If there was another EU referendum...

The relationship with the EU was not a marriage, it was business.

That makes it sound as if the UK was in a business relationship with 'the EU'.
We are not; we are part of the EU.
The EU is a group of discrete countries brought together with some common goals - however, some of the more extreme members may have goals which were or are not apparent to others.

The present leadership will not be here for ever, so would it would have been better to stay and try to reform or put the brake on the more extreme ideas?
I thought it was; however, reading about the emergence of the new power behind the throne, Martin Selmayr, I do wonder.

You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with you, Allygran1

Jalimal1108
David Cameron did try to put things right for eight years. Because of that final rejection by the EU on most of the big issues of concern we had the referendum. We are here because the EU could not, would not compromise.

MamaCaz your hypothesis, if you will forgive my view, is flawed. The relationship with the EU was not a marriage, it was business. Nor was it possible to continue with one party the EU having no concern for the problems and issues of the other party the UK. I think you would agree that using your marriage hypothesis that one can only reach an agreement to motor on with each other if there is respect and concern for each other's needs. If that isn't there divorce is the only option.

I still vote to leave,don"t want to be part of EU any more,
withe big fat salarys they pay themselves

Clearly a remain vote must mean that the voter was not unhappy with the situation in the UK as an EU member either social, economic or political, up to the Brexit decision 23 June 2016.

I don't agree with that either; sometimes it is better to try to put things right than walk away.

Keep posting Allygran ??

Allygran1

Clearly a remain vote must mean that the voter was not unhappy with the situation in the UK as an EU member either social, economic or political, up to the Brexit decision 23 June 2016.


I don't really agree with that statement. Even in a stable marriage, there will usually be things that a couple disagree about, or are not totally happy about, yet don't see as grounds for divorce. There is no reason why many people's relationship with the EU should be any different - not ecstatic, but realistic enough to see that ending the relationship is not the best option.

It has also been pretty obvious from the opinions of many Leave voters interviewed on TV since the referendum that they have done no research, because their stated reasons for voting Leave have often had absolutely nothing to do with the EU! Though I don't suppose a second or indeed any number of referendums would make any difference to their vote.

I do agree that researching issues is never a bad idea, but I think that as what will happen here politically or economically after Brexit is pure speculation, there is a huge lack of credible data on which to base any such personal 'research'.

Why is providing information direct to the GN post, a problem?
It's not Allygran
I must admit I don't read all the long posts but it is useful and available to anyone who wishes to - and the length of the thread is not dependent upon the number of pages but upon the number of posts, so there is no problem with length either.

If someone doesn't want to read the long posts - then don't.
Likewise the links which others provide.

It's not compulsory!

joelsnan
Thank you for that last sentence: spot on.

Allygran
reserch the eu, not the uk
How true. They are the ones with the problems. Have you all read that the ECB is very worried about Italy? If they fail Europe is in real trouble.

Allygran
Your posts are always polite and informative. Do not allow those who consider it fair game to attack your every post to detract you. You are obviously a better person.

Socrates once said, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Cut and paste is not a problem if it is restricted to a reasonable amount of relevant information. Long articles should be summarised and a link will allow anyone who is interested to follow it up.

Why is providing information direct to the GN post, a problem? Cut and Paste is not a dirty word, much as some would like to make it seem so. It informs directly without having to beak off the thread and go to another site to read and then come back.

Theresa May campaigned to remain. There is no new news in that. As for satirical comments I would prefer facts.
As for the European Arrest Warrant, just one of many issues being negotiated or having been negotiated. Berniers touches on these issues in his statement released today when he says:
On security, the EU wants very close cooperation to protect our citizens and democratic societies. We should organise effective exchanges of intelligence and information and make sure our law enforcement bodies work together. We should cooperate to fight crime, money laundering and terrorist financing. We can cooperate on the exchange of DNA, fingerprints, or Passenger Name Records in aviation to better track and identify terrorists and criminals. We are also ready to discuss mechanisms for swift and effective extradition, guaranteeing procedural rights for suspects

As for researching to broaden ones view of an issue, I would have thought that is what most people do before making a decision, but it is equally valid after if there is a doubt. Clearly a remain vote must mean that the voter was not unhappy with the situation in the UK as an EU member either social, economic or political, up to the Brexit decision 23 June 2016.

In a satirical piece in the FT, entitled "Seven compelling arguments against a second referendum", Henry Mance lists, and then demolishes these agruments.

He concludes "I am not saying there are no good arguments against a second referendum. There are, for example, real questions about what it would look like: what options would be on the ballot paper, when it would take place, and would we need to request an extension of the Article 50 negotiation period? But if you’re worried that we can’t handle those sorts of practicalities, wait until you hear about the government’s new plans for customs."

www.ft.com/content/2b35276c-95b4-11e8-b747-fb1e803ee64e

These are only two of the many advantages of remaining. Blencathra was absolutely right to vote Remain.

It is absurd to suggest that any "research" could lead her to think she was mistaken and cutting and pasting indiscriminately large chunks of brexit propaganda is not "research", it is hardly likely to give anyone a "broader view" as has been well demonstrated here.

"I think being part of a 500m trading bloc is significant for us. I think one of the issues is a lot of people invest here in the UK because it’s the UK in Europe. I think if we were not in Europe, there would be firms and companies who would be looking to say do they need actually to develop a mainland European presence rather than a UK presence."

-from a speech by Theresa May in 2016

In April 2016, the then-Home secretary thought it would be a lot simpler just to stay in the EU. She predicted that while a Brexit Britain would still share intelligence, “that does not mean we would be as safe as if we remain”.

For example, May helpfully pointed out, a Britain outside the EU would have no access to the European Arrest Warrant, which allowed her department to extradite more than 5,000 people from Britain to Europe in the last five years.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/7-brilliant-arguments-theresa-may-once-made-against-brexit

Sorry to hear that Blencathra. Perhaps it is a case of doing your own research about the EU, the state of the 27 Country's who are currently members and the unrest, unemployment and over population of the major cities in member Country's. After much debate on GN I have come to the conclusion that it is best to look for your own information as a remain voter, since no amount of talking, facts, or research presented by a leave voter is accepted by the majority of remain voters. Research the EU not the UK, because obviously you are happy with the way things are in the UK otherwise you would have voted to leave the EU not remain.
I do hope you find what you are looking for - reassurance that you were right to vote the way you did. Perhaps looking for evidence that you might have been mistaken to vote remain might lead you to a broader view.

I voted remain. I haven't found anyone who can give me any advantages to leaving.

Looks like the possibility of the UK walking away from the EU with no deal has brought a conciliatory announcement today from Bernier....at last.

2nd August 2018

Op-ed by Michel Barnier, the European Commission's Chief Negotiator for the negotiations with the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019. While we regretted the UK's departure, we respect its sovereign decision. Our task is now to organise the disentanglement of the UK from the EU's institutions and policies. And we also need to look towards the future.
After Brexit, the EU will remain a global player, with 440 million citizens, and one of the biggest world economies. The UK has been an EU member for 45 years. We share common values and have a number of common interests. The UK, which is a member of the G7 and the UN Security Council, can be an important partner of the EU, economically and strategically. In the current geopolitical context, we have an interest not only to strengthen the EU's role in the world but to cooperate with the UK as a close partner.
How can we achieve a new partnership?
First, we need to make sure that the UK's exit is orderly. 80% of the Withdrawal Agreement is agreed. We will protect the rights of more than 4 million EU citizens living in the UK and British nationals in the EU. This was our first priority and a major point of vigilance for the European Parliament. The UK has also agreed to honour all its financial obligations undertaken as an EU member. A 21 month transition period will give businesses and administrations time to adapt, as the UK would stay in our Single Market and Customs Union until 31 December 2020.
However, 80% is not 100%. We still need to agree on important points, such as the protection of "geographical indications". This refers to the protection of local farm and food products like Scottish Whisky or Parmesan cheese, where EU protection has generated significant value for European farmers and producers. We need to find solutions for specific British territories, such as the UK's sovereign bases in Cyprus, and Gibraltar on which bilateral negotiations are ongoing between Spain and the UK.
The biggest risk caused by Brexit is on the island of Ireland. We need to make sure that Brexit does not create a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and that the Good Friday Agreement, which has brought peace and stability to Northern Ireland, will be protected. Today, the cooperation and exchanges between Ireland and Northern Ireland occur within the common framework of the EU. Since we will not know what the future relationship will bring by Autumn 2018, we need to have a "backstop" solution in the Withdrawal Agreement. The UK agrees with this, and both the EU and the UK have said that a better solution in the future relationship could replace the backstop. What the EU has proposed is that Northern Ireland remains in a common regulatory area for goods and customs with the rest of the EU. We are ready to improve the text of our proposal with the UK.
Secondly, we need to agree on the terms of our future relationship.
Let's be frank: as the UK has decided to leave the Single Market, it can no longer be as close economically to the rest of the EU. The UK wants to leave our common regulatory area, where people, goods, services and capital move freely across national borders. These are the economic foundations on which the EU was built. And the European Council – the 27 Heads of State or government – as well as the European Parliament have often recalled that these economic foundations cannot be weakened.
The UK knows well the benefits of the Single Market. It has contributed to shaping our rules over the last 45 years. And yet, some UK proposals would undermine our Single Market which is one of the EU's biggest achievements. The UK wants to keep free movement of goods between us, but not of people and services. And it proposes to apply EU customs rules without being part of the EU's legal order. Thus, the UK wants to take back sovereignty and control of its own laws, which we respect, but it cannot ask the EU to lose control of its borders and laws.
But I remain confident that the negotiations can reach a good outcome. It is possible to respect EU principles and create a new and ambitious partnership. That is what the European Council has already proposed in March. The EU has offered a Free Trade Agreement with zero tariffs and no quantitative restrictions for goods. It proposed close customs and regulatory cooperation and access to public procurement markets, to name but a few examples.
On security, the EU wants very close cooperation to protect our citizens and democratic societies. We should organise effective exchanges of intelligence and information and make sure our law enforcement bodies work together. We should cooperate to fight crime, money laundering and terrorist financing. We can cooperate on the exchange of DNA, fingerprints, or Passenger Name Records in aviation to better track and identify terrorists and criminals. We are also ready to discuss mechanisms for swift and effective extradition, guaranteeing procedural rights for suspects.
If the UK understands this, and if we quickly find solutions to the outstanding withdrawal issues, including the backstop for Ireland and Northern Ireland, I am sure we can build a future partnership between the EU and the United Kingdom that is unprecedented in scope and depth.

ec.europa.eu/commission/news/ambitious-partnership-uk-after-brexit-2018-aug-02_en

Petra you are right. The UK negotiating team does not include Davis or his replacement.
The real work of negotiation is done by these people and their teams see the link for their biographies:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/620076/Biographies_of_the_Civil_Service_representatives_for_the_negotiations_with_the_EU_.pdf

You will also find the 'short guide to the Department for Exiting Europe" of interest:
www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/A-Short-Guide-to-the-Department-for-Exiting-the-European-Union.pdf

Petra your view of the negotiations being more than David Davis or the PM sitting with Barnier, is supported by the facts. Extensive negotiating teams on every area of the EU's current control of the UK is covered, as one would expect. There are teams of negotiators, lead by experienced career civil servants, lawyers and subject experts. Why would anyone think it would be anything less Petra?
Four hours of David Davies time was probably two hours too much!

It would interest people to know where you are getting your information from, petra. It's all very well coming up with these little nuggets of gossip but in this fake news era taking things on trust isn't at all wise.

This was because most of the negotiations are being done by civil servants and why no one in the EU or U.K. teams will have missed him. He was known as the “ tea boy” by both sides. ( this is one of the more polite name), yet he was being paid a ministerial salary, with a plush office with drinks cabinet to boot. He actually got on ok with Barnier but he didn’t do a lot in his 2 years of office, can’t blame it all on the EU.

It might interest people to know Re the above post that David Davis had no say in how many times/ how long his meetings with Barnier would last.
Every meeting was dictated by the eu.

I think Brexit is both a bad idea being badly handled . In 2 years D Davis spent 4 hour in negotiations, and we seem to have moved nowhere fast. It certainly is a mess and it appears there will be no benefits of Brexit for anyone other than wealthy speculators.