Fight "Brexit" if you want to

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?

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 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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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?

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 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.

The bill which Parliament were asked to vote on stated that the referendum was advisory only. Had it been made clear that it would be definitive then it is likely it would not have had Parliamentary approval in that form and more specific details of the vote such as percentage of the electorate voting and the necessary percentage Majority to leave being reached would have been needed.ie - 75% turnout and a 40/60% split.

Many of the statements made by the Remain side are now starting to be shown to be true - as yet none of the leave ones which have started to come true have been beneficial - EU workers who we really need are leaving of their own accord and we will soon be short of vital labour - whether it is in theNHS or Agriculture etc.

With regards to the criminal checks on EU citizens - if there is reason suspect there may be a problem then criminal checks can be made.

Very recently a committee from the HoL went to Brussels to have a meeting with Guy Verhofstadt. I have read a transcript of this meeting - the Lords were very polite and asked searching questions all of which were answered in detail. During this session it was stated that the EU would like nothing better than for Brexit to be cancelled - or that it is obviously better for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and Single market.
It was a very interesting read and appears to be a verbatim report. I cannot do a link as I read it on a link in a closed group of Europeans/UK citizens. It may well be available on line somewhere else. Guy Verhofstadt has agreed he will visit the HoL for another session after the summer.
Some of his replies were just so good - he would make a great dinner guest!!!

As had already been stated devongirl, there was misinformation from both sides. The remain campaign wasn't simply "complacent and didn't bother making the argument to stay" they came up with project fear.

When the referendum was called it was put across as a once in a life time opportunity to have a say in the future of our country. It wasn't an advisory note and was therefore a genuine referendum. Had the terms and conditions been two fold ie a vote to leave or remain followed by a second vote if the first were to leave, so a Brexit deal could then be declined or accepted by the electorate then fair enough; but it wasn't presented in that way.

I don't doubt for one moment that that's because Cameron didn't expect to lose but he did and the decision taken based on the wishes of those who voted was the democratic wish of the country.

smileless I can't believe you have managed not to notice any of the misguiding and sometimes frankly dishonest info given by the leave campaign, and there is no doubt remain were ridiculously complacent and didn't bother making the argument to stay.

Surely you would agree that there was virtually no information given at the time tio make an informed decision as to which way to vote. That is the reason why people would like another vote when the final terms and implications of leaving are clear.

If the vote is still to leave, and this is a genuine referendum and not an advisory vote, then that will be the democratic wish of the country.

Yes, you're right illtellhim he fought tooth and nail to keep us out of the common market. I wonder what he'd think about what happened to the common market when it became the EU, and the UK now wanting to leave.

Until the negotiations are done and dusted, and we know what deals have been struck, and an informed opinion can be made as to whether leaving the EU was the right decision, to me it's ridiculous to have all of this negative rhetoric.

I would have accepted the decision to remain had the vote gone the other way, not happily but I'd have had too. I certainly wouldn't have sought to derail the decision to remain because the vote didn't go the way I wanted.

I'm sure it was this man who kept us out of the "then" common market.
and now we want to come out
well I must admit that I don't feel any different from when he kept saying 'non'

So I'm asking is there anyone here, who can say that they really care weather we're in or out, because I don't.

smileless speaking as a whole-hearted remainer, I would nevertheless happily accept leaving if it transpired that leaving the EU would be more beneficial than remaining, frankly to me it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I agree Primrose there was misinformation on both sides. If the decision to leave were reversed we'd be in a much weaker position regarding negotiations than we were before the referendum.

As you say varian overturning the decision to leave would not go unpunished; so the EU want to make us pay if we leave and will make us pay if we remain and why? Because membership of the EU isn't all it's cracked up to be and it's hoped to strike fear into other countries who may be thinking of leaving by using our vote to leave as an example of what can happen.

I don't understand why anyone wishes to remain a member of an organisation that as petra has pointed out refused to give us some of the quite insignificant reforms we asked for when we were a member, and seeks to make an example of us because we've decided to leave.

One of the stumbling blocks in the current talks is the UK wishing to carry out criminal records checks on those from EU countries wishing to come and live in the UK; why?

I wonder if it's the fear among remainers that by the end of the negotiations which incidentally have only just begun, we find that leaving then EU is more beneficial than presumed. Perhaps that is why so many are doing "their utmost to stifle" the process and send us over the cliff edge that the infighting, division and negativity has resulted in, rather than the vote to leave.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I'd still prefer to stay in.