net contribution the other 24 took out more than they paid in so it was unreasonable for EU to refuse Cameron a better deal. The EU is very very inflexible and if they don't punish UK for leaving other countries in future may see UK doing well outside EU and decide to leave as well although less likely for 24 countries who have net gain but what if they lost another net contributor?

No Primrose65, you make a decision when you have sufficient hard evidence one way or the other. A decision based on wishful thinking is nothing short of feckless.

Mamie I totally agree on evidenced based decision making.

Well I didn't cast my vote on wishful thinking Mamie. As newnanny has rightly pointed out, flyers were sent to every household by the government at the tax payers expense; just a small part of an excellent post.

It's up to each individual voter to equip themselves with as much information as possible before casting their vote on such an important issue, and to even allude to those who voted to leave as being uninformed and simply wishful thinking is insulting and quite frankly a very poor argument.

IMO the biggest lie came from Cameron who, when calling the referendum said he would continue PM regardless of the outcome. Within a few hours he'd spat his dummy out and resigned. If those who wanted to remain want to have a go at anyone it should be Cameron and not those who used their democratic right to vote as they saw fit.

I am not talking about the vote Smileless. The vote is over. I am talking about what happens next. Cliff edge or managed, interim process such as EEA / EFTA?

We all know that the Remain Campaign was totally incompetent preferring what is termed "project fear" (trying to predict the dire consequenses of a leave vote) instead of advocating the many advantages that the UK enjoys by being in the EU. More and more of these predictions are now seeming to come true, but that does not excuse an incompetent campaign.

The Leave Campaign, on the other hand was inherently dishonest from the start. It was a deliberate manipulation of democracy by powerful people who peddled out-and-out lies (the lie on the bus was the least of it).

The BBC, not satisfied with 20 years of relentlessly promoting Nigel Farage and his brexit nonsense, felt obliged during the referendum campaign to give equal weight to intelligent, informed opinion from experts on the Remain side and propaganda and lies on the Leave side.

A lot of decent, well-meaning people (inlcuding some GNetters) were fooled into voting to harm the futures of their children and grandchildren by voting for the lies.

It would have been so much better if the Remain campaign had talked more about the many benefits we have all enjoyed by being in the EU. Perhaps all is not lost.

www.politico.eu/article/9-ways-britain-could-stay-european-union-brexit/

At some point we, as a nation, should recognise, that the 2016 referendum was fraudulent, 37% of the electorate made a mistake, but that should not be allowed to blight the future of our once great country for ever.

You say you're not talking about the vote mamie then why did you refer too "A decision taken on wishful thinking is nothing short of reckless"? My previous post was a response to yours.

IMO varian "at some point, we as a nation, should recognise that the 2016 referendum" was in favour of leaving the EU and should now be concentrating of forging the best possible outcome for the country.

If you read my post of 16:53 SmilelessI think you will se that I was talking about the post-Brexit process of implementation.

mamie don't forget that things have softened considerably recently. So I think it is looking more positive at the moment than since the referendum. I think the truth of the matter is that the Brexit ministers are finally beginning to understand the incredible difficulties and potential disastrous hit to our economy.

Yes mamie you were, but my post at 18.23 was in response to your post at 17.33.

And my post of 17:33 was a continuation of my earlier post. I had said several times that the vote is over and what happens next is where the discussion needs to be. I find it bizarre that no "leavers" seem to want to discuss the implementation process.
I agree "whitewave", transition certainly seems to be in the discussion now.