Brexit RIP

[BlasterBates]

The problem those against Mays deal seem to have is with the backstop, not the deal itself. If the backstop wasn't there then is probably would have been passed by parliament by now.

I see nothing in the Leave leaflet that would contradict the Northern Ireland backstop.

Perhaps you can point to it ?

[Eirikur]

The problem those against Mays deal seem to have is with the backstop, not the deal itself. If the backstop wasn't there then is probably would have been passed by parliament by now.

The backstop is just a BS excuse used by both the hard brexiteers and remain to make the brexit go their way

[BlasterBates]

Brexit is becoming increasingly like a set of ill defined requirements from a difficult customer who is now interpreting new requirements that were never written down or promised.

What we therefore need is a new referendum with these new requirements.

[Yorkie62]

Brexit is becoming increasingly like a set of ill defined requirements from a difficult customer who is now interpreting new requirements that were never written down or promised.

What we therefore need is a new referendum with these new requirements.

Why not have a new referendum

A. Mays Deal
B. No deal

This both gives the people choice and upholds the democratic result of the first referendum.

Let the People choose.

[BlasterBates]

Why not have a new referendum

A. Mays Deal
B. No deal

This both gives the people choice and upholds the democratic result of the first referendum.

Let the People choose.

It almost goes without saying that this will still lead to a huge amount of disappointment and anger.

It won't happen because when the DUP and the ERG is faced with this they will probably just sign up for the deal.

[meridian]

Why not have a new referendum

A. Mays Deal
B. No deal

This both gives the people choice and upholds the democratic result of the first referendum.

Let the People choose.

The democratic result has already been upheld:
- it was an advisory referendum
- the public provided their advice
- Parliament and the Government have done very little else over the past nearly three years but consider that advice carefully.

Under our representative democracy, the result has been upheld.

[Mordac]

You’re using a leaflet from the Remain-supporting Government, widely regarded as “Project Fear”, as your basis for voting?

Sounds like either revisionist nonsense, or your vote was just a protest vote and can be disregarded.

You’d get more respect (not that I suspect you’re looking for any) if you used a positive approach and defined your criteria for leaving using the Vote Leave proposals for what the destination would look like.

I've been against EU membership since Maastricht. I would have been happy with EFTA (or something very similar), as long as we actually leave the EU. IMO May's treaty does not achieve this, and I'm rather hoping Parliament propose EFTA as a solution. I'd support this in a referendum, as I suspect would a decent majority of the country. Of course the EU will almost certainly reject this, so anything that happens in Parliament (with the exception of remain) is pretty academic.

The reason for mentioning the leaflet is that it clearly spelled out what we were voting for. I'm sick of hearing "nobody knew what Leave actually meant", because that's just bollocks.

I didn't "fall for" most of the Leave arguments (£350m, immigration, easy trade deals etc.) because I could see flaws in most of them. I made up my mind in 1992. The destination has to be to leave the EU, "No Deal" is not my preference, but if it has to be that way, so be it. Although given our civil servants' record on negotiations, we'll be on WTO for a very, very long time.

[Lance]

The Vote Leave campaign leaflet mentioned Switzerland explicitly as a country whose trade relationship with the EU is what the UK could also achieve.

May's deal is almost identical to the deal Switzerland has, but now the Brexiteers are defying the promises they made in their Leave campaign manifesto.

May’s deal is not all like Switzerland.

1) May’s deal is only the withdrawal and has a transition period where we effectively stay in the EU.
2) Switzerland doesn’t have any ‘backstop’
3) Switzerland is in Schengen for all intents and purposes
4) Switzerland has strict import regulations. I’m thinking mainly around meat.

[Old Greg]

I've been against EU membership since Maastricht. I would have been happy with EFTA (or something very similar), as long as we actually leave the EU. IMO May's treaty does not achieve this, and I'm rather hoping Parliament propose EFTA as a solution. I'd support this in a referendum, as I suspect would a decent majority of the country. Of course the EU will almost certainly reject this, so anything that happens in Parliament (with the exception of remain) is pretty academic.

The reason for mentioning the leaflet is that it clearly spelled out what we were voting for. I'm sick of hearing "nobody knew what Leave actually meant", because that's just bollocks.

I didn't "fall for" most of the Leave arguments (£350m, immigration, easy trade deals etc.) because I could see flaws in most of them. I made up my mind in 1992. The destination has to be to leave the EU, "No Deal" is not my preference, but if it has to be that way, so be it. Although given our civil servants' record on negotiations, we'll be on WTO for a very, very long time.

You're sick of hearing about it. You poor precious little thing.

[darmstadt]

Well if Labour's amendment gets voted through, there is no point in leaving:

· a comprehensive customs union with the EU, with a U.K. say on future trade deals;
· close alignment with the Single Market underpinned by shared institutions and obligations;
· dynamic alignment on rights and protections;
· commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in areas such as the environment, education, and industrial regulation; and
· clear agreements on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and vital shared databases.