Should there be a second referendum?

I do not believe it is wrong to ask the electorate if they have changed their mind, want May’s deal or a cliff edge exit.

The nature of human belief is that it’s transient. If you are open to new ideas, see another’s opposite opinion has some validity and then go on to explore the subject a little more you may move. Curiosity is a wonderful thing. The fact is we do lose faith and our ideas and opinions change over time.

In 2.5 years that process may have happened to a couple of million people. Maybe not. However with such a serious subject as the future direction of the nation, perhaps it is wise to try and find that out.

I don’t see my posting here and elsewhere is a “childish dance”. I am simply trying to take part in a serious debate, me and millions of others. I am also interested in other views and opinions that’s why I take part. I’m a seeker of new ideas.

I happen to believe in the European project. I would believe in it even if I born, lived, worked and retired anywhere. Belief in a political project that is a force for good in the world does not depend on residency, nationality or ethnicity. It’s a dream open to all.  

According to the news, it looks as though the UK Govt are finally stepping up planning detail for  a “no deal” scenario given the EUs intransigent position to date.  Not before time given the ongoing negotiations and the EUs apparent continuing resistance to accommodate major concerns relating to continuing peace in Ireland and the legal position going forward.

Such is the lack of trust in the EU Commission’s so called “assurances” to date. To fail to forward plan effectively for a no deal scenario does great harm to the UKs negotiating position, let alone the strategy to minimise disruption, and there are those who would argue that this has always been an essential UK prerequisite in the interim period, given the EU Commissioners hardline stance and historical “ last minute” strategy from the outset. 

The UK people entitled to vote democratically nominated a no deal exit from the EU. Like it or lump it. ** EDITED - inciting **

This message was last edited by Kavanagh on 18/12/2018.

Ads

It could actually be an astute ploy by May to leave the vote until Jan giving the EU little time to react, so yes plausible plans for No Deal are of course sensible as currently that IS the default position as triggered by Article 50.

I believe they have been planning for some time but not shouting about it.

A NO Deal is by no means a cliff edge exit as demonstrated by many economic forecasts but yes short term would be difficult.

UNLESS of course someone can a propose an alternate plan that would receive majority support.

All very well objectors not liking a deal but surely they have to put forward a credible alternative.

A confusing second and possible third referendum dont appear credible, the public want the so called expert civil servants to carry out the will of the people.

Those calling for a peoples vote dont seem to be able to comprehend any difference between a 3 way split and a 2 way split other than creating even more unrest.

For those thinking there is nothing left to live for in the UK, just step back and look at France and wait until Spain has a general election.

The so called EU project has created mass unemployment in many countries, the Euro has strangled a number of Southern European states, ti the great benefit of Germany who appear to have invaded and taken over Europe without firing a shot.

Even their electorate are tiring of the EU dream.

 happen to believe in the European project. I would believe in it even if I born, lived, worked and retired anywhere. Belief in a political project that is a force for good in the world does not depend on residency, nationality or ethnicity. It’s a dream open to all........

Exactly, its a Dream.

A little like Marx's idea of Communism, perfect in theory but a disaster in practice.

Live, work, travel and trade with each other in Europe but too many cultures and differences to make a USE practical.

Could be that the EU might have a re-think on our position and their terms to us if we did indeed go to a no deal, maybe the boot might be on the other foot once they sat down and gave it some deep thought as to what they might lose on a UK no deal, strikes me at the moment the EU thinks it holds the upper hand...Maybe, maybe not, who knows.

To compare the European project with Marxism is simply wrong. Put simply, Marxism is a ridged political ideology belonging to the nineteenth century.

The EU project a collection of democratic sovereign nation states, with similar values and histories. Coming together, agreeing treaties, sharing that sovereignty for mutual economic and social benefit under a set of legally defined rules. The EU is and never could be a political ideology. There are political aspirations, ideas for European progress and integration.

The principal purpose of which is to avoid conflict, rivalries, death, destruction and war between European nations that dogged the first half of the twentieth century. The secondary pupose is to provide security and prosperity for it's citizens and free cultural and social exchange between it's peoples. I accept there are difficulties and headwinds to overcome. However any political organisation across the world faces them in the modern world. The truth is smaller nations are stronger collectively.

Contrary to what you may believe the EU project is the most successful trade block on the planet. Hence the queue of nations desperate to join it. Leaving it without any mutually acceptable terms is the height of folly and irresponsibility.

" I accept there are difficulties and headwinds to overcome. "

That is sadly a major understatement and appears in denial of uncomfortable truths as to the scale of discontent that is exacerbated by the EU's failure to listen and pay adequate heed to citizens growing concerns.

When any one country appears to benefit to the exclusion of many is why stability mechanisms were incorporated in the first place to act as balance.... so the question remains which countries have been responsible for the undermining of such stability mechanisms intended to protect. Sadly yet again another uncomfortablle reality to confront..

These are highly snesitive issues that for all too many remain hidden from view but nevertheless are compromising cohesion and exacerbate trust in the status quo. The fact that the Commission have been loathe to reform sadly only adds to the distrust and disillusionment..

7 countries that could join the EU after Brexit

• Albania. As one of five European countries on the official list of candidates, Albania is one country that could join the EU in the near future. ... 
• Macedonia. ... 
• Montenegro. ... 
• Serbia. ... 
• Turkey. ... 
• Bosnia and Herzegovina. ... 
• Kosovo.
• Contrary to what you may believe the EU project is the most successful trade block on the planet. Hence the queue of nations desperate to join it. Leaving it without any mutually acceptable terms is the height of folly and irresponsibility.

These are some that want to / could join the EU, you can make your own mind up as to why they want in

That list is interesting. To be able to join the EU these countries have to prove they have a fully functioning democratic system and a rule of law separate from the political process. No bad thing if that takes place. These countries seek membership because it benefits their nation enormously. 

Another reason I suggest why the EU is a force for good in the world.

Excluding the Russian Federation in geographical terms of European countries only Ukraine and Iceland are missing from the list.

There is without doubt a realisation that Britain will become isolated politically and economically in the future. Particularly if there is a no deal exit. The massive disruption and sheer costs awaiting the country is only just starting to dawn on everyone. Good luck with it. As May keeps saying "it's the will of the people"..

Iceland applied to join the European Union on 16 July 2009 and formal negotiations began on 27 July 2010. However, on 13 September 2013 the Government of Iceland dissolved its accession team and suspended its application to join the EU.

Ukraine and *** Iceland *** are missing from the list.

The list is interesting in the fact that it proves the EU is nothing, out of the 7 countries who 'Might' want to join do you really want to be in a club that has 5 of the biggest bunches of crooks left in the world that have no intentions of coming up to scratch, take Serbia for one, Putins close friend and we all know what he wants and how he goes about it to get his way. Nice to think he wouldn't but history proves otherwise, why would anyone want this person close.

Not for me thank you, glad I voted out and would still do if we had another vote.

The EU has to change a lot but it wont and thats down to the gravy train it has made for it's self and it believes everything is okay within

You mention the rule of law Mickeyfinn but unfortunately one of the criticisms of the EU in reality is that the Commission have turned their backs on ensuring compliance with the rule of law which calls for member states to provide adequate funding and resources to ensure timely and effective justice and judicial independence free from political interference ( or other institutions interference such as financial institutions for that matter),, both of which have not been addressed but merely given lip service to..... COMPLIANCE is all when it comes to the rule of law.

REALITIES  speak louder than rhetoric I’m afraid and as usual it is the innocent citizen that suffers at the hands of failures to enforce  infringement processes intended to protect in this regard. All rhetoric and little action when it comes to actually ensuring compliance.

And this has applied to existing member states let alone new states that have yet to prove their ability to comply. You only have to look to Greece to see how blind eyes were turned to all the factors SUPPOSED to be in place prior to acceptance into the union and witness what transpired thereafter to comprehend the realities associated with major failures and the impact on citizens. And now Italy is suffering at the hands of EU decision making.....

This is probably what is meant by the threat from ideological thinking....” theories” far removed from reality, a form of hypocrisy with major failures to perceive and adequately respond with WILLINGNESS  to reform when confronted with uncomfortable  realities that so negatively affect citizens best interests.

This message was last edited by ads on 19/12/2018.

The only rule of law that applies worldwide is ‘’WEALTH, POWER, SEX’’ the rest is game for a laugh and only applied when it suits those in control.

The have’s have always brainwashed the non have’s with lies, deceit, spin and even religion. Generally the non have’s response is an argument in the pub and a 50% turnout at the election.

It’s all a matter of priorities: Harry Redknapp, Strictly, Next MU manager.

Yes ads I agree. The EU has not always been rigorous with budgetary compliance and treaty obligations. Reforms are necessary and recent developments in Italy has seen improved controls.

However I believe it has been compliant on its fundamental core principles as the UK has recently discovered. Separation of judicial oversight from the political process being just one factor in the current dispute with Poland. Hungary is another case where Orban is being sanctioned for stepping out of line from core values.

Iceland is a member of the EEA and Schengen but believes its best interests are served outside full membership. Britain would also benefit from such an arrangement but sadly lacks the political support for it.

No matter what your feelings and opinions of the EU the plain fact is you cannot ignore it. The continent sits 22 miles off shore. Even after Brexit the EU will continue to play an enormous role in Britain’s economic and cultural life. EU immigration will continue despite controls because it’s in the nature of humans to seek improved circumstances to their lives.

Freedom of movement is an integral part of the equation as things currently stand with regards to access to the single market and therefore it will be interesting to see how this is addressed by the EU bureaucrats during the final negotiations. We need to cascade memos about our four-dimensional logistical time-phases.Whether they reform it with some balancing mechanism (differentials) to make it more "palatable" to those member states that recognise the less homogeneous realities between the member states than when it was first conceived (as reported by The Economist) and how it results in the "irregular" patterns of movement that have led to discontent across Europe (not to mention the impact on economies through a brain drain) will be interesting to witness. As previously identified the Treaty with Canada recognised this reality, so rather than yet another "sticking plaster" to heal the wound, why not treat it at source? Those who keep making reference or implication to this being linked to some form of racism or unfair intolerance are failing to comprehend the homogeneous nature of the changing face of the EU which has expanded at a rapid pace, without taking effective measures to counter the inevitable impacts (both social and economic) that have sadly arisen as a consequence of intransigence to change rigid and inflexible rules. We need a more blue-sky approach to functional administrative matrix approaches. "No EU member other than Britain has said it wants to stop the free movement of people, but the principle has been eroded in several respects, starting with limits on welfare-benefit entitlements. Germany, the Netherlands and others have won several cases in the European Court of Justice, establishing that people from poorer east European countries are not entitled to claim immediate welfare benefits in richer EU members which often exceed median wages at home. The EU’s “posted workers” directive prevents central and east Europeans from undercutting domestic wages and working conditions in richer countries. We now offer diplomas in ambient digital mobility.But it allows them to pay welfare contributions in their home countries, which has been controversial in France, in particular. Some countries are trying to make it harder for would-be workers to come in without a job offer. Countries outside the EU but in the European Economic Area (EEA) can also in theory limit free movement, even though in principle they are bound to offer it. Liechtenstein, which is part of the EEA, sets quotas on the number of outsiders it allows to live and work there. Switzerland, which voted to restrict immigration from the EU in a referendum three years ago, has had to climb down, but it is at least being allowed to advertise jobs to Swiss people first. The idea of free movement of labour was conceived at a time when living standards within the EU were more homogeneous than they are today. At the time nobody could have predicted the amount of movement triggered by the lifting of controls on east European countries. The sending countries do not necessarily welcome the outflow, either: although anxious to protect the interests of their nationals abroad, they realise that a brain drain of highly qualified workers may not be in their best interests. In the proposal for continental partnerships by the Bruegel think-tank mentioned in the introduction to this report, the free movement of labour is not seen as a necessary part of a single market. The report also points out that, whereas the single market has lifted almost all restrictions on the movement of goods and capital, it is far from complete for services. The provision of services and mobility of labour, some economists note, tend to go together. And free movement is more essential for the euro zone than for the wider EU since it can be a partial substitute for the loss of currency flexibility. Brexit may mean that no country in the EU or the EEA will challenge the free movement of people in Europe in the near future. Besides, the numbers coming in from outside and moving around inside may drop for a while. But all politicians want to be able to respond to public opinion, so the principle may start to fray at the edges. It could even become yet another example of the variable geometry that Brussels purists hate so much.

Following through the Bruegel  think-tank link previously quoted.....

Looks as though the UK treasury forecasts are not the only forecasts that have made errors ( see below) which begs the question once again if the alternative economic forecasts and modelling used by the Brexit economists are indeed more reliable ( as previous results demonstrated).

http://bruegel.org/2018/12/forecast-errors-and-monetary-policy-normalisation-in-the-euro-area/

“The ECB has made huge and systematic forecasting errors in the past five years, indicating that some of the behavioural relationships in ECB forecasting models are mis-specified. The ECB is not the only institution to suffer from incorrect forecasts and there should be broader debate on forecasting practices. However, the ECB’s forecast errors and its inability to lift core inflation above 1 percent have major implications;”

Quite concerning when you consider that these “ wrong” analyses and modelling mechanisms have been used to influence forward planning strategies!

The UK MPs that are in favour of Remaining in the EU...are now finally admitting that the UK needs to stop freedom of movement from the EU...under present membership rule's according to the EU Parliament curbing freedom of movement is not a option ...the outcome of the IN / OUT Referendum was basically fought and won by the vote leave side with the main demand being to stop the influx of poor economic migrant's from within the EU coming to the UK...if we did have another Referendum how would the Vote IN side stop this so called freedom of movement ...especially with the likes of the Turkish population of 80 million people that would have the right to come to the UK...with no questions asked...apparently they have applied along with several other very poor countries and are  in discussion to become part of the EU....surely the IN side can see that we have got to have some sort of control on mass migration .

Not everyone wants to emigrate to live in a country not their own. The statistics on EU migration show the vast majority of people only move to work to improve their lives despite what you read in the tabloid press

Britain along with every other industrialised country needs migration to sustain its economy. The principle reason the indigenous nationals of a country don't take migrant low skill jobs is social welfare.

Turkey is unlikely ever to become a member of the EU. The reasons are complex but Germany and France are against it.

Post Brexit the British economy will falter drastically as EU migrants leave due to insecurity and the low value of Sterling. Solutions will be needed to replace these workers such as social welfare reductions. The principal cause of the Tory right.

Not so Mickeyfinn.

It’s basic logic that the UK needs to retain the CHOICE and CONTROL to decide and plan, depending on their own circumstance and requirement for workers. To be dictated to without any control is a nonsense and was bound to cause problems.

It’s common sense that where workers are required that of course they will be provided with reassurances but to continue with an open door policy without proper controls in place and repeat the circumstance that has ALREADY caused major implications on existing resources, infrastructure and pay levels etc would be considered a complete dereliction of duty.

Sorry Mickyfinn and don't take this an insult to you but you really do need to wake up a little when you say......

Not everyone wants to emigrate to live in a country not their own...Now I have never ever been against anyone from genuine EU countries coming to England, actually I have never been against anyone trying to better themselves, and before I say anymore remember one thing Mickyfinn, only people mess up a country, and with my Military background I have seen first hand what many have done to the country they were born in and supposedly loved.

Ask yourself how many French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Italians, Portuguese, catch my drift...That you really know who are living in England, now ask the same question of how many other people you know that you cannot work out the language, the first lot are probably in the tens, the second lot are in the thousands.

We do need skilled people and this fault lies within our own system so if a German knows his stuff come here, if a killer from some cess pit wants to come here we still take them.

I had a dealing with four people some months back, I roughly knew by their language where they came from, I asked them, they said we are 'DUTCH' this week another four came in telling me they were Italians.

The UK is at breaking point with people who should not be here, are only here for one thing, to bash our system and they do. 

You say....Turkey is unlikely ever to become a member of the EU.....So you don't have an influx of Turkish barbers and kebab shops in your area then? 

Ipswich in Suffolk is over run by Somalians, are they EU people? Think Turkey wont get in, then take a deep breath.

You Sir might believe that people only believe what they read in the press, me on the other hand can see whats happening to the UK because I am in the real world.