Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

So ? Another Plonker makes a stupid statement !! Mate the Clown will fall flat on his face while you and most of the leavers will be chanting Rule Brittania.....
What a load of Plonkers !!

Yeah, yeah! It's not fair!
Yeah, yeah! It's not fair!
I'm so upset.
I'm so upset! I'm so upset!
Yeah yeah!

[Robin Hood]

Erolz66:

Is that not just an argument that when a majority decision is made all those in a minority (or who's job it is is to represent the views of those who voted them in to power) should shut up and not have any representation on that issue going forward ? Have you never seen anyone argue that because a a given MP's constituency voted in majority to leave that MP should also do so, whatever their personal views ?

The vote has been cast and the overall majority decision was to leave. What those who voted remain thought and still think, is history. The task now is to get everyone behind that decision and make it work, not going over the same old routine of the losers in the referendum blaming the majority and trying to go back over the same ground time after time to get a different result.

Do you think any of what is going to happen could be linked to the pursuit of objectives that are in fact just unrealistic ?

The objectives were never anything other than to divest the UK of the controlling influence of the EU Mandarins. What SHOULD have happened is that we should have sat down with the EU negotiators and worked out the leaving plan so that it had minimum impact of both parties. But we had an incompetent negotiator who it seems was not very good at taking advice, or maybe just got bad advise, and on the other side a bunch of EU Bureaucrats determined to make like as difficult as possible ...... so that other members of their Club didn’t follow suit!

As I keep trying to point out, our ability to play that game and be effective in doing so was massively reduced by our own choice to trigger article 50 in such a 'rush'. Yes that is crying over spilt milk but why can I not seem to find anyone who supports leave, who is willing to concede this ?

I didn’t have a clue what ‘Article 50’ was until it became the catch word of the time, just like ‘backstop’ is the current in word.

Like a civil divorce ...... you can make the decision to part (A sort of matrimonial Article 50) plan the divorce that you discuss between you, agree and remain friends? Or you get one party that wants everything including the kitchen sink, digs their heels in and refuses to compromise and that is when things get nasty. Then the final straw is when Lawyers get involved and it gets even nastier! That is just what is happening now.

I regard BJ as the mouthpiece, the show-man and believe that the same people are operating in the background, as were there when Teresa May was PM. The whole thing has been a complete farce since Cameron's arrogance got the better of him!

As for the 'backstop'? Let the Irish decide ..... a snap referendum ...... they remain part of the UK or become part of Eire and remain in the EU.

[Robin Hood]

Miltiades:

One thing is for sure !! The pound in your pocket will be worth a lot less.

Is it .... will it? We haven’t even left yet so the drop in value is not due to fall offs in trade or increases in taxes ...... it is all down to speculators telling you that ‘.... for sure, when the UK does leave your pound will be worth less!' If we are still in the Club and they can do this ...... what would have happened if you that voted remain had won he referendum and the EU put the same pressure on your pound so that we were forced to totally give up our sovereign currency, our independent Central Bank ...... and adopt their EURO and their ECB?

Have you converted your pounds to Afghanistan currency yet ?? I hear the Clown has struck a trade deal with the Taliban, apparently ISISCwere not interested

Well that seems a sound idea ........ where do you get your currency/financial advice from ?


Whilst you have made a string of denigrating remarks about those that made the decision they wanted to leave the EU, I have not actually seen you provide an explanation of why YOU WANTED TO REMAIN! How about giving us your take on the reason you thought remain was the best decision? Or was it, as has been suggested, the desire to retain the Status Quo as the least disruptive option, without actually giving it any serious thought ?

[cyprusgrump]

I have not actually seen you provide an explanation of why YOU WANTED TO REMAIN!

To prevent the lamps going out of course!

[Kikapu]

Whomever wants to be the next PM after BJ, will need to promise to hold another referendum to re-enter the EU or not after the UK officially leaves the EU. A deal can be made with the EU to retain everything as is now for the UK if the new PM makes the new re-enter referendum first order of the day. This will put an end to the everlasting go around of Brexit while retaining the integrity of the British Democracy intact.

Good luck with that one.

What would be the objections in having another referendum soon after leaving the EU?

If you lose that referendum too and chances are the insufferable remainers will lose it, then that's it for the EU!

You would be better off having a referendum in 10 or 20 years time.

The objection would be that people would become very cynical. it's like having another election because you don't like the result of the first one.

When we had the Republic referendum we accepted the result. the next time we get a crack at it will be in a generation or 2. But the way things are going, maybe in 50 years when William dies.

Not at all. This would be the perfect time to have a re-entering the EU referendum as soon as the UK is officially out in one form or the other, then if the vote not to join again, then no one can say they they did not know all the facts after everything that has happened in the last 3 years. It is perfectly legal to hold another referendum to enter the EU or not after we officially leave. It may be the ONLY way to unite the country no matter which way the results may go and no one can say they did not know what they were voting for. This is providing that the EU would promise to take the UK back in with the same conditions are we are now. If we wait 10-20 years to ask to re-enter the EU, then the UK would need to lower it’s shorts and bend over for good boinking to be allowed to re enter the EU. Under those conditions, many would choose not to re enter the EU, especially if by then, Scotland and N.Ireland and perhaps Wales are already independent from the UK and are already EU members. No, it has to be done as soon as BJ is kicked out and comes in the new PM. Democracy is not a one time deal on specific referendum. There can as many opportunities as the people want to vote again and again as long as each vote has been successfully implemented.

[cyprusgrump]

Not at all. This would be the perfect time to have a re-entering the EU referendum as soon as the UK is officially out in one form or the other, then if the vote not to join again, then no one can say they they did not know all the facts after everything that has happened in the last 3 years. It is perfectly legal to hold another referendum to enter the EU or not after we officially leave. It may be the ONLY way to unite the country no matter which way the results may go and no one can say they did not know what they were voting for.

What would be the point of having another vote before we have even discovered what being 'out' is like...?

All the Leavers will say 'they did not know the facts' because we wouldn't have experienced being out...

Given that we've been 'in' for 40 years, being out for a few (I'd say 5 minimum) to see what it is like doesn't seem unreasonable...?

[Kikapu]

Not at all. This would be the perfect time to have a re-entering the EU referendum as soon as the UK is officially out in one form or the other, then if the vote not to join again, then no one can say they they did not know all the facts after everything that has happened in the last 3 years. It is perfectly legal to hold another referendum to enter the EU or not after we officially leave. It may be the ONLY way to unite the country no matter which way the results may go and no one can say they did not know what they were voting for.

What would be the point of having another vote before we have even discovered what being 'out' is like...?

All the Leavers will say 'they did not know the facts' because we wouldn't have experienced being out...

Given that we've been 'in' for 40 years, being out for a few (I'd say 5 minimum) to see what it is like doesn't seem unreasonable...?

What does it matter if leaving hasn’t been experienced long enough as long as the majority wants to re enter the EU? Leaving with Brexit had no time limit when it can be voted again in a referendum to re enter. A second confirmation by the leavers in the re enter (not) EU referendum would not only unite the country, but would Olson confirm once and for all the leavers were right the first time round after everything has been discussed to death the last 3 years.

[cyprusgrump]

Not at all. This would be the perfect time to have a re-entering the EU referendum as soon as the UK is officially out in one form or the other, then if the vote not to join again, then no one can say they they did not know all the facts after everything that has happened in the last 3 years. It is perfectly legal to hold another referendum to enter the EU or not after we officially leave. It may be the ONLY way to unite the country no matter which way the results may go and no one can say they did not know what they were voting for.

What would be the point of having another vote before we have even discovered what being 'out' is like...?

All the Leavers will say 'they did not know the facts' because we wouldn't have experienced being out...

Given that we've been 'in' for 40 years, being out for a few (I'd say 5 minimum) to see what it is like doesn't seem unreasonable...?

What does it matter if leaving hasn’t been experienced long enough as long as the majority wants to re enter the EU? Leaving with Brexit had no time limit when it can be voted again in a referendum to re enter. A second confirmation by the leavers in the re enter (not) EU referendum would not only unite the country, but would Olson confirm once and for all the leavers were right the first time round after everything has been discussed to death the last 3 years.

Discussed but not implemented...

You are trying to set a dangerous precedent.

Are you suggesting that after every GE we should have another the day after...?

I mean, that is your logic right...?

We had an election, fair and square and Labour/Lib Dems/Tories won...

And the day after we should have another to see if we really agreed that Labour/Lib Dems/Tories was the result we wanted...?

How many times do you go round that loop before we agree that Labour/Lib Dems/Tories actually won and that is what the country wants...?

Who decides...?

[erolz66]

The vote has been cast and the overall majority decision was to leave. What those who voted remain thought and still think, is history. The task now is to get everyone behind that decision and make it work, not going over the same old routine of the losers in the referendum blaming the majority and trying to go back over the same ground time after time to get a different result.

What they think about if we should leave or stay is history. But surely they have a right to an opinion on how we leave ? That this is not wiped out just because they voted leave ? MP's did vote on May's deal. Do you think that should not have been voted on ? That TM should have struck the best deal she could and sign it and we all then just get behind it ? If you think it should be voted on, then should it not be voted on by MP's that are (or should be) reflecting the views of their constituents ? Do those who voted leave have no right to a say in such decisions just because they voted leave ?

The objectives were never anything other than to divest the UK of the controlling influence of the EU Mandarins.

Do you accept that there is a whole range of trade deals that can be done between parties ? That some remove more barriers to trade than others ? That there is a general correlation between things like how many barriers a given form of deal removes and on how many things and things like how much 'regulatory alignment' there needs to be in a given form of deal ? Do you not think there is anything unrealistic in the idea that we can free ourselves from the 'influence of EU Mandarins' and yet still maintain a form of trade deal that is dependent on such 'regulatory alignment' ? That we have in no way sought to try and 'have our cake and eat it' or that attempts to do so doing so plays any part in defining where we end up ?

Like a civil divorce ...... you can make the decision to part (A sort of matrimonial Article 50) plan the divorce that you discuss between you, agree and remain friends? Or you get one party that wants everything including the kitchen sink, digs their heels in and refuses to compromise and that is when things get nasty. Then the final straw is when Lawyers get involved and it gets even nastier! That is just what is happening now.

You are getting divorced. You claim you want to do so amicably and remain friends. Yet you believe that you can do so without any negative impact or material impact on you as a result of getting divorced, like you expect to live in the same house , to have the same access to children and countless other things. So you negotiate on this basis. That leads to a break down of such negotiations so the lawyers are called .

Let the Irish decide ..... a snap referendum ...... they remain part of the UK or become part of Eire and remain in the EU.

Such a referendum only solves issues of trade between the EU and the UK in the answer is to reunify Ireland. If the vote of the NI people is to remain a part of the UK. I do not think these issue are just being made up by the EU myself. They have set up a trading block that removes the maximum amount of 'trade barriers' between those members as possible on the maximum amount of things. The integrity of this trading block is essential to is ability to exist. That is it requires making sure that goods from outside this block can not just come in to the block without any restriction. Being worried about that integrity to me is not unreasonable at all. The idea that the EU should just not worry about such integrity at all because that makes it easier for the UK to leave the EU is to me exactly the kind of 'unrealistic' expectation we have had that has and is shaping where we will end up.

[erolz66]

Given that we've been 'in' for 40 years, being out for a few (I'd say 5 minimum) to see what it is like doesn't seem unreasonable...?

If a deal could be struck with the EU that said we will maintain the right to rejoin on the same terms as what we left with for say the next 20 years, I would be happy with that and leaving on any terms and not having another vote for 10 years or even 20 years. You may think that there exists no people at at all that do not just want us to leave but explicitly want us to leave in a way such that even if in 10 years or 40 years time , 95 % of the people want to rejoin, there is no practical way to do so. I believe such people do exist.