Possible 2nd EU Referendum

[Lancasterclaret]

Cheers Android

Going to put "learning a lot more about global investments" on the to do list!

[Lancasterclaret]

I wouldn't go that far, i'm not a redwood or a mogg, but the backstop can't be forever.

Consensus!

Ladies and gentlemen, we are here.

Roll on the world cup!

[RingoMcCartney]

Keir "I chose not to consider hundreds of John Worboys victims as head of the CPS" Starmer. On Tuesday evening.

“Well we have got really important votes tomorrow, you are absolutely right.
On the question of the single market we have put an amendment down which puts on the floor of the house a single market model for the future.
There are disagreements around the EEA amendment, but we have focused on what is the outcome we are trying to achieve rather than the particular model."

He lost.......

[nil_desperandum]

You are getting boring now, for the third time EEA has been voted down, not going to happen, no majority for it.

Not yesterday, but we haven't even started negotiations on trade yet, and at present there's a twist and turn every day, (indeed almost every hour).
I wouldn't bet against this option being revisited again at some point, (especially in view of the vote on the Irish border that was taken yesterday, that all but ensures there will have to be some kind of Customs Union agreement.)
Frankly it's hard to totally rule anything out during this period of chaos, with May promising everything to everybody. How her current behaviour is supposed to strengthen our negotiating position with the EU, goodness knows.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Here's the latest twist...


Tory rebellion back on after MPs reject May's Brexit amendment

Dominic Grieve says government’s new wording over MPs’ ‘meaningful’ vote is unacceptable

Theresa May is heading for a fresh confrontation with Conservative rebels next week after they rejected a government-drafted amendment to the EU withdrawal bill.

The former attorney general Dominic Grieve held talks with the government over the precise wording of the clause, which was aimed at making it more difficult for the government to take Britain out of the EU with no deal without consulting MPs.

Instead of the contested clause 5C, which the rebels believed May had given them a personal assurance she would discuss, the new amendment promises a debate on a motion “in neutral terms”, in the event of no Brexit deal being reached by the end of January next year.

Grieve, who tabled the original amendment, said the new version was “unacceptable”, because this phrase meant it was impossible for MPs to amend the government’s proposals.

“It is unacceptable. At the end of the process something was inexplicably changed, which had not been agreed. The government has made the motion unamendable, contrary to the usual methods of the House of Commons and therefore it cannot be accepted,” he said.

Anna Soubry, who rejected the prime minister’s assurances and voted against the government earlier this week – unlike more than a dozen of her colleagues – suggested the amendment had been tabled “without consultation”, after the rebels believed they had a deal.

[claretandy]

Here's the latest twist...


Tory rebellion back on after MPs reject May's Brexit amendment

Dominic Grieve says government’s new wording over MPs’ ‘meaningful’ vote is unacceptable

Theresa May is heading for a fresh confrontation with Conservative rebels next week after they rejected a government-drafted amendment to the EU withdrawal bill.

The former attorney general Dominic Grieve held talks with the government over the precise wording of the clause, which was aimed at making it more difficult for the government to take Britain out of the EU with no deal without consulting MPs.

Instead of the contested clause 5C, which the rebels believed May had given them a personal assurance she would discuss, the new amendment promises a debate on a motion “in neutral terms”, in the event of no Brexit deal being reached by the end of January next year.

Grieve, who tabled the original amendment, said the new version was “unacceptable”, because this phrase meant it was impossible for MPs to amend the government’s proposals.

“It is unacceptable. At the end of the process something was inexplicably changed, which had not been agreed. The government has made the motion unamendable, contrary to the usual methods of the House of Commons and therefore it cannot be accepted,” he said.

Anna Soubry, who rejected the prime minister’s assurances and voted against the government earlier this week – unlike more than a dozen of her colleagues – suggested the amendment had been tabled “without consultation”, after the rebels believed they had a deal.

From what i can gather, they've picked off most of the rebels with the amendment apart from the stop brexit brigade of Grieve and Anna Sourface. They think they now have the numbers.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

I understand exactly what's going on, it was a remoaner amendment to make us join the EEA, these 15 labour MP's have shown that any vote to keep us in the EEA would fail, Remoaners are under the illusion that Labour could stop brexit, this shows that they don't have the numbers.

Is labour for or against brexit ? it's hard to tell, they are trying to have their cake and eat it, while it's true that a majority of Labour voters supporrted remain. 2/3rds of Labour constituencies voted leave.

Yep, completely wrong.

15 Labour MP's voted against it, defying their whip to abstain. 75 Labour MP's voted FOR it, defying their whip to abstain.

Labour aren't trying to stop brexit, the party line at the moment is that they are for it.

Again, you think anything vaguely in favour of brexit is a win, that was nothing to do with it, that was about staying in the EEA.

What you really want to be worried about is Tory rebels, not Labour ones.

Tory rebels + Labour + others (in other words; Parliament) = Losing the "Meaningful Vote" vote regarding the EU withdrawal bill next week

[Greenmile]

Joining the EEA means you are a rule taker, not a rule maker, thus not "taking back control of our laws, our borders or our money."

But didn’t you know...?

...the Leave campaign were not in a position to make any deliverable promises.

So that bit you put in quotes is worthless - just an undeliverable promise (like £350m to the NHS etc).

[If it be your will]

.

[android]

Hey Greenmile - thanks for bringing me back in.

It would be very funny if the people who have spent the past 2 years complaining about a broken £350m a week promise (could not be a promise and we have not left yet so could not be broken yet but apart from that...) are now saying that ending free movement was not part of the referendum!

Strictly true of course in a purely legalistic sense (In or Out is all it said). But ending free movement was a biggie - kind of why the referendum was called for in the first place. Are you seriously suggesting that when you voted, you did not know that In meant free movement and Out meant the end of free movement? Seriously? Honestly?

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm not getting involved, me and claretandy have reached consensus so if we can do it, anyone can!

[South West Claret.]

Ex-UKIP councillor Stephen Searle guilty of murdering wife.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-44861508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[GodIsADeeJay81]

How's this relevant to an EU referendum?

[Greenmile]

Hey Greenmile - thanks for bringing me back in.

It would be very funny if the people who have spent the past 2 years complaining about a broken £350m a week promise (could not be a promise and we have not left yet so could not be broken yet but apart from that...) are now saying that ending free movement was not part of the referendum!

Strictly true of course in a purely legalistic sense (In or Out is all it said). But ending free movement was a biggie - kind of why the referendum was called for in the first place. Are you seriously suggesting that when you voted, you did not know that In meant free movement and Out meant the end of free movement? Seriously? Honestly?

Not only that, I’m suggesting nobody knew that. All we were voting for was what was on the ballot paper. Everything else, inc £350m for the NHS, stopping the Turks invading and, yes, ending FOM, was just spin. Why would you believe one of those things and not the others? What are your criteria for deciding which was true?

My thanks to SW Claret for the (bizarre and unrelated) bump of this thread, as I hadn’t seen your (android’s) question until now.

[South West Claret.]

Did a search and but it didn't show a "specific UKIP" thread so selected the one.

"My thanks to SW Claret for the (bizarre and unrelated) bump of this thread, as I hadn’t seen your (android’s) question until now."

Not at all GM it was just a fluke as above

[Damo]

I was in favour of this until I found out it was John Major's idea.
http://www.itv.com/news/2018-07-17/sir- ... eresa-may/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[South West Claret.]

Just heard on the local news that Dr Sarah Woolaston (MP for Totnes) has called for a 2nd Referendum, might be some more news tomorrow.

[Damo]

Just on a side note, what exactly is a 2nd referendum going to achieve?
If for example people voted remain does anyone think that's a viable option?
There obviously wouldn't be a status quo (remain was never a vote for status quo in the first place)
Would even the most hard core remainer really want to be bent over the table so to speak?
It would no doubt involve taking the euro as currency. We would never have the option to leave again. Parliament would be token only.
And if we voted leave again, would that satisfy the silent 16 million?
The only reason a 2nd referendum is being spoken about is because apparently some people didn't realise how complicated the leave process would be.
I personally thought it would of been a rougher ride than we have had up to now.
I can't believe May is still prime minister. I half expected the government to have fallen in bits by now.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I think we'd have to make some serious concessions to stay in, as a punishment for daring to try and leave.

The EU fan club won't like to hear that opinion, but there it is.

[tiger76]

Just on a side note, what exactly is a 2nd referendum going to achieve?
If for example people voted remain does anyone think that's a viable option?
There obviously wouldn't be a status quo (remain was never a vote for status quo in the first place)
Would even the most hard core remainer really want to be bent over the table so to speak?
It would no doubt involve taking the euro as currency. We would never have the option to leave again. Parliament would be token only.
And if we voted leave again, would that satisfy the silent 16 million?
The only reason a 2nd referendum is being spoken about is because apparently some people didn't realise how complicated the leave process would be.
I personally thought it would of been a rougher ride than we have had up to now.
I can't believe May is still prime minister. I half expected the government to have fallen in bits by now.

I can't see what a 2nd referendum would achieve apart from more uncertainty.
May is only Prime Minister cos no-one wants the poisoned chalice yet.
The government is hardly strong and stable the Brexit Secretary and the Foreign Secretary resigning within hours of each other.
And all this before the EU 27 get to have their say plus the European Parliament,tonight's vote should embolden Theresa in the forthcoming talks.
At least now there is finally some concrete proposals to offer to the EU.

While the sideshow has been happening Ollie Robbins and the civil servants are flexing their muscleshttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6795487/o ... taff-drop/

Hopefully Dominic Raab will take his role more seriously than his predecessor David Davis,and not be so carefree with his brief.

[Lowbankclaret]

An alternative view, makes interesting reading.

Brexit Blunder?

It looks like the Brits are in trouble. In the past 48 hours two major UK government ministers resigned: Brexit Secretary David Davis, and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson. It’s not hard to see why they’re gone. Brexit is really the only foreign policy issue that matters to most Brits, and the Davis-Johnson duo have been at it for nearly two years with zero results.

First, the least important outcome. The government of Prime Minister Theresa May is probably fine. It is no secret that May brought major Brexit supporters such as Davis and Johnson into the government to deal with the Brexit issue in part to discredit them. That has now – thoroughly – been done. While May still may face a backbencher rebellion (she leads a minority government so that’s always a concern), breaking the Brexit leadership’s back should give her more room to maneuver (domestically at least).

Second, this does not mean that the Brits are going back on Brexit. General sentiment among the sort of people who supported Brexit during the referendum two years ago has, if anything, hardened. Moreover, Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn is a semi-stealth Brexit supporter, so even if there were new elections and even if Corbyn became prime minister, Brexit would still be on the menu… albeit likely with a less impressive negotiating team.

Third, with the Brexiteers on the outside of London’s negotiating team, they are guaranteed to vote against any version of Brexit that they don’t care for. A hard Brexit is now the only reality.

A “hard” Brexit is one where the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal whatsoever. Any deal the UK has struck with the EU – for health and sanitation, tariff reduction, capital repatriation, or any of a thousand other topics – will be affected or restricted. Any UK supply chain that begins, ends or passes through any other country will become sticky, with many of them simply breaking. That impacts – conservatively – two-thirds of the UK’s external trade which itself accounts for roughly one-sixth of the UK’s GDP.

In every instance for every good and every transaction, the UK will need to decide whether to unilaterally retain EU rules or unilaterally adopt the rules of the target market in the hopes that the other side – also on a case-by-case basis – decides to allow the trade to flow without a legal understanding in place. The bureaucratic drag alone may well double the cost of doing business in the Kingdom before the political issues are even considered. London will try to establish trade deals with other players to make up for lost EU trade, but the EU is close and big and trade deals take months to years to negotiate.

Financial flows will be hit most of all. The Brit’s proclivity to let capital ebb and flow to wherever it wants to go have made London one of the world’s three largest financial centers. That is now over. Financial centers need a low-regulatory environment and access to a large market and political and market certainty. There will be no deal with the EU on finance, meaning there will be no unrestricted access to the EU, and with the uncertainty of a no-deal scenario, London’s financial industry will now decamp en masse.

Maybe one-quarter to one-third will relocate across the EU with Frankfurt and Paris doing fairly well. After all, at least some of the relocating bankers and financiers will need access to the EU from within. But most will go to New York which has a larger labor pool, similar regulatory format and global reach.

The EU will attempt to claim that financial clearing for euro-denominated transactions must be done from within the eurozone to prevent the Americans from gobbling up the lion’s share of the business. The Americans will disabuse the Europeans of that notion by threatening to force all dollar clearing to occur within the United States’ borders. Since Europe’s external trade is dollar-driven and not euro-driven it will be a fun conversation to watch but it’ll be pretty short. Regardless, London will not be a participant in the discussions. Regardless, London will hollow out.

All in all, the UK faces the greatest economic disruption since World War II. The Brits are looking down the maw of a minimum of a three-year depression where GDP falls by at least a fifth.



But all that was baked in before Davis and Johnson left. All that has been baked in since the Brexit vote. As the Greeks discovered at the beginning of their crisis, you cannot vote yourself rich… but you can totally vote yourself poor. There was zero chance the EU was ever going to grant the Brits the benefits of membership without the costs. Brexiteers like Davis and Johnson who claimed otherwise were either lying, stupid, or suffering from head injuries. The only options before the Brits now are reneging on Brexit (not politically possible), and a hard Brexit. And so a hard Brexit is the only road forward.

This is not a condemnation of the Brexit vote. I see the entire global system crashing down in the next one to four years. The Bretton Woods Order – the basis for that system – is an artificial construct the Americans designed, created, maintained and subsidized to fight the Cold War. They’ve been backing away from the Order for three decades, and they are now abandoning it wholesale. It would have happened without Trump, although probably a bit more slowly and without the…flair.

That means that everything in the global system that was predicated upon the Order will need to find a new basis for existence. Europe has two big Order-dependent things. NATO – which may well formally collapse at this week’s summit – and the European Union. There is no way that an export-based union of mutually antagonistic countries whose security is guaranteed by an outside power can survive in an environment in which those exports are impossible and the security guarantor leaves. The EU was going down anyway which means the Brits had to figure out their way in the world anyway. Brexit means they get a head start on the rest of Europe. Recent developments haven’t brought disaster, they’ve brought clarity.

Yes folks, a hard Brexit is the best-case scenario for the United Kingdom because it forces the Brits to move on now. So yes folks, a three-year depression that knocks a country’s GDP down by one-fifth is probably the best-case scenario for anyone dependent upon the Order as the world slides into Disorder.

I expect the Brits to come out of this better than nearly everyone. For two centuries they ran a globe-spanning empire that was the largest economic entity ever (at least until the Americans came of age). If there is one country that knows how to operate in a disorderly world, without continent-spanning trade pacts, where military and economic power are often fused, that has already stitched together a strategic security plan, it is the United Kingdom.

But that doesn’t mean the road from here to there won’t royally suck.

[Lancasterclaret]

Who the hell wrote that?

Vladimir Putin?

Blue Labrador?

[Lowbankclaret]

Peter Zeihan.

He writes books on global politics and energy. Many of his books predictions have apparently come to pass.

He is geopolitical strategist who specialises in global energy and security.

He wrote a book I am reading called the accidental superpower which looks at the Breton woods agreement and the reasons why America now want to move away from that agreement .

[Lowbankclaret]

Whilst people might not agree with what he says.
He certainly has a deep understanding of global issues.

It’s worth reading some of his stuff, gives a different slant to the main steam press.

[Lowbankclaret]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7725157.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A short description what the agreement was and did.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'll check him out

Cheers but he does sound like he might be cherry picking events to suits his work.

[Lowbankclaret]

Possibly, he does articles on all sorts of current subjects

[Lowbankclaret]

China and US trade war!!

Of China and Oil

The economic conflict between the United States and China continues to ramp up. Earlier this week the Trump administration announced plans for tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese exports to the United States. Barring (substantial) Chinese concessions the new tariffs will likely come into effect around the end of August. This is now the third volley in what has become a tit-for-tat trade war. I’m starting to think up snazzy names. “Pacific Pong” doesn’t have quite the right je ne sais quoi, but I’m working on it. Suggestions welcome.

The Americans’ imports from China are triple China's imports from the United States (quadruple if you factor out services). The simple fact is the Chinese are already running out of American imports to penalize. Any effort to shift the dispute to something beyond goods trade will similarly end in colossal failure. The Americans control global trade routes, global energy, global security, and global finance -- everything that makes the Chinese system possible. The Chinese simply can't bring the fight to other fields without suffering immeasurably. (Which isn't the same thing as me saying I'd like to be an American company operating in China right now.) Chinese holdings of American government debt don’t even give Beijing leverage as such "investments" in reality are capital flight from the Chinese system.

While Chinese state media continues to put on a brave face, the days of tone-deaf chest-beating are gone. Government censorship guidelines now regularly bar terms like “Trump tantrum” and “trade war” and in general discourage the discussing of any angle of the issue whatsoever. One of the problems with stoking nationalism is that it can be hard to turn off. With the Politburo realizing they have little ammo for this sort of fight, political consolidation at home is far more important than scoring points in a media firestorm.

But that’s not what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about one of the funniest things I’ve seen in months. On July 11 the Chinese floated the possibility of a 25% tariff on U.S. oil exports. Several media commentators immediately pounced on the trial balloon as evidence of something that would get Trump’s attention because of his stated interest in “achieving American energy dominance.” Maybe it will. The criteria for what attracts or doesn’t attract the American president’s attention continues to elude me.

But that doesn’t mean a tariff on American oil isn’t a fabulously stupid idea. It has to do with the nature of the oil market, and in particular the role of American crude within it.

First, demand for oil is inelastic. What you need, you need. If it takes ten gallons of gasoline to get your delivery truck from A to B and you only have nine gallons, you cannot make the run. You must have ten. So regardless of what the price of the gasoline is, you’re going to buy it. Applied to this situation, were the Chinese to levy the tariff they will simply have to buy oil from somewhere else, and America’s oil will (easily) fill that gap in that third market. Net effect on U.S. energy exporters: zero.


Hong Kong

Second, American oil is different from the rest. Conventional crude percolates through rock formations over time, picking up impurities as it goes (sulfur being the most common). A big part of refining crude oil into finished product is removing those impurities. But American oil exports are not conventional. They come from shale formations. Shale isn’t as porous as most rock, so the oil never percolates. It is trapped. Shale technologies are all about cracking out these pure bits of petroleum out. Shale oil’s lack of exposure to impurities makes it the lightest, purest oil produced in the world, as well as the most valuable and easiest to refine. China likes shale oil because they can blend it with thicker, dirtier crude to make a cocktail that their refineries can use. American exporters will have zero problems finding alternative buyers, but since the United States produces more of this ultralight/ultrasweet crude than the rest of the world combined. China will find alternate supplies difficult to scrounge up.

So either China isn’t going to put this tariff on, or if it does it won’t have any meaningful impact on the American side of the equation. What the tariff trial balloon might do – what discussion of the topic is probably already doing – is pump up oil prices a touch. Markets – especially oil markets – hate anything that might even momentarily restrict oil’s availability. And this little China discussion is only one of four oil-related bits of news that oil markets are stressing about right now.

The second and third issues involve general civilizational breakdown in two major oil exporters: Libya and Venezuela. Ever since Colonel/President/Wacko Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and killed in 2011, Libya has not existed as a state. It is now a shifting series of warlord-run fiefdoms. Unfortunately for the oil markets, not only is Libya’s crude production not in the same area as the oil export facilities, oftentimes the connecting pipeline infrastructure is under a third party’s control. Libya’s larger oil export ports have switched hands twice already this month, with the expected impact upon export volumes – and global prices.

If anything, Venezuela is even worse. Government ineptitude combined with a slow slide towards one-man dictatorship cum anarchy has transformed what was once South America’s richest state to one of its poorest and condemned much of the population of this once-food exporter to famine. The government’s ability to perform basic maintenance on its oil industry is now collapsing. Venezuela’s oil output is already down to a 30-year low and will likely dip below 1.0 million bpd by year’s end… assuming the country doesn’t completely implode.

Needless to say, such civilizational breakdowns can only exert upward pressure on oil prices.


Permian Basin, Texas, US

The fourth hit to the oil markets hasn’t quite landed yet: Iran. The Trump administration is pressuring, well, everyone, to eliminate their imports of Iranian crude by November. The expectation is for a two-thirds reduction in total exports. Countries that resist American pressure will find themselves subject to secondary sanctions that would bar their access to anything that touches the U.S. banking system. Since that is in essence anything that involves nouns it is sort of a big deal. The Indians and Japanese have already signaled they’re going to play ball, and the Europeans are rapidly coming around. That just leaves China.

While the pot-stirrer in me would love to see what would happen to a trade-dependent internationally-wired oil-importing economy like China’s under full financial embargo, I’m fairly sure the Chinese will blink on this one. Financial sanctions of the type the White House is preparing would hit China at least an order of magnitude harder than the tariffs they are staring down, and the Chinese are not suicidal. And while I firmly stand by my claim that no one can really claim to know what Trump is thinking I have to admit things are starting to look more than coincidental: a last-minute cave by the Chinese on Iran just as the third round of tit-for-tat tariffs really start to bite? I see some serious negotiating leverage there, useful in many theaters.

This – all of this – is quite possibly the best-case environment for U.S. shale oil producers. Chronic export outages in multiple countries for multiple reasons, a trade war that is both widening and deepening. All this pushes oil prices up. That helps whichever oil producers can bring new output online fastest. And with today’s shale tech American shale operators can bring on new oil output in half the time the Saudis can bring on their pre-existing spare capacity.

In the first half of 2018, before all this noise erupted, U.S. shale operators were already on course for increasing total U.S. oil output by the largest volume ever – in excess of a fresh 1.5 million bpd. Courtesy of China and Trump and Venezuela and Libya and Iran, that is now the low case estimate.

The concentration of power in the global system continues to gather in the Americans' favor. Trump is demonstrating he doesn’t need to build an alliance to fight and win a trade war with multiple countries simultaneously. Trump is showing he can wield financial tools simultaneously with trade tools to crushing effect. Trump is showing an enthusiasm for standing up to the business community, something that resonates not just with his base, but also Bernie Sanders’. And in case you missed it, last week the United States became the world’s largest oil producer courtesy of shale, granting Trump even more leverage and autonomy in international relations.

As a guy who makes it his business to integrate context and data in to everything, I find Trump’s brash, details-be-damned approach to… everything a bit annoying. But that doesn’t mean he can’t get results.

[Spiral]

I've just read this from a year ago from him. He certainly speaks with confidence (to the extent confidence can be inferred from a print interview) and with that confidence it's tempting to nod along with him...theeeeeen he boldly goes all in with the 2017 election, so, make of it what you will.

https://www.valuewalk.com/2017/05/qa-pe ... -eu-trump/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SmudgetheClaret]

They haven’t honoured the first decision what makes you think they would honour a 2nd or a 3rd etc

[claret_in_exile]

I am strongly in the Remain camp, but I simply don't agree with a second referendum without there being an unequivocal and criminally compelling reason to do so.

We have to respect the fact that the majority of the voters chose what I believe to be economic suicide and we have to live with the consequences of that.

We can't keep having referendums until we get the vote we wanted.

[Imploding Turtle]

I am strongly in the Remain camp, but I simply don't agree with a second referendum without there being an unequivocal and criminally compelling reason to do so.

We have to respect the fact that the majority of the voters chose what I believe to be economic suicide and we have to live with the consequences of that.

We can't keep having referendums until we get the vote we wanted.

"criminally compelling"

What, like breaking election laws?

[Imploding Turtle]

[If it be your will]

.

[Lancasterclaret]

We have to respect the fact that the majority of the voters chose what I believe to be economic suicide and we have to live with the consequences of that.

Unless there is a clear majority of people who realise that economic suicide is not what they actually thought would happen of course.

[claret_in_exile]

"criminally compelling"

What, like breaking election laws?

Indeed. I used those words deliberately.

Has this been proven in a court? Genuine question.

[claret_in_exile]

Unless there is a clear majority of people who realise that economic suicide is not what they actually thought would happen of course.

Actually, I disagree. Elections have consequences. How many people have you ever heard say "I wish I didn't vote for ... if I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for them"? Doesn't make the vote any less valid, even if it was in error.

I would argue that a lot of Remainers could foresee both the hideous complexities of unraveling 45 years of treaties and the economic flustercuck that looks likely as a result of a historically bungled Brexit process. The Leavers saw the same info and chose differently.

[Lancasterclaret]

True

What it needs is a pragmatic and orderly brexit, over a period of time that gets business ready for it.

But even though this makes perfect sense, the Brexiteers won't agree to it, because they know the longer this goes on, the more support for remain will grow.

Which is why now all the main Brexit politicians are saying "there will be economic turmoil but its worth it", because they are laying down the consequences and hardening up their vote.

You know as well as I do that I could show a clip of Ben Bradley MP saying exactly that (he said it yesterday) and I would have all the Brexiteers on here talking about "Project Fear" being exaggerated and how they always knew it was going to be like that.

The damage to the country is worth it in their eyes.

And they then claim to be patriots.

Its a very strange place we live in at the moment.

[Lowbankclaret]

Sometimes you have to go through some bad times and pain for a brighter future later.

I will never be convinced that being ruled by France and Germany is a good thing for the UK.

Trade between the countries will continue anyway, because if it doesn’t Airbus will have no engines to power most of their planes and as a lot of those components are sourced in France and Germany they have to continue trading.

[Spijed]

I will never be convinced that being ruled by France and Germany is a good thing for the UK.

We've had a veto over anything they might have wanted to impose!

Likewise, any laws, rules, basically anything else - we've had a veto.

We've simply chosen not to use it.

[Lancasterclaret]

I will never be convinced that being ruled by France and Germany is a good thing for the UK.

Two years, and this kind of stuff is still the norm. Despite all the evidence.

Its a religion now sadly

[JohnMcGreal]

I will never be convinced that being ruled by France and Germany is a good thing for the UK.

Nor will most Remain voters. What's your point? How is that hypothetical situation relevant here?

[Lowbankclaret]

Nor will most Remain voters. What's your point? How is that hypothetical situation relevant here?

Two years, and this kind of stuff is still the norm. Despite all the evidence.

Its a religion now sadly

So please then explain who you believe controls the EU and it’s Law makers.

[Lancasterclaret]

27 member nations

Next

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

We can't keep having referendums until we get the vote we wanted.

Why not?

We have a general election every four years to see who runs the country and to change it if we don't like it, we don't say "We voted Tory so we have to have a Tory government FOREVER."

Brexit is the same, now we know the consequences instead of all the lies fed to the population by Vote Leave there should be a chance to reverse the decision before it becomes permanent.

[claret_in_exile]

Which is why now all the main Brexit politicians are saying "there will be economic turmoil but its worth it", because they are laying down the consequences and hardening up their vote.

The damage to the country is worth it in their eyes.

Excellent comments.

Indeed, there will be economic turmoil the likes of which our country has never experienced if there is a hard Brexit. Trade will have to be negotiated on the fly after we've hit our neighbours with a new border and goodness knows what it will all do to the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland.

Not to mention we've had two years since we invoked Article 50, our political situation is in complete disarray and we don't even have the whiff of a deal.

It is terrifying.

[claret_in_exile]

Why not?

We have a general election every four years to see who runs the country and to change it if we don't like it, we don't say "We voted Tory so we have to have a Tory government FOREVER."

Brexit is the same, now we know the consequences instead of all the lies fed to the population by Vote Leave there should be a chance to reverse the decision before it becomes permanent.

I disagree. Referendums are not the same as elections as it is the closest thing to a direct vote the citizens will have. In elections, we elect MPs to represent us as best as they can over a fixed term. Referendums are limited-choice.

Unless something material has changed or something criminally has happened to dupe those who voted to Leave, I don't see why a new referendum is justified. Remainers saw the disaster that Brexit would be and voted accordingly. Leavers saw the same info and decided it was worth it.

The fact that the Remainers have been proved right so far shouldn't mean that the majority should have their vote annulled unless they themselves call for it. That way leads a very dangerous path ...

[AndrewJB]

It's about treading a fine path. We leave the EU, as was voted for, but negotiate to retain our mutually beneficial ties in bio-science, telecommunications, transport, security, and everything else. It would be a worse position than the status quo, but far better than hard brexit (which is no better than a slimming program in which you cut off your own head). That would be my solution - respecting the will of the people, and minimizing the damage at the same time.

[claret_in_exile]

It's about treading a fine path. We leave the EU, as was voted for, but negotiate to retain our mutually beneficial ties in bio-science, telecommunications, transport, security, and everything else. It would be a worse position than the status quo, but far better than hard brexit (which is no better than a slimming program in which you cut off your own head). That would be my solution - respecting the will of the people, and minimizing the damage at the same time.

I think that's as reasonable as we can expect. To be economically viable, we have to agree a trade deal, whether we have to swallow a penalty (tariffs) or not. We may even have to accept a border agreement. We're in the absolute worst position possible as far as negotiation is concerned right now, so we will have to deal with the fact we can't have our cake and eat it.

We voted to Leave and we must Leave (absent a very unlikely second referendum) in the best way possible. Hard Brexit would be an absolute nightmare.

We need a strong and competent government to get this passed without catastrophic consequences. Unfortunately, we have an inept government and an opposition which appears to be no better. Personally, I would have thought this was a time for National Government. At least that way, we'd have a modicum of cabinet unity.

[AndrewJB]

I think that's as reasonable as we can expect. To be economically viable, we have to agree a trade deal, whether we have to swallow a penalty (tariffs) or not. We may even have to accept a border agreement. We're in the absolute worst position possible as far as negotiation is concerned right now, so we will have to deal with the fact we can't have our cake and eat it.

We voted to Leave and we must Leave (absent a very unlikely second referendum) in the best way possible. Hard Brexit would be an absolute nightmare.

We need a strong and competent government to get this passed without catastrophic consequences. Unfortunately, we have an inept government and an opposition which appears to be no better. Personally, I would have thought this was a time for National Government. At least that way, we'd have a modicum of cabinet unity.

The Tories will only call for a National Government if they lose the next election. What sticks in my throat is the fact David Cameron was quick to demand stiff penalties for rioters back in 2011 - indeed a few people went to jail for as little as stealing a bottle of water - yet he's caused this entire mess with no right of the nation to seek redress from him.