Fair points however if we go back to the country and they again vote to leave these remain MPs will never accept a leave position. So where do you go from there? If we are leaving the only way to leave is no deal - we cannot do an equitable deal with EU it is simply not in their best interest to do so.

One thing that has come to my mind - if the EU spends more money with the UK than we do with them would there not be a gain in tarrifs for the UK. Also some of the products coming from outside of the EU carry tarrifs surely these would disappear on an exit?

I think that is complete rubbish. They might not like it but they will accept it.

Why dont they accept the result of the first referendum.

Everything is starting to look like a no deal (or May's deal), she's certainly playing hard ball (probably hoping that our elected members go for the (slightly) lesser of 2 evils.

You have to smile at her "reaching out", which was a pure publicity stunt and just an excerscise in buying yet more time , instead of actually listening to anyone ?

I't starting to look like the right wing of the Tories are going to win the day and we'll probably have hanging and the birch back on the political agenda before too long.

You'd have to ask them individually but I'd say they feel the public voted in ignorance, they were misled & now better understand the impact of leaving.

1. General Election
2. Extend Article 50
3. The party who wins renegotiates with the EU and comes back with their best deal
4. Go to the people to vote on that deal (3), No Deal, or Remain
5. Eliminate whichever option gets the lowest vote
6. Go back to the people with the remaining 2 options
5. Implement whichever option gets a majority

Sorted.

Absolutely, Its just a pity that such a monumental decission of what form
Brexit should take wasn't done across the two main parties, instead of May just ploughing through her interpretation of what she thought the majority of the people voted for. You will always get dissenters on an issue such as this but I am sure cross party collaboration would have made things much easier.

Paul

How long do you want all this to take Bren and out of interest, do you think Labour would have any of the same issues ?

Corbyn, a lifelong Eurosceptic has no desire to stay in the EU and since he became Labour Leader, has, rather than pinning his colours to either mast (Leave or Remain), has hidden behind sound bites.


Your thoughs on a second referendum simply dont work and with the 3 options that you suggest, you are deliberately splitting the "leave" vote.

As I undersatand it, it takes around 3 months to arrange a General Election and closre to 7 months for a referendum and eve IF, we were to go down that route, we could land right back in the same position that we currently have, albeit another 12 months down the line.

Our elected members should follow the instructions given to them by the electorate instead of "pleaseing them selves" and playing party politics.

I think that you are assuming a Labour victory at a GE but, whichever party wins, the mess remains the same.

I think May saw her chance of a place in history & wanted to take all the credit for a Brexit, despite being against it when she thought Remain would win. Her 10 minute phone call to the Unions a couple of days before the vote sums up how much she thinks of others' views. It's probably why she went with Davis to head DExEU despite him being thick as 2 short planks; knowing he would never steal the glory.

Agreed mate, on an earlier post of yours a do agree that people voted to either leave or remain for all sorts of different reasons and it does wind me up when politician try to say what people voted for. With regards voting in ignorance to a certain extent that is true again for both sides of the debate, however, I voted to leave for many different reasons but mainly because of freedom of movement (Not immigration as a whole its sometimes portrayed) and that and my other reasons remain. One thing I was you could say ":was ignorant about" was the Irish border, but I feel that has been over complicated in my opinion.

Paul

They should, and I'm not a fan of another referendum - unless there was a clear and significant change in public opinion, and there's no evidence of that.

However, there was an inevitability about it going this way when the instruction was so lacking in detail. I honestly believe anything from Norway/BRINO to WTO/EUpocalypse could be fairly said to respect the outcome of the referendum. That lack of clarity helped Leave win but it also gave us this lack of clear direction. A hung parliament with the largest party also being the most deeply and bitterly divided on the issue didn't simplify things any.

What annoys me more than politicians failing to reach a consensus is when they try to pass off their interpretation of 'what people voted for' as definitive.

It will take as long it takes - and you've trotted this Labour line out many times, despite me providing for you, twice I think, Labour's plan, as agreed at Conference - which is actually quite straightforward and turns out to make a lot of sense.

The deadlock at the moment is caused by Mrs May's insistence on maintaining her ridiculous red lines - if they won another election and she maintains that position, let her put it to the people; I really don't see the big issue with it as a way of breaking the stalemate. We were asked a binary question 2 years ago, devoid of detail, if we wanted to leave the EU; a tiny majority said yes, a tiny minority said no - with large sections of both camps undoubtedly voting based on lies, misinformation and promises that simply could not be delivered.

Two years on, we know a lot more about the realities of leaving the EU - so present the options and let the people either ratify or reject the project; I'd even do it with a ban on campaigning - that shortens the timescale, and curtails the lying. It seems simple doesn't it?

Firstly a general election isn't going to happen, if it does happen do you really believe that the previously euro sceptic Corbyn to be priminister, hell no
Secondly might be the only way to go IF the EU agrees
Thirdly there is nothing that splits people, friends and family like a referendum and we had one 2 year ago, so is a no go for me, also your idea of a Referendum which would include remain which would totally disregard the last vote, it should be that deal or leave without a deal.
You suggest 1) General Election, 4) another referendum, 6) yet another referendum. I really can't believe you are suggesting going to the people another 3 times OMG.

Paul

Agree, however

The problem is there isn't a majority to leave so how can you have MPs negotiating a deal that they don't want to happen?

The whole idea of a referendum in the first place was fundamentally stupid; designed by Cameron to get the UKIP vote back into the Tory fold - but since that was the decision, it should have been done in a grown up way - and it just wasn't. Some countries have fine-tuned them to avoid the divisiveness, some have banned them altogether as an entirely unfit method to make political decisions - we did neither, and inflicted this whole binary argument on the UK, which feels like it has created wounds that will never heal.

But the genie is out of the bottle now, so the only way to proceed is to say here are the options, let the people speak - again - which is actually not in any way undemocratic; we do it with General and Local Elections all the bloody time.

Once it's done, fundamentally change our democracy - get rid of the stupid FPTP system, repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and ban referenda from ever being used again; or better still, get rid of the whole lot and install a benign dictatorship - I'd go for David Attenborough, although given his advancing years, maybe David Gedge out of The Wedding Present.