Revoke Article 50

That's interesting Nandalot but there are obviously a lot of vested interests at play in the whole Brexit debacle. I personally think we should at least delay leaving date because it is clear that the government are ill prepared for a "no deal" Brexit with their chaotic last minute preparations. Unfortunately even if we had another Referendum, whatever the outcome, approx 50% of the population would be unhappy because we are out, and the rest unhappy with the deal which is not what they voted for.

Extending Article 50 needs to be ratified by all of the other 27EU member nations. Whereas revoking Article 50 can be done by our own parliament unilaterly. So ideal for those who wanted to "take back control"

The EU have said they would only extend the date of Article 50 if there was a genuine reason like a general election or referendum, not just so we could take longer to make up our minds.

The best way forward, after TM's deal is voted down, would be for parliament to vote to revoke Article 50.

If they lack the courage to do that we must have a People's Vote.

My personal preference would be to revoke Article 50 but whatever the outcome, sadly we will be left with a fractured country. The inflated "migrant crisis" also feeds the prejudices of those who voted leave because of immigration. Strange that when the numbers are so small comparatively.

No Framilode I think you are wrong (GN seems full of Leavers) I would say from all the many (many!) Brexit threads in the last two years on here that it’s split into two halves which is much as it is in the real world.

I don’t think the migrant crisis ( illegal immigrants here from boats crossing the Channel) will have any effect at all on ‘prejudices’ unless you mean the prejudice that all countries feel/use by denying anyone automatic entry to their country who comes in by illegal means.

I think it's very fortuitous for leading Brexiters that we suddenly seem to have a 'migrant crisis' when it is a possibility that there might just be a further referendum on Brexit. The 2016 migrant crisis (which was a very real one) played into their hands very nicely as some voters were clearly confused about Freedom of Movement and the huge numbers of Middle Eastern and African refugees which were daily approaching the EU; and, of course, there was the heavily reported 'Calais Jungle'. I can't help thinking that there might be something a bit fishy about current crop of 'illegal immigrants'.

I'm inclined to think the new EU legislation to stop tax avoidance schemes coming in April - as already mentioned by Nandalot and Varian - is the real reason why so many supposedly-canny politicians want us to jump off a cliff in 12 weeks' time.

Caledonail4
Do your suspicions apply to Jean Claude Juncker who will be stepping down this year?https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show

If you can, listen to Ken Clarke's interview on radio4 (Today) this morning.
He is the only politician I have heard talking sense throughout the whole brexit fiasco.

mcem
I see that Ken Clarke referred to the referendum as 'an opinion poll'
Nobody asked for my 'opinion' on the eu, I was just asked if I wanted to leave or stay.

As the referendum was advisory it more closely resembles an opinion poll than anything else. Your opinion, petra, was that we should leave the EU.

I am a remainer, I was a remainer and I always will be a remainer. BUT we had a badly run and ill thought through referendum that gave the leavers a small majority, so, like it or not, out we should go.

I do not support another referendum, if a second, why not a third, fourth, fifth.................................... In fact I hope this country never runs a referendum on anything again and lets MPs get on and do the job we elected them into.

If Leaving is a disaster, and I do not think it will be that bad. so be it. We cannot blame our MPs, we will just have to live with the fact that, as a country, we chose to ruin our children's and grandchildren's lives.

Agree MOnica

so, like it or not, out we should go.

I'd be happier with that if it hadn't become so clear that the 2016 ref was won with illegality and cheating; not to mention the undemocratic 'dark' advertising and deeply suspicious Russian connections.

With you most of the way maizie but with such a small majority, gained through dishonesty and blatant self-interest, I do not accept the result as valid and would support a second ( binding and not advisory) ballot.
Given that Scotland was "promised" that the only way to remain in the EU was to vote to remain within the UK, I attach no value to promises made in the 2016 campaign. I truly believe that is why the majority of Scots voted the way they did, as shown in both referenda. Scotland was twice misled.

Why should an advisory referendum carry more weight than a government "promise"?

I understand the argument that we must leave the EU no matter what because in the 2016 referendum the leave side won a narrow majority. However there are two distinct reasons to revoke Article 50 -

(1) We now know that the referendum was fraudulent and won by lies, overspending by the various leave campaigns, and the illegal involvement of foreign powers.

(2) It is also now clear that any kind of brexit will damage our country irrevocably and leave us worse off. MPs are obliged not to enact legislation which will adversly affect the lives of their constituents and the country, so must follow their own best judgement which is to remain in the EU where we have enjoyed more than forty years of working co-operatively with our fellow Europeans for the good af all.

Petra
Fair point about Mr Juncker, but as the linked Guardian article points out in his current position he has admitted Luxembourg's policies were unfair when he was that country's leader and - since leaving the post in 2013 - he has actually supported the EU's attempts to get big companies like Amazon and McDonalds to get into line.

Many high profile companies flocked to Luxembourg during his premiership and turned it into one of the richest countries in the world.

In 2019 the world is a bit more wise about tax avoidance and the UK will not be able to repeat that feat.

Becoming/remaining a big tax dodgers' zone is not enough reason to turn Britain into an even more unfair society than it is now, with the people who are poorest paying the price.

Neither is this the time to rely on America for trade or support. Our grown-up friends and allies in Europe would be the best deal we could have and we are tearing that one into little pieces for no reason other than a small part of Britain which wants back to the Empire, but cannot see that the Emperor has no suitable clothes.

Alima that is precisely what I was expecting. As yet no Leaver has come up with anything sensible to say, just the same old, same old shouty stuff.

varian "There is no "have cake and eat it" brexit on offer and never will be." I have to disagree but also agree. That is exactly what was 'offered' by the Leave campaign! Unfortunately they sold us something which is not available. As I have said many times: if I bought something on the High St which promised lots of features but didn't deliver them I would have the right to take it back. That is what we should do with Brexit.

I think many people believe we can easily make trade deals with countries outside the EU but can we? If the 70+ countries which have deals with the EU want to trade with us I doubt they will be allowed to have better deals with us than they have with the EU because then they would then lose their EU deal. I don't know what the rules are but I imagine that their deals with the EU will not be undercut.

I am not quite as cynical as whoever implied that the 'migrant crisis' had been created to frighten people into wanting to leave but I do think it will have that affect on some people. I am ashamed to say that I know two people who did vote leave because of all the brown people in the country. Didn't make any difference when I said most of them didn't come from the EU, they had heard that leaving would stop immigration and they believed it.

I am not quite as cynical as whoever implied that the 'migrant crisis' had been created to frighten people into wanting to leave



I don't think the 2016 migrant crisis was 'created' but it was certainly exploited by Leave campaigners.

I am cynical about the current 'influx' of channel hoppers, though. Why just now?

Maizie I think it is because the authorities have tightened up on the routes previously used. Possibly it is mainly Iranians because they can afford to either buy a boat or pay the traffickers. There must be many still waiting for opportunities to cross who cannot afford to pay £4k each. I think it is a shame the media focus on the asylum seekers without telling us all the bigger picture. There are not many of them, far less than other EU countries and they are mostly coming from really awful places where they fear for their lives. Why don't the media tell us that Brexit won't change this?

MazieD
why just now
Over the xmas period there would have been considerable less traffic in the channel. The weather conditions were perfect.
Have noticed it's all stopped?

Nonnie
Go to any country that was once behind the iron curtain.
You won't see many black/brown (whichever word you want to use) faces there.
This isn't a racist comment: it's a fact.