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....

Use to watch them being shod.

I wasn't envious.

Have no fear our leader is still hard at it https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46784643

The former Conservative chairman Lord Patten has criticised Theresa May’s handling of Brexit, and believes that a People’s Vote is the only way to stop Brexit self-harm.

The Conservative peer is urging MPs to reject Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement and block a no-deal Brexit saying it should be “put out of its misery as soon as possible”.

He is arguing that if MPs are then unable to agree a new plan for a future relationship with the EU it is only a People’s Vote that can break the impasse.

Lord Patten compared the prime minister to Dr Strangelove, the scientist in Stanley Kubrick’s Cold War satire about nuclear destruction.

He told Radio 4 Today: “There used to be the Doctor Strangelove argument that sometimes you could threaten people with doing crazy things in order to get them to back down. That’s really what’s being suggested at the moment.

“I don’t think Mrs May actually thinks that it makes any sort of sense whatsoever to go ahead without a deal.”

Patten, who has previously said he hates referendums, is also set to use a People’s Vote speech in London to say another vote may be required.

“The whole sorry shambles began with a decision to call a referendum in order to try to manage the English nationalist right wing of the Conservative Party.

“It may be that we can only end this divisive and impoverishing argument by holding another referendum.

“That may prove to be the only and the best way for Britain to avoid an act of self-harm that would betray the aspirations of so many not least the younger citizens of this country.”

Lord Patten does not agree with the prime minister that Britain will crash out of the EU if MPs do not back her deal.

“I don’t believe that the prime minister or many members of her Cabinet think that this would be remotely responsible. It would be very damaging.

“These are similar to the tactics made famous by Dr Strangelove: if you threaten that something crazy will happen, your opponents will back down.

Lord Patten adds that voting for Theresa May’s plan is not the end of negotiations.

“Nothing proposed is as good as what we have now,” he will say, and any plan would require unanimous approval from the 27 remaining EU countries.

“We are not just kicking the can full of our unspecified hopes down the road. We are trying to kick it uphill.”

A news presenter has asked why the current cohort of MPs don’t “club together” and admit that Brexit was a mistake and work to reversing the decision.

In an interview between Conservative MP Bim Afolami and Labour MP Jo Stevens, Sky News presenter Adam Boulton made the suggestion as the pair argued about the merits of accepting the “will of the people”.

Boulton said: “We know a majority of all MPs think that leaving the EU is a bad idea for the country. Wouldn’t actually the best thing be for you two to club together and actually say ‘look this is a mistake, we’ve looked into it, and now we as Parliament are going to reverse it’”.

During the 8-minute interview Jo Stevens, a Labour MP that voted against the triggering of Article 50, also left Tory MP Bim Afolami lost for words as she criticised Theresa May’s handling of Brexit and set out what happens next.

She said: “If she loses her deal and she hasn’t got a Plan B, which clearly she hasn’t as she would be telling us about it, then there has to be change.

So she either loses a vote of no confidence in the government and we have an election, or something else happens that the European Union would consider an extension to Article 50. And also there would be the possibility that we would revoke Article 50, which seems the most sensible thing of all because this is a total mess and she has wasted nearly 3 years on this and she has achieved nothing.”

Afolami, however, continued to parrot the government’s lines on Brexit. He argued that rescinding Article 50 would spark a breakdown in trust between the people and MPs.

He said: “Very few people did vote against Article 50. Parliament has consistently said by big majorities that it is going to implement Brexit.

“I worry deeply about what happens to the trust between elected representatives and the people if Parliament says ‘actually we find this really tricky, we’re not going to do it’.”

He added: “If you reject this deal in front of us, you are basically saying to your voters and the country you prefer no deal to this Brexit deal.”

It is good to see T May is cooperating with and looking for support from Merkel and Juncker etc.

Is she behaving as a quisling PM would do?

Or she still trying to appease the R/neo-cons in her party?

8-)

Crazy.

I would ask those who advocate a 2nd referendum what %age whether the result is to Remain or to Leave would be acceptable.

.01% on this occasion.

8-)

A Majority is a majority so one more than the the other side in the 1st past the post way it works, what other way George?

oh you mean like in the first referendum :-)

You mean the meaningless one in 2016...no nothing like that one at all,

it was meaningless because you didn't get the result you wanted? :-)

Did the three of you vote in the 1st referendum?

Why would a 2nd referendum result be more acceptable, irrespective of the outcome?

i certainly did; fred 99% certainly did not; stan didn't understand what he was meant to do

The referendum held on 23 June 2016, was based on dishonesty, falsehood and poorly defined and was responded to by a deliberately misinformed public, who often were voting against rather than for a specific goal. The goals they thought there were voting for were often ethereal and can be seen as a vote against the establishment.

Not realising they may be replacing one establishment with another.

-=-=-=-=

I would like to see another referendum based on:


The proposal on the ballot paper defines the policy, or legislation properly and the foreseeable economic and political effects and consequences are exposed and explained honestly and correctly. Also, the referendum relates specifically to and applies to the probable and developing policies, related new regulations, treaties relating those to the effects of those on the present economic and political stability.

In other words, no leap with false hope and little faith into the unknown.

if/as you didn't vote first time around, but clearly did not like the result, would you vote should there (heaven forbid) be a 2nd referendum?

fwiw, the public will still be no better informed, but rather they will all be totally confused by the various claims and counter claims where one side is adamant that black is white, while the other swears that white is black

imo, should there be another referendum, i would be surprised if the margin was much different fro 4% in favour of one side or the other
then what?#
and while the politicians continue to squabble about that for another 2/3 years, what in the meantime?

I agree with you, Cyners, a second referendum risks dividing the Great British public further, and the collateral damage could be irrepairable.

It would be so much easier all round if Parliament were to use the powers vested upon them under the Grieve amendment to order Maggie Dismay to just revoke Article 50 completely. After all, and as she told Dilbert in person yesterday, only the Government can revoke Article 50.

:o)

does that not then void the referendum, or am i being even more stupid than usual?
that said, i am now totally bored with the incessant gibbering on brexit by all media

Oh, you're undoubtedly being even more stupid than usual! You really had to ask that question???

if i knew the answer, i wouldn't have asked, and yes i am far too lazy to research it myself when clearly you know the answer :-)

Haven't got a Scooby, but I wasn't ever gonna pass up an opportunity to call you stupid.

Ask Fred or Stan.

:o)