Fight "Brexit" if you want to

Thanks cinder
I am all for avoiding disaster.

Well as a country we ARE presenting a divided and very disloyal image to the EU aren't we, and the cliff edge you refer too isn't Brexit per se, it's the inability of the country to come together in terms of political parties and the general population to get the best deal possible for the benefit of all.

Has Vince Cable or anyone else for that matter asked the EU if we can change our minds and remain? During an interview a couple of months ago with a female representative of the EU this question was asked and her response was to say 'no, the UK has voted for Brexit so Brexit will happen'.

If you were a member of the EU, would you want a country that voted to leave and then started tearing itself apart to have another referendum so it could change it's mind? If the vote had gone the other way and remainers were seeking to overturn a democratically made decision you'd be up in arms and rightly so.

Yes, you can fight Brexit if want too or you can accept that along with all of the benefits that living in this democracy offers, sometimes a decision will be made by the majority that you don't like and you can stop whinging and make the best of it.

"Smileless2012" you have made some valid points. However we need to ask ourselves why 52% (of 75%) over LEAVE and why so many of the young did not vote in the referendum. Article 50 can be stopped at any time in parliament rebels, the EU would be pleased if we did that.

Of the 52% relatively few that way for rational reasons. Certainly more than enough "silly" reason to effectively reverse the result.

The young did not vote because they thought remain would win, that was complacant.
A lot voted leave because they wanted to kick the Tories.
Some because they harked back to the days of Empire.
Yes many did think about it seeing the drawbacks of the EU without balancing its benefits.

Hear hear Smileless
Some only like democracy when it goes the way they like.

How do you know Cindersdad? How many of the 52% have you talked too to enable you to presume that "relatively few (voted) that way for rational reasons"?

Why should the democratic process be un democratically overturned because of the apathetic attitude of the young who didn't bother to vote?

I considered the benefits and the drawbacks of EU membership, it was close but in the end IMO the benefits were outweighed by the drawbacks. I wonder why you appear to have so much confidence in the wisdom of younger voters who only last year according to you were either too complacent to vote, of if they did vote to leave, only did so to kick the Tories.

Given that the referendum was advisory and not mandatory it would be possible to stop Brexit.
Much as I'd regret that the time and money spent on negotiations would be wasted, I'd welcome the time when someone says that the facts are now known and we need a 2nd referendum to confirm or cancel Brexit.
Seems logical to me but diehard leavers will object because it's becoming clearer that the decision would be reversed.
Not antidemocratic - simply voting when we're presented with facts instead of the lies that were trotted out before.

My argument is simple. The result was close and flawed due to misinformation and much misunderstanding. The effect of Brexit on future generations is too important to simply allow it to go unchallenged. Before the referendum a LEAVE supporter thinking at the time that REMAIN would win raised a petition urging that at least a 60% majority should be required to make the result binding. In the event over 4 million unhappy REMAIN and yes some non voters signed that petition to no effect after the event.

There is a lot about our democracy that I and many others do not like and that is part of the reason for voter apathy. We are one of the few countries in the world that sticks to FPTP instead of a PR variant. FPTP suits the conservatives and to a lesser extend labour but it has polarised politics as has the Referendum and that is not good for democracy. The totally inability of the establishment to countenance past mistakes is equally bad for democracy.

The people should have a better informed say when the full facts are better known and understood. The Brexiteers are frightened of that and will do their utmost to stifle protest before the cliff edge.

cinders good post and logical argument

mcem - my post clashed with yours - but I 100% agree with your assessment.

I think there was misinformation on both sides. 'Project Fear' did nothing for the remain argument.

Do you think that if we had another referendum and voted to remain it would be the equivalent of turning back the clock? Or would we be in a weaker or stronger negotiating position going forward?

There is no way on gods earth that the eu would say: oh that's ok, let's forget about it.
In their eyes we have to be taught a lesson, otherwise, who's next: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece?

Well, we can't change the past. We asked for quite insignificant reforms, we failed to get them, and then we decide to overturn the vote to leave so that we stay in on unchanged terms. Hardly puts us in a position of strength.

For once I agree to some extent with the brexiters on this. Clearly we can stay if we chose to, and this has been confirmed by French and German leaders, but it would not be painless. According to Guy Verhofstadt, we would lose our rebate, one of the many perks which the UK enjoys at present. This was one of the few good things achieved by Margaret Thatcher, but it may be the price we have to pay for our foolhardiness.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/perks-end-uk-eu-guy-verhofstadt

Yes, it's ironic that the dodgy numbers quoted by the leave campaign - all the £350 million a week rubbish - is now the correct amount if we want to stay.

I dread having a second referendum. It would be a nasty fight and would make the country more polarised than it is now.

Not a Brexiteer either, I voted to remain. But I am a pragmatist.

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

I'd still prefer to stay in.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.