Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

Those Remainers that claim there is no majority for Leaving might like to remind themselves what the position of Labour was just a short time ago...



50 Times Labour Promised to Deliver Brexit

[Kikapu]

At least one ardent Remainer gets it...

Lately, he has been enraging remainers – of which he is one – by saying: “There’s only one fucking thing worse than a fool who voted for Brexit, and that’s the rise of the cunts trying to get the vote overturned.”

“And people started calling me a Nazi!” he says. “I thought: ‘Really? A member of the Third Reich?’ Look, I think it’s ridiculous that we’re leaving. None of us were even qualified to vote. You ask a guy above a chippy in Bradford if we should leave Europe. ‘Yeah!’ But I still think if there’s a second referendum, as a nation, we’ll never recover. We have to come out because, no matter how ill-informed people were, you’re saying to them their vote doesn’t count. And its symptomatic of shutting people’s opinions down.”

I agree with him, which is why upon leaving the EU, there can be a new referendum to re enter the EU or not. This is the area the remainers should focus on and not try to prevent in the implementation of Brexit. Totally respectful of the democratic system. If it passes and we re enter, then the leavers can ask for another referendum to leave the EU. Fair is fair.

Excellent!

I don't think you'll find any Leavers that are against re-visiting the question at some point in the future...

"In the future" is every subjective. Tomorrow can be and is "the future".

[cyprusgrump]

At least one ardent Remainer gets it...

Lately, he has been enraging remainers – of which he is one – by saying: “There’s only one fucking thing worse than a fool who voted for Brexit, and that’s the rise of the cunts trying to get the vote overturned.”

“And people started calling me a Nazi!” he says. “I thought: ‘Really? A member of the Third Reich?’ Look, I think it’s ridiculous that we’re leaving. None of us were even qualified to vote. You ask a guy above a chippy in Bradford if we should leave Europe. ‘Yeah!’ But I still think if there’s a second referendum, as a nation, we’ll never recover. We have to come out because, no matter how ill-informed people were, you’re saying to them their vote doesn’t count. And its symptomatic of shutting people’s opinions down.”

I agree with him, which is why upon leaving the EU, there can be a new referendum to re enter the EU or not. This is the area the remainers should focus on and not try to prevent in the implementation of Brexit. Totally respectful of the democratic system. If it passes and we re enter, then the leavers can ask for another referendum to leave the EU. Fair is fair.

Excellent!

I don't think you'll find any Leavers that are against re-visiting the question at some point in the future...

"In the future" is every subjective. Tomorrow can be and is "the future".

Agreed...

But the following day simply wouldn't be approved by anybody...

I think 5 years would be reasonable...

Nigel Farage campaigned tirelessly for 20 years to get the first referendum - and we still haven't left 3 years later... So given that we've been 'in' for 40 years, a few years out shouldn't be begrudged by anybody!

[erolz66]

Those Remainers that claim there is no majority for Leaving might like to remind themselves what the position of Labour was just a short time ago...



50 Times Labour Promised to Deliver Brexit

And in reverse you might like to remind yourself how the Lib-Dems have been able to go from a party on the threshold of non existence, having betrayed their core base by entering a tory / lib dem alliance, to one able to win a by election seat in a constituency that voted majority leave in the referendum (by a larger margin than the national result) against a sitting Tory 8000 majority.

BTW - all these seemingly obligatory 'winking smileies' on the end of just about everything you (and Londonrake for that matter) say here, pisses me off personally, which you are probably happy about if it is not already the intent of doing that. It also makes it harder for me to consider your statements as 'sincere' vs if you did not do this. Yes I await the 'clever reply' complete with just such a smiley.

[erolz66]

I find it amazing that both you CG and you Kikapu seem to have a notion that a UK government would grant the people a referendum on anything ever about anything unless driven to do so by some specific party self interest reason to do so. Does History mean nothing to you guys ?

[Kikapu]

I find it amazing that both you CG and you Kikapu seem to have a notion that a UK government would grant the people a referendum on anything ever about anything unless driven to do so by some specific party self interest reason to do so. Does History mean nothing to you guys ?

Erol, my reasoning in a new referendum to e enter the EU comes from Brexit being so devisive, which might do more harm than good, especially if the UK as we know it also breaks up. People can always demand a new referendum, even if it's not granted at first, or even at 10th attempt.

[erolz66]

I find it amazing that both you CG and you Kikapu seem to have a notion that a UK government would grant the people a referendum on anything ever about anything unless driven to do so by some specific party self interest reason to do so. Does History mean nothing to you guys ?

Erol, my reasoning in a new referendum to e enter the EU comes from Brexit being so devisive, which might do more harm than good, especially if the UK as we know it also breaks up. People can always demand a new referendum, even if it's not granted at first, or even at 10th attempt.

And I am just pointing out that historically the only time any UK government has ever granted the people a national referendum on anything is when it was in their political self interest, based on them doing so AND them being confident that they will get the result they want in any case. Regardless of what the people may or may not want and regardless of anything else besides. I see little reason to expect that will be different in the future.

[erolz66]

WTO Rules ..... that was on the table from day one. This idea of NO DEAL was a scare mongering phrase, a tactic to make it seem like a catastrophe unless Teresa May got her deal through.

Seems to me there are some fundamental misunderstanding going on here. Seems to me that you are arguing that WTO rules are 'the deal' , or a viable and possible form of it ? If you are then again there is serious conflating and misunderstanding going here.

Trade is not the only things that 'the deal' (actually a withdrawal agreement) is about. Even if it were, saying WTO rules were one form of alternative deal, to 'the deal', would not be true because WTO rules do not cover trade, they cover trade in goods but not services. This difference is even more important re the UK given how important services are to the UK in terms of international export. But even this is not true, that 'the deal' is about just trade. It is about 100's of other international agreements that we currently have in place, not just with the other 27 EU members but with literally 100's of other countries* via the EU. These deals are nothing to do with trade. They cover things like legal agreements between national parties as to who can and can not legally use their respective airspace, things around security and countless other things. The problem with a 'no deal' exit is not that these 100's of agreements will not and can not be replaced after a no deal exit. The problem is them all ending on exactly the same day and at the same time, leaving the UK to scramble around and replace all of them all at the same time (and the same time we are trying to do just pure trade deal with the the US, India and 100s of other places). To me also the idea that not a single one of these 100's of countries might seek to use the need of the UK to replace such (non trade) deals as quickly as possible as a form of 'leverage', perhaps in trade deal with the UK, seems naive. Regardless the idea that WTO rules that cover one thing and one thing only - trade in goods, is an alternative to the 'the deal' is to me to seriously misunderstand and conflate. Leading to a serious miscalculation by you as to what the consequences of a 'no deal' exit are going to be.

In many ways from the point of view of these others nations, it would be criminal of them and their governments, to NOT try and use this reality and unique opportunity as to the position the UK will be in post a no deal exit, to seek to extract more concessions from the UK on things they want from it than they have historically been able to get. The RoC is one such example , though its ability to 'maximise' its gains in such a scenario are and will be limited somewhat by it's own EU membership. Countries like India will have no such constraints.

* on rereading that back I realise that I have been 'exagerating' without an intent to do so. The number of 'other countries' I think is around the 130 -40 mark, so 100's is not accurate. But over 100 is I believe.

[Robin Hood]

Erolz66:

Seems to me there are some fundamental misunderstanding going on here. Seems to me that you are arguing that WTO rules are 'the deal' , or a viable and possible form of it ? If you are then again there is serious conflating and misunderstanding going here.

In your opinion! IMO: WTO was the only deal at the time but as I understood it our highly incompetent PM decided she would do a better deal ...... and then realised she wasn’t talking ‘deals’ at all ..... she was talking terms for leaving (A withdrawal Agreement). Although I have little time for Trump he had the right idea, no doubt told TM what the best way to deal with the EU was and she ignored him. IMO: He most likely said to her something on the lines of .....“ Tell ‘em that’s what we have to offer you .... take it or leave it! If they start to argue get up and walk out! ”

This difference is even more important re the UK given how important services are to the UK in terms of international export. But even this is not true, that 'the deal' is about just trade. It is about 100's of other international agreements that we currently have in place, not just with the other 27 EU members but with literally 100's of other countries via the EU. .........................etc.....................................etc...................................... The problem is them all ending on exactly the same day and at the same time, leaving the UK to scramble around and replace all of them all at the same time (and the same time we are trying to do just pure trade deal with the the US, India and 100s of other places).........................................etc..............................................Regardless the idea that WTO rules that cover one thing and one thing only - trade in goods, is an alternative to the 'the deal' is to me to seriously misunderstand and conflate. Leading to a serious miscalculation by you as to what the consequences of a 'no deal' exit are going to be.

Do you seriously believe that, as I said previously ..... we will have one set of rules at 23:59 on the 31/10/19 and at 00:01 on the 1/11/19 we have a whole new set of rules? Only an imbecile would even consider attempting that! It would be simpler to just walk away ..... say FU ..... and start with a straight forward free trade agreement with everyone and apply the rules and regulations as they apply now. Why fix it when it ain’t broken? Where there is conflict in rules/law/legislation we sort it out when it becomes obvious as a problem. You seem to be seeing complications that are mainly wild assumptions and then accuse others of misunderstanding the situation.

I find your arguments very difficult to understand!

Trade is not the only things that 'the deal' (actually a withdrawal agreement) is about. Even if it were, saying WTO rules were one form of alternative deal, to 'the deal', would not be true because WTO rules do not cover trade, they cover trade in goods but not services.

It appears to be the main concern for most people! What is so difficult in applying WTO to services? Services are trade ..... you trade your services for payment. Is this not what the experts should have been arranging for the last three years? If not .... why not?

[erolz66]

Do you doubt that the UK currently has in place international agreements with other nations that currently cover things like 'mutual right for their respective airlines to use each others airspace' ?

Do you doubt that after a no deal exit these international agreements end, and then we are in a situation where there is no legal agreement between the parties involved ?

Do you understand that the WTO has nothing to do with or governing such agreements ?

That whilst it will then be in the interests of both parties to put in a new legal agreement to cover such things, some of these parties may seek to delay doing so, despite the damage doing o does to them in the short term in the hope of creating leverage with the UK in negotiations with over other things (like trade) where they think the gains they might get from doing so far outweigh the cost to them in delaying putting a new deal in place on say airspace ?