Being upbeat about Brexit.

[jeremyp]

So having a free trade deal is in everyone's interests, I agree. Most likely outcome is out of common market, free trade deal, free movement of labour, and more free trade deals for UK with rest of world.

In the absence staying in the EU single market, I hope that is the case, but, unfortunately, many Brexiteers draw the line at free movement of labour, so there might be a political issue with that version of Brexit.

[jakswan]

In the absence staying in the EU single market, I hope that is the case, but, unfortunately, many Brexiteers draw the line at free movement of labour, so there might be a political issue with that version of Brexit.

Some but not all, most remainers would be quite supportive though. Another referendum:-

Brexit Deal - free movement labour and tariff free access to EU market
Hard Brexit - tariffs etc

I would think that type of deal would be the one that easily wins.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some but not all, most remainers would be quite supportive though. Another referendum:-

Brexit Deal - free movement labour and tariff free access to EU market
Hard Brexit - tariffs etc

I would think that type of deal would be the one that easily wins.

No point in having a referendum on two brexit choice, because the government isn't able to deliver both as alternatives. There will be only one negotiated brexit deal. So the only sensible second referendum would be on the agreed brexit deal vs staying in the EU (provided the EU agrees that article 50 is revokable) as that is the only choice that is actually deliverable.

[jakswan]

No point in having a referendum on two brexit choice, because the government isn't able to deliver both as alternatives. There will be only one negotiated brexit deal. So the only sensible second referendum would be on the agreed brexit deal vs staying in the EU (provided the EU agrees that article 50 is revokable) as that is the only choice that is actually deliverable.

No it can deliver a hard brexit since it doesn't rely on other eu countries to agree. We have already voted on leaving, the only unanswered question is what terms we leave with.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it can deliver a hard brexit since it doesn't rely on other eu countries to agree. We have already voted on leaving, the only unanswered question is what terms we leave with.

Depends what you mean by hard brexit - most people arguing for hard brexit want control of immigration, but still want a variety of protections, e.g. on british nationals living in other EU countries, plus preferential trade agreements, which of course aren't in the UK government's power to deliver unilaterally or even, in some cases, at all.

And there is the rather thorny issue of the land border between the UK and the remaining EU, which cannot remain an open border without bilateral agreement. The UK can't simply wish it to be the case that there shouldn't be passport control between NI and the republic.

[jakswan]

Depends what you mean by hard brexit - most people arguing for hard brexit want control of immigration, but still want a variety of protections, e.g. on british nationals living in other EU countries, plus preferential trade agreements, which of course aren't in the UK government's power to deliver unilaterally or even, in some cases, at all.

And there is the rather thorny issue of the land border between the UK and the remaining EU, which cannot remain an open border without bilateral agreement. The UK can't simply wish it to be the case that there shouldn't be passport control between NI and the republic.

That is what they want but it won't be on that ballot paper.

[jeremyp]

Some but not all, most remainers would be quite supportive though. Another referendum:-

Brexit Deal - free movement labour and tariff free access to EU market
Hard Brexit - tariffs etc

I would think that type of deal would be the one that easily wins.

Of those two choices I would certainly go for the top one, but I would add a third choice:

Stay in the EU

and the voters would rank them in order of preferences so we could choose on the basis of STV.

Anyway, the political problem I mentioned was more to do with the negotiation phase than any hypothetical referendum. I get the impression that a lot of the Brexiteers regard immigration controls as non negotiable. Conceding that could be career ending for the people that did it.

[jeremyp]

No point in having a referendum on two brexit choice, because the government isn't able to deliver both as alternatives. There will be only one negotiated brexit deal. So the only sensible second referendum would be on the agreed brexit deal vs staying in the EU (provided the EU agrees that article 50 is revokable) as that is the only choice that is actually deliverable.

Hard Brexit according to WTO rules will always be an option, in fact, if we trigger article 50, it is the default option. Two years from triggering, if we do nothing, WTO rules will be what we get.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hard Brexit according to WTO rules will always be an option, in fact, if we trigger article 50, it is the default option. Two years from triggering, if we do nothing, WTO rules will be what we get.

Brexit isn't just about trade rules. So I understand that the default for brexit on trade is WTO if nothing else is agreed.

But what about all kinds of other things - just as an example what it the default for a person living or working in France who is there under the freedom of movement rules of the EU. Is the default that they are allowed to continue to be there and work, or that they aren't, as the rules under which they are there no longer exist, so instantly becomes an illegal migrant 2 years after triggering of article 50. I don't think it is at all clear and there isn't an obvious 'default' position - therefore there has to be a negotiated settlement agreed on both sides. The outcome isn't under the control of the british government.

There are no doubt hundreds of other such issues.

[jeremyp]

But what about all kinds of other things - just as an example what it the default for a person living or working in France who is there under the freedom of movement rules of the EU.

If no new agreement is in place, it'll be French immigration rules.

Is the default that they are allowed to continue to be there and work, or that they aren't, as the rules under which they are there no longer exist, so instantly becomes an illegal migrant 2 years after triggering of article 50.

That's probably about the size of it.

I don't think it is at all clear and there isn't an obvious 'default' position

I think I disagree. The default position will be the default rules that each country in the EU has for other countries not in the EU.

- therefore there has to be a negotiated settlement agreed on both sides.

I admire your optimism

[jakswan]

Of those two choices I would certainly go for the top one, but I would add a third choice:

Stay in the EU

and the voters would rank them in order of preferences so we could choose on the basis of STV.

We have already voted to leave, why have a complicated vote for three options when one of those options has already been decided.

Anyway, the political problem I mentioned was more to do with the negotiation phase than any hypothetical referendum. I get the impression that a lot of the Brexiteers regard immigration controls as non negotiable. Conceding that could be career ending for the people that did it.

Which politicians have said freedom of movement of labour is off the table?

[jeremyp]

We have already voted to leave

Because you voted to leave without any clear understanding of what the options were.

What are you afraid of? That enough people might change their minds to overturn the second referendum? If they do, that's democracy.

, why have a complicated vote for three options when one of those options has already been decided.

We are asking people to make a decision on the political and economic future of the UK. If they're too stupid to understand how to rank three options in the order they would prefer, Dog help us.

Which politicians have said freedom of movement of labour is off the table?

With 10 seconds of Googling I found Theresa May.

[jakswan]

Because you voted to leave without any clear understanding of what the options were.

No we voted to leave knowing that there were various options, so next we can vote on those options.

What are you afraid of? That enough people might change their minds to overturn the second referendum? If they do, that's democracy.

No having a three way vote complicates it, I don't think you have thought it through.

We are asking people to make a decision on the political and economic future of the UK. If they're too stupid to understand how to rank three options in the order they would prefer, Dog help us.

I'm sure people are not so stupid as to be unable to rank three options. Clearly some of us are too short sighted to see why this might have issues.

1st issue - if you opt for the first option only you most likely won't get a majority (assume you have thought of this, hence the rank)
2nd issue - how do you decide the winner, that is easily understood

With 10 seconds of Googling I found Theresa May.

Try again; Where does she say freedom of movement of labour is off the table?

I have heard her say categorically that we are leaving and, as far as I'm aware none of the mainstream political parties are campaigning for another in/out vote only on the terms. I think that ship has sailed.

[jeremyp]

No having a three way vote complicates it, I don't think you have thought it through.

I have thought it through. Read my post. Everybody ranks the options in their preferred order. After the first round of counting, the least popular option is eliminated and its votes transferred to the second choices.

I'm sure people are not so stupid as to be unable to rank three options.

And yet, just above you say it is too complicated.

1st issue - if you opt for the first option only you most likely won't get a majority (assume you have thought of this, hence the rank)
2nd issue - how do you decide the winner, that is easily understood

As I said in the original post: single transferable vote.

Try again; Where does she say freedom of movement of labour is off the table?

FTA

But let me be clear, we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again

[jakswan]

I have thought it through. Read my post. Everybody ranks the options in their preferred order. After the first round of counting, the least popular option is eliminated and its votes transferred to the second choices.

That is guaranteed to give No Brexit a win, assuming everyone votes the same way. So all Brexiters vote for either Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit as their first option whereas all remainers vote for No Brexit. Assuming everyone would have Soft Brexit as the 2nd option.

This system works for proportional representation but on an issue like Brexit its not suitable for purpose.

And yet, just above you say it is too complicated.

I said it complicates the issue not that it was too complicated. You would have three campaigns, each campaign would be advocating a different voting strategy. In / Out is in the past, its done. If I were you I'd get in touch with the LibDems to advocate for your system first because currently, as far as I'm aware, they are advocating for a vote on the deal.

If no political party is going to buy into your system its a pipe-dream.

But let me be clear, we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again

Again that does not rule out freedom of movement of Labour.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is guaranteed to give No Brexit a win, assuming everyone votes the same way. So all Brexiters vote for either Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit as their first option whereas all remainers vote for No Brexit. Assuming everyone would have Soft Brexit as the 2nd option.

And you have ably indicated why last June's vote isn't necessarily consistent with their being a majority in favour of any specific flavour of brexit. And therefore the June vote cannot be argued as providing a mandate for any specific actual future brexit agreement.

[jakswan]

And you have ably indicated why last June's vote isn't necessarily consistent with their being a majority in favour of any specific flavour of brexit. And therefore the June vote cannot be argued as providing a mandate for any specific actual future brexit agreement.

Yes that is the argument for having another vote on the deal. It will up to Parliament first, if the Govt secures a soft Brexit deal and public opinion is comfortable with it I think it will get through without needing another referendum.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes that is the argument for having another vote on the deal. It will up to Parliament first, if the Govt secures a soft Brexit deal and public opinion is comfortable with it I think it will get through without needing another referendum.

Possibly, although I think it unlikely that the public will be clear in their support.

There was a poll last week indicating that by 41% to 35% the overall public supported soft rather than hard brexit (no brexit wasn't a choice), but that leave voters from last June supported hard brexit by 60% to 15%. There is your problem if the government goes for soft brexit - by a 4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost' if they end up with soft brexit, the preference by 70% to 12% of those that voted remain (and therefore lost in June).

[jakswan]

Possibly, although I think it unlikely that the public will be clear in their support.

There was a poll last week indicating that by 41% to 31% the overall public supported soft rather than hard brexit (no brexit wasn't a choice), but that leave voters from last June supported hard brexit by 60% to 15%. There is your problem if the government goes for soft brexit - by a 4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost' if they end up with soft brexit, the preference by 70% to 12% of those that voted remain (and therefore lost in June).

Not sure what it is my problem, if a group wants a hard brexit then they can campaign for it. Got a link to the poll I'm not making sense of those numbers.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure what it is my problem, if a group wants a hard brexit then they can campaign for it. Got a link to the poll I'm not making sense of those numbers.

struggling why the numbers don't make sense?

[jakswan]

struggling why the numbers don't make sense?

52% are Brexit (from the vote), 60% of them support hard brexit, that is just over half, but then Davey says

"4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost'"

Maybe its me being thick but I'd be interested to see the poll anyway.

[Nearly Sane]

52% are Brexit (from the vote), 60% of them support hard brexit, that is just over half, but then Davey says

"4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost'"

Maybe its me being thick but I'd be interested to see the poll anyway.

Still don't see the problem here, and not sure why you select part of the post which then denudes it of context.

Vote was  52/48, but of the 52% 60% want hard, 15% want soft. Of the the 48, 70% want soft, 12% want hard - so those wanting stay are in a far greater proportion in favour of soft comparatively. Assuming some non voters spill more to Soft what do you not understand about a 41% soft, 31% hard split?

[ProfessorDavey]

52% are Brexit (from the vote), 60% of them support hard brexit, that is just over half, but then Davey says

"4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost'"

Maybe its me being thick but I'd be interested to see the poll anyway.

(52% x 0.6) + (48% x 0.12) = hard brexit %

(52% x 0.15) + (48% x 0.7) = soft brexit %

I pretty well (but not quite) aligns with 41% for soft brexit in total and 35% for hard brexit.

Oops - realised my error up thread - should be 35% for hard, not 31% as I implied due to typo - apologies. Now corrected in the original post.

[Sassy]

I cannot see anything changing about the Brexit,. it was voted for by the people for the people and democratically we have to come out of the EU.
It isn't like the general elections. We don't get to change our minds the people have spoken and the moaning will not change.


Not relating the moaning to this discussion.
But the fact is any recession in Britain will not be due to the brexit.
Try the cuts in benefits to disabled people and the fact they have put our own on the streets since they allowed all the immigrants and asylum seekers to take their homes.
Even our own service men were put on the streets because the Government kindly gave their homes to asylum seekers and immigrants.

As a Nation and as a Country we would have ceased to exist. Eventually our monarchy and our Government would not longer be as it was before the EU.

There is absolutely NO good reason for us being in the EU. Our Government thought they would be a ruling body. But the truth is if you read Hitlers Book and what he sought to do, then what is happening with the EU is just another way of acheiving it.

You look at the tower bable there is a lesson for all, whether you realise it or not.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Can you imagine a world where you as an individual no longer count or even your views as on this thread? Where those who lead make your everyday decisions.  As unacceptable as that may be to actually visualise, a vote for the EU is a vote to lose your right to choose.
Where a body of men decide the fate of every country and every man powerless to do anything about it.

There was no good reason to remain in the EU and those who do face a dangerous and even uncertain future.


None of you have thought this through. It is clear from our exiting that no one who formed the EU thought anyone would exit. Even more clear there was not an exit package prepared.
Like a prison cell without a key to open it.
In Germany the book Mein Kampf  written by Hitler sold a lot of copies as the copyright ran
out
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222708

Our Country would have been swallowed up, our history and our identity. No longer our country but given to a union which personally seeks only for the power it will wield as leaders.


You should be thankful for the Brexit, this way what you think and say matters as a British Citizen. Once in the EU you will be governed by the leaders of the EU.

[Anchorman]

Weel, there's one thing to be said for the last post. The chap who ordered the biased translation was a Scot - even if he rejected tchurch in which he was raised.