Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

Maybe John Redwood would make a good PM - he has been waiting long enough.

Remember The Sun headline back in 1995 - "Redwood or Deadwood" maybe they need to run it again.

Redwood? you really have lost it now CT.

Fascinating listening to some of the MPs 'doing their stuff' in the Commons earlier on Thursday afternoon.

Lots of MPs are refusing to vote it through on the 11th.

Fingers crossed the PM can come up with something to make them change their mind and that doesn't alienate the DUP

And Bercow, well, he is really putting the hours in as Mr Speaker for this mammoth debate.

and no sensible let alone feasible alternative put forward by those who oppose
if you are a conspiricist, you'ld say the russkies must be very pleased with themselves

sensible comment in today's FT ......

Britain must accept real trade-offs for any kind of Brexit

Brexit does not mean Brexit, it means trade-offs.
This is as true now as it was in 2016.
The most important of these:
The UK cannot have Brexit without harming its economy.
UK cannot have frictionless trade with the EU without obeying the club’s rules.
We cannot enjoy the skills and spending power EU migrants bring without the people.
We cannot have significant bespoke trade agreements while still a part of EU customs rules.
We cannot avoid a border in Ireland if we insist on leaving the systems designed to eliminate borders and also refuse one in the Irish Sea.

This is not an exhaustive list.

In short, Brexit does not make Britain special or turn the clock back to the 19th century.
The UK is not able to pick the rules it follows without consequences.
Yet, although trade-offs have been the lifeblood of the Brexit talks, they have hardly featured in the domestic debate, either in the referendum or since.

EL - You mention Bercow - he never even seems to get a toilet break - has he had catheter fitted to bottle below his gown. :-) Not good for his health otherwise.

The UK voted for Bexit - A Clean Break - Remainers have just failed the people - Remainers need to stop trying to say that the people really did not mean to have a clean break - regardless of the short term costs.

If the people cannot get what they want - another vote should sort that out.

Cyners,

You're starting to sound like you'll be voting to stay in the next referendum.

Hallelujah, you've seen the light. Doc sans Proc will be next to realise the error of his ways, followed by Dilbert....

:o)

Another vote will sort nothing imo.

Depending on which way vote#2 went, one side or the other would want vote#3


There's no end to it, stick with what we have, but get rid of May and the remainers and we might actually make some progress.

i shall have similar but not identical misgivings as i did the first time about voting "out" but i think i shall for all that - my wife assuredly will

assuming there is indeed a 2nd referendum, which i think is all wrong anyway, if the result is "about turn", then i shall be content to go along with it, just as i would have been initially

the rabids will no doubt continue to rave :-)

Another vote will give the Great British public the opportunity of making the correct choice, Max. Once they've got it right, there won't be a need for any more referenda.

Being sensible wasn't on the ballot sheet. Much of the argument given by the FT was in the Government crib sheet.
The question was "should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
So what is the EU? - a political and economic union of 28 states with four key institutions - EU Commission; EU Parliament; EU Council and ECJ.
Until we have left and are no longer answerable to those institutions then Brexit has not occurred. There is nothing to stop the UK leaving the EU and having a free trade agreement which comes into force the second after it leaves the EU. With the possible exception of Unite, I doubt most people are against free trade or reasonable freedom of movement. As it happens, most of the pressure on UK social resources is from outside the EU, which it seems particularly useless at curbing.

brain washing, have thrown back them that were out, gullible is the word,
call for referendum, you hear it all the time from those that want to stay in
keep your first one is OUT. sack the brussells, or boil them, costing you money.

Cynic.

Is your name Saul or Paul with weak knees?

-=-=-=-=-=-

Iturama,

I keep saying this and, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I'll say to once more...

Although people might be to ashamed to admit it, Brexit is nearly all about immigration!

If you've spent the last 20 years queuing 8 hours a day for a loaf of bread, and somebody says 'go to England - they'll give a free home, free healthcare, free schooling, and they'll give you money each week so you don't have to find work', then it's a no-brainer that you're going to get hoardes of eastern-Europeans and north Africans banging on the door to get in.

So, you change your domestic laws such that nobody gets the free goodie bag till they've lived in the country for 5 years. Indigenous Brits wouldn't be affected by that law change, and the EU wouldn't have any issue with it. And the funny thing is that you wouldn't need to leave the EU to change the law!

The remainers think another vote would be in their favour, having ground down the public, which was always their intention imo. They may get a huge shock and get a even bigger OUT vote, leaving little choice but exit without delay.

I am against another vote but rather than be left in limbo there is little other choice if the MP`s will not bow to the will of the 52% of the people.

The problem, Clocktower, is that your 52% has now waned to 39% according to the most recent polls.

A second referendum on the same question would be fundamentally so undemocratic that it will never occur.

Hilary, you are correct in the case of many, but not all. It was not a factor in my case. I just wanted rid of an expensive bloated bureaucratic tower of Babel that is becoming increasingly divisive and unwieldy.
It sounds easy to say that you are not getting benefits until you have been here five years but the fact is that for many years landed immigrants with children have been given accommodation priority over UK nationals that can stay with mum and dad. I would warrant that the majority of the people sleeping on the streets today are UK citizens.

Interesting to listen to some of the mantras of the exiters.
-===-===

“We want our sovereignty, independence and law-making abilities back!”

Maybe, fine for some, for those who never leave or have dealings outside the UK shores.

But if you deal with any “foreign” countries like the those in the EU etc, then you are subject to “International” laws if your dealings go wrong.

You are or could be dependent on arbitrations of “International courts” and one level or another in any “legal” dispute.

Similar exposure for “criminal acts”.

At least if being a member of the EU, one has the possibility of making or modifying the rules, laws and regulations.

Also, know the products of those countries of the EU we trade with, in general, apply common "quality" and "health" standards on goods passing across "borders".

The energy of those wanting their sovereignty back would better off modifying “present poor or outdated laws” etc, and improving the penal and judicial systems of our own and those countries we have dealings with.

I'm not sure that a second referendum would be on the same question, Iturama.

I suspect it would be a three-way choice of accepting Maggie's deal, leave with no-deal, or remain. Three-way referenda are unusual, but not unheard of. The problem comes when no side get an overall majority and whether you then factor in second choice votes (eg. AV). That alone could produce a different outcome, so I'm sure the government would want to take suitable advice to ensure that you all stay.

:o)