Yes, the opinion polls see those wishing to remain at around 51% to 49% leave. I have always said, the polls would have to be in the 60s to warrant a second referendum so I can't argue otherwise. However, when you look at polls, there is quite a sizebale amount of the population who want a soft Brexit over a hard one. Seeing as the question was not asked during the referendum and you have people on the Brexit side deciding they know exactly what people meant when they voted when they clearly don't - I think there is a case for there to be a final vote on the deal that is eventually struck.
Despite people who are not interested in democracy and don't seem to even understand what it means but claim to be acting in the interests of it, I feel this is what has to happen if the will of the people is going to be implimented. I doubt it will of course. It is not for John Redwood or Nigel Farage to intepret that will based on their own preferences, but to clarify it seeing as nobody had the sense to do so at the time of the original vote.
Yes, the opinion polls see those wishing to remain at around 51% to 49% leave. I have always said, the polls would have to be in the 60s to warrant a second referendum so I can't argue otherwise. However, when you look at polls, there is quite a sizebale amount of the population who want a soft Brexit over a hard one. Seeing as the question was not asked during the referendum and you have people on the Brexit side deciding they know exactly what people meant when they voted when they clearly don't - I think there is a case for there to be a final vote on the deal that is eventually struck.
Despite people who are not interested in democracy and don't seem to even understand what it means but claim to be acting in the interests of it, I feel this is what has to happen if the will of the people is going to be implimented. I doubt it will of course. It is not for John Redwood or Nigel Farage to intepret that will based on their own preferences, but to clarify it seeing as nobody had the sense to do so at the time of the original vote.
I would question whether or not they realise what this actually means.
A soft Brexit puts us in a worse position than we are now as I outlined above.
I really can't get my head around the concept of a soft v hard brexit, as much as I can't get my head around a soft or a hard border.
These nuances have been introduced but simply muddy the waters.
Leaving the EU or staying in, no border or a border those seem to be the bald and absolute choices.
Brexit won, and that is surely that.
Then we have the notion put forward mainly by brexiters called 'the best deal possible'. Really? Such as?
The only person who has suggested an outcome recently is @stonemuse who says that staying in the customs union would stop the UK doing trade deals with other countries. Well that is likely to be the actual outcome of brexit (along with all the other terrible unforeseen consequences) but is being at liberty to strike deals with other countries to be filed under the heading of 'best'?
I think that outcome has to be filed under wait and see and hope against hope.
So there is a very dubious 'best' outcome awaiting the UK, but there is the certainty of very disruptive and even dangerous fall out from leaving, the good old Irish border being one of them, but a whole myriad of other issues such as the EHIC card, or air traffic control, and the expense sealing the borders, documentation paperwork electronic or otherwise, and the status of a whole variety of citizens scattered across the continent, as well as sudden shortages in labour in vital services, and the issue of intellectual cooperation and common security.
There is a whole load of problems with the vague promise that things (financial) will hopefully be be better...indeed the latest mantra is food clothing and footwear being cheaper, but the unsaid bit is that it is unlikely to be UK manufactured clothing and footwear, or UK grown food.
Brexit absolutely means brexit, no second referendum, no going back unless some very creative political jiggery pokery can be pulled off with the approval of the population, and it ultimately means getting cheaper T-shirts and trainers from the sweatshops of the Far East and chlorinated dead animals from the USA.
Unless of course any brexiters out there can paint a better picture that is convincing, the whole thing looks more and more and more like the forecast of Lord Buckethead.
‘Soft’ sounds nice and fluffy whereas ‘hard’ sounds tough.
The reality is that the result of a hard Brexit is unproven ... which is why we all have different views and have debated for so long.
Whereas the actuality of a soft Brexit is that it would definitively put us in a weaker position than we are in now. It is, therefore, an illogical approach and should not be pursued.
The debate should be between two outcomes, hard Brexit or Remain.
‘Soft’ sounds nice and fluffy whereas ‘hard’ sounds tough.
The reality is that the result of a hard Brexit is unproven ... which is why we all have different views and have debated for so long.
Whereas the actuality of a soft Brexit is that it would definitively put us in a weaker position than we are in now. It is, therefore, an illogical approach and should not be pursued.
The debate should be between two outcomes, hard Brexit or Remain.
I don't know about 'should be', it already is isn't it?
‘Soft’ sounds nice and fluffy whereas ‘hard’ sounds tough.
The reality is that the result of a hard Brexit is unproven ... which is why we all have different views and have debated for so long.
Whereas the actuality of a soft Brexit is that it would definitively put us in a weaker position than we are in now. It is, therefore, an illogical approach and should not be pursued.
The debate should be between two outcomes, hard Brexit or Remain.
I don't know about 'should be', it already is isn't it?
No its not because a soft Brexit keeps being mentioned as an alternative.
‘Soft’ sounds nice and fluffy whereas ‘hard’ sounds tough.
The reality is that the result of a hard Brexit is unproven ... which is why we all have different views and have debated for so long.
Whereas the actuality of a soft Brexit is that it would definitively put us in a weaker position than we are in now. It is, therefore, an illogical approach and should not be pursued.
The debate should be between two outcomes, hard Brexit or Remain.
I don't know about 'should be', it already is isn't it?
No its not because a soft Brexit keeps being mentioned as an alternative.
Yeah I know, but neither soft or hard (fnarr fnarr) is defined. The Norway model, the Swiss model, the bespoke model, the cliff edge, these terms are bandied about but are the crust without the bread. Again and again the detailed practicalities are overridden by generalisations and sweeping statements, because details are declared 'boring', and so they are when compared with the shiny splendour of a brave blue passport to wave triumphantly.
Yes, the opinion polls see those wishing to remain at around 51% to 49% leave. I have always said, the polls would have to be in the 60s to warrant a second referendum so I can't argue otherwise. However, when you look at polls, there is quite a sizebale amount of the population who want a soft Brexit over a hard one. Seeing as the question was not asked during the referendum and you have people on the Brexit side deciding they know exactly what people meant when they voted when they clearly don't - I think there is a case for there to be a final vote on the deal that is eventually struck.
Despite people who are not interested in democracy and don't seem to even understand what it means but claim to be acting in the interests of it, I feel this is what has to happen if the will of the people is going to be implimented. I doubt it will of course. It is not for John Redwood or Nigel Farage to intepret that will based on their own preferences, but to clarify it seeing as nobody had the sense to do so at the time of the original vote.
I would question whether or not they realise what this actually means.
A soft Brexit puts us in a worse position than we are now as I outlined above.
You might also question if they knew what Brexit meant when they voted out. Surely whether it would put us in a worse position or not is irrelevant, as it has been since this whole thing started. That is the issue with the whole thing. I will put my cards on the table and say I am not a great fan of Europe. If we were out of it, I wouldn't be joining it. It is just the pragmatist in me that can see we are better off staying. In fact the risks of leaving are immense. I am not a great believer in cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think we would be better off trying to change Europe from within. The Euro is a disaster and needs to die a.s.a.p. What it will ultimately do is bring France and Italy and others down to the Eastern European's level financially. The power of Germany needs to be challenged and I think it can be as major players get disaffeceted and they face political issues at home. I don't hate the Germans but they set the EU agenda on their terms and do what they think is best for Germany. They punish countries like Greece for not being Germany, but they wouldn't be successful if all countires were like them. But ultimately leaving an institution we are currently so reliant on does us no favours at all.
I think on its current trajectory, the EU will change anyway. Will we be abe to get in when it changes in a direction we like? When we do leave, it is probably in our interests to encourage others to leave as a weaker EU makes us stronger. This is best done by being successful outside the EU, and this is also one of my greatest fears as the EU knows that and has a massive reason to ensure we fail.
Yes, the opinion polls see those wishing to remain at around 51% to 49% leave. I have always said, the polls would have to be in the 60s to warrant a second referendum so I can't argue otherwise. However, when you look at polls, there is quite a sizebale amount of the population who want a soft Brexit over a hard one. Seeing as the question was not asked during the referendum and you have people on the Brexit side deciding they know exactly what people meant when they voted when they clearly don't - I think there is a case for there to be a final vote on the deal that is eventually struck.
Despite people who are not interested in democracy and don't seem to even understand what it means but claim to be acting in the interests of it, I feel this is what has to happen if the will of the people is going to be implimented. I doubt it will of course. It is not for John Redwood or Nigel Farage to intepret that will based on their own preferences, but to clarify it seeing as nobody had the sense to do so at the time of the original vote.
I would question whether or not they realise what this actually means.
A soft Brexit puts us in a worse position than we are now as I outlined above.
You might also question if they knew what Brexit meant when they voted out. Surely whether it would put us in a worse position or not is irrelevant, as it has been since this whole thing started. That is the issue with the whole thing. I will put my cards on the table and say I am not a great fan of Europe. If we were out of it, I wouldn't be joining it. It is just the pragmatist in me that can see we are better off staying. In fact the risks of leaving are immense. I am not a great believer in cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I think we would be better off trying to change Europe from within. The Euro is a disaster and needs to die a.s.a.p. What it will ultimately do is bring France and Italy and others down to the Eastern European's level financially. The power of Germany needs to be challenged and I think it can be as major players get disaffeceted and they face political issues at home. I don't hate the Germans but they set the EU agenda on their terms and do what they think is best for Germany. They punish countries like Greece for not being Germany, but they wouldn't be successful if all countires were like them. But ultimately leaving an institution we are currently so reliant on does us no favours at all.
I think on its current trajectory, the EU will change anyway. Will we be abe to get in when it changes in a direction we like? When we do leave, it is probably in our interests to encourage others to leave as a weaker EU makes us stronger. This is best done by being successful outside the EU, and this is also one of my greatest fears as the EU knows that and has a massive reason to ensure we fail.
Which is exactly why I have frequently stated that I would be happy to remain if a ‘multi-speed’ EU is implemented ... provided it is developed correctly.
Many support such an approach, including Macron, but it’s not on the table.
''Brexit: Britons favour second referendum by 16-point margin – poll The Guardian''
Sadly I think we will never be allowed to leave the EU. Was always going to be difficult. Obviously doesn't that 17 million voted to leave. The establishment and big business will always control our electorate. Corbyn is just a puppet to IRA lover Mcdonell!
''Brexit: Britons favour second referendum by 16-point margin – poll The Guardian''
Sadly I think we will never be allowed to leave the EU. Was always going to be difficult. Obviously doesn't that 17 million voted to leave. The establishment and big business will always control our electorate. Corbyn is just a puppet to IRA lover Mcdonell!
This looks like you've pulled together some phrases from lots of different "political" threads and dumped them all in a single Brexit post.
Whilst there are a number of positives, I do find it a concern that the government is proposing to rollover terms on 36 trade agreements with 88 countries and 9 trade blocs with no structured consultation.
However, I am aware that organisations such as the International Chamber of Commerce UK are pushing for a new, more inclusive model of engagement and consultation and I am optimistic that this may be put in place.
Thanks. That is a decent article, even though there are plenty of detailed issues I would have with the author's reading of Czech politics, and Slovakia's. As it happens the Presidetial elections took place this weekend. The result is that the populist vulgar incumbent, Milos Zeman, won. However, behind that is another story. He won only 51-49. His challenger was new to politics, a chemistry professor who stood on an openly pro -European stance. In Prague, the challenger won 68-32, and also won in most of the other major cities. Echoes of the U.K., but even more marked. So in fact the divisions that we see within Western society can be seen within a country like this too, where the average wage is about £1,000 per month, gross. The author therefore needs to be careful about assuming these countries speak with one clear, different voice. All that said, the Western countries need to rethink how they speak to countries like CZ. People get very, er, chippy, for reasons of history which he correctly alludes to. Not a happy house here tonight, but an incumbent President always had an advantage, and this one won't live out his term.
Comments
And possibly a more telling point, would any politicians that have influence, actually come out and push for it?
Essex is not in The Midlands
Despite people who are not interested in democracy and don't seem to even understand what it means but claim to be acting in the interests of it, I feel this is what has to happen if the will of the people is going to be implimented. I doubt it will of course. It is not for John Redwood or Nigel Farage to intepret that will based on their own preferences, but to clarify it seeing as nobody had the sense to do so at the time of the original vote.
A soft Brexit puts us in a worse position than we are now as I outlined above.
These nuances have been introduced but simply muddy the waters.
Leaving the EU or staying in, no border or a border those seem to be the bald and absolute choices.
Brexit won, and that is surely that.
Then we have the notion put forward mainly by brexiters called 'the best deal possible'. Really? Such as?
The only person who has suggested an outcome recently is @stonemuse who says that staying in the customs union would stop the UK doing trade deals with other countries. Well that is likely to be the actual outcome of brexit (along with all the other terrible unforeseen consequences) but is being at liberty to strike deals with other countries to be filed under the heading of 'best'?
I think that outcome has to be filed under wait and see and hope against hope.
So there is a very dubious 'best' outcome awaiting the UK, but there is the certainty of very disruptive and even dangerous fall out from leaving, the good old Irish border being one of them, but a whole myriad of other issues such as the EHIC card, or air traffic control, and the expense sealing the borders, documentation paperwork electronic or otherwise, and the status of a whole variety of citizens scattered across the continent, as well as sudden shortages in labour in vital services, and the issue of intellectual cooperation and common security.
There is a whole load of problems with the vague promise that things (financial) will hopefully be be better...indeed the latest mantra is food clothing and footwear being cheaper, but the unsaid bit is that it is unlikely to be UK manufactured clothing and footwear, or UK grown food.
Brexit absolutely means brexit, no second referendum, no going back unless some very creative political jiggery pokery can be pulled off with the approval of the population, and it ultimately means getting cheaper T-shirts and trainers from the sweatshops of the Far East and chlorinated dead animals from the USA.
Unless of course any brexiters out there can paint a better picture that is convincing, the whole thing looks more and more and more like the forecast of Lord Buckethead.
The reality is that the result of a hard Brexit is unproven ... which is why we all have different views and have debated for so long.
Whereas the actuality of a soft Brexit is that it would definitively put us in a weaker position than we are in now. It is, therefore, an illogical approach and should not be pursued.
The debate should be between two outcomes, hard Brexit or Remain.
Again and again the detailed practicalities are overridden by generalisations and sweeping statements, because details are declared 'boring', and so they are when compared with the shiny splendour of a brave blue passport to wave triumphantly.
Can't believe it ..... we've just signed Kaikai, and some people are still discussing the influence of the EU on Britain.
Stick around mate there will be several idiots who will blame it on brexiters
Thing is it might just work.
I think we would be better off trying to change Europe from within. The Euro is a disaster and needs to die a.s.a.p. What it will ultimately do is bring France and Italy and others down to the Eastern European's level financially. The power of Germany needs to be challenged and I think it can be as major players get disaffeceted and they face political issues at home. I don't hate the Germans but they set the EU agenda on their terms and do what they think is best for Germany. They punish countries like Greece for not being Germany, but they wouldn't be successful if all countires were like them. But ultimately leaving an institution we are currently so reliant on does us no favours at all.
I think on its current trajectory, the EU will change anyway. Will we be abe to get in when it changes in a direction we like? When we do leave, it is probably in our interests to encourage others to leave as a weaker EU makes us stronger. This is best done by being successful outside the EU, and this is also one of my greatest fears as the EU knows that and has a massive reason to ensure we fail.
Many support such an approach, including Macron, but it’s not on the table.
The Guardian''
Sadly I think we will never be allowed to leave the EU.
Was always going to be difficult.
Obviously doesn't that 17 million voted to leave.
The establishment and big business will always control our
electorate. Corbyn is just a puppet to IRA lover Mcdonell!
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-42843201
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-09/debates/582F83B5-0943-4BE2-A473-599C6C4897F9/TradeBill?inf_contact_key=5764839ae958d924d2921b053bd40fdfe7f0db659664406a41fa26c37c59211a
Whilst there are a number of positives, I do find it a concern that the government is proposing to rollover terms on 36 trade agreements with 88 countries and 9 trade blocs with no structured consultation.
However, I am aware that organisations such as the International Chamber of Commerce UK are pushing for a new, more inclusive model of engagement and consultation and I am optimistic that this may be put in place.
https://spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-fight-for-europe-is-now-between-east-and-west/
What sort of Remain did you vote for, exactly?. Was it...
1. Soft-Remain (the current EU without changes within the bloc's structure, or among EU member states' stances toward it), or...
2. Hard-Remain (the envisaged United States of EU by 2025)?
Newport are completely outplaying them.