FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Question for leavers
Question for leavers
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Would you support a referendum to decide what type of Brexit the UK should have. IE, no remain option.
And if so, what would the options be?
Checkers plan
No deal
Other?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"We had a vote ...bored now get on with it ...is that on ya list of options...
Happy just to be out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM?
Sounds OK. It is one option."
That’s a valid answer. Not interested in another referendum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that."
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Regardless of the issue, any referendum should be over a two option yes/no question.
Any referendum asking a number of options is likely to result in confusion.
After all, the 2016 question still causes intense debate. Think how much confusion there would be if there had been a third option.
Therefore another referendum on Brexit in my view should be an accept/reject the deal line with all of the implications.....not to rerun the last referendum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt"
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union."
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What's puzzled me about the whole thing is why a 52 48 vote is seen as a mandate for hard brexit. Such a close result shows a country divided down the middle about the EU, you'd look for some kind of solution that tried to bring people together, not interprete the result in a way sure to alienate 48% of the population.
Or look at this way. All of the 48% would prefer a soft brexit to a hard brexit. Some of the 52% will have wanted a soft brexit. Even if only 10% of leave voters wanted a soft brexit, added to the 48% that gives a clear majority for soft.
I really can't understand how anyone can say there is a mandate for hard brexit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option)."
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It should have been given the closeness of the outcome a unity Government to deliver the exit but to recognise that with such a slim majority then pragmatism and compromise needed to be evident to at least try and come out the other side united but that would have meant putting the country first and party politics on the back burner for a time.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean. "
Yes your right that was what was said which given the consequences for the GFA was beyond naive.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean.
Yes your right that was what was said which given the consequences for the GFA was beyond naive.. "
That's what the remain campaign said, yes, but it was of course dismissed as "project fear" and it the lost. The winning leave campaign said nothing about leaving the single market and leading leavers like Johnson and Hannan explicitly said a leave vote did not mean leaving the single market.
If Theresa May had been more concerned with bringing the nation together than the internal politics of the tory party. She could have said we would go for the Norway option which would have fulfilled the referendum mandate whilst recognising the closeness of the result. Most of Parliament would have supported her in that leaving the right wing extremists isolated.
But we now have the cluster fuck we have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean. "
That’s all great and all.
Are you trusting the current regime to deliver what you want. Or would you prefer a vote to decide which type of Brexit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No one had the mandate to make any promises.
Wasn’t a lot of the debate in what type of brexit it could be ... Norway, Switzerland, Canada etc.
I will try and dig out a link for a Twitter piece which showed all sides offering up all flavours.
The idea it was a foregone conclusion feels at best selective. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option)."
It was put to the electorate though, wasn't it... 2 years ago, the vote to leave would mean leaving the Single market & Customs union, so it has been put to the electorate & the electorate said yes we want to leave the EU & Single market and Customs union.... that's exactly what a leave vote meant.
There is no way round this resounding fact, we should and must leave as the referendum result dictates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
It was put to the electorate though, wasn't it... 2 years ago, the vote to leave would mean leaving the Single market & Customs union, so it has been put to the electorate & the electorate said yes we want to leave the EU & Single market and Customs union.... that's exactly what a leave vote meant.
There is no way round this resounding fact, we should and must leave as the referendum result dictates."
Right. I understand what you want. But you’re missing my question.
I’m asking if you trust the government to deliver what you want, or if you’d prefer another referendum to decide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
That's what the remain campaign said, yes, but it was of course dismissed as "project fear" and it the lost. The winning leave campaign said nothing about leaving the single market and leading leavers like Johnson and Hannan explicitly said a leave vote did not mean leaving the single market.
"
Johnson & Hannah ... you really think it matters what them idiots said, their not in power to say such drivel & gutless Johnson had his chance to take control of the Government and Brexit but he shat out when the time came.
The only statements that count are from the in power PM at that time and the Government's stance was leave means leave SM & CU.
Leavers voted for it, leavers need to see their vote go through no matter what happens afterwards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
It was put to the electorate though, wasn't it... 2 years ago, the vote to leave would mean leaving the Single market & Customs union, so it has been put to the electorate & the electorate said yes we want to leave the EU & Single market and Customs union.... that's exactly what a leave vote meant.
There is no way round this resounding fact, we should and must leave as the referendum result dictates.
Right. I understand what you want. But you’re missing my question.
I’m asking if you trust the government to deliver what you want, or if you’d prefer another referendum to decide. "
You're missing my point, the Government said what a leave vote means & they should stick to it irrespective of the probable outcomes.
I don't trust the Government to do anything they say, so having another referendum because you don't trust them to act on the first one is a bit stupid logic IMO.
By the way I am a remainer but accept the result & firmly believe in carrying out the result no matter what may come. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean.
Yes your right that was what was said which given the consequences for the GFA was beyond naive..
That's what the remain campaign said, yes, but it was of course dismissed as "project fear" and it the lost. The winning leave campaign said nothing about leaving the single market and leading leavers like Johnson and Hannan explicitly said a leave vote did not mean leaving the single market.
If Theresa May had been more concerned with bringing the nation together than the internal politics of the tory party. She could have said we would go for the Norway option which would have fulfilled the referendum mandate whilst recognising the closeness of the result. Most of Parliament would have supported her in that leaving the right wing extremists isolated.
But we now have the cluster fuck we have. "
No. Leading figures on the leave side said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. Michael Gove was asked this specific question on his appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show during the referendum campaign in 2016. Gove made it crystal clear in his answer to Andrew Marr that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and the customs union.
Boris Johnson was then asked later by a reporter if he agreed with Michael Gove's comments about leaving the single market and the customs union on the Marr show, and Bojo said he "agreed with Michael".
Leaving the customs union and the single market was also on the official Vote Leave campaign material (leaflets, website, etc). To end free movement of people from the EU you must leave the single market as membership of the single market means accepting free movement. It was also made clear that to make our own trade deals would mean leaving the customs union as you can't do your own trade deals as a condition of being in the customs union. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
It was put to the electorate though, wasn't it... 2 years ago, the vote to leave would mean leaving the Single market & Customs union, so it has been put to the electorate & the electorate said yes we want to leave the EU & Single market and Customs union.... that's exactly what a leave vote meant.
There is no way round this resounding fact, we should and must leave as the referendum result dictates.
Right. I understand what you want. But you’re missing my question.
I’m asking if you trust the government to deliver what you want, or if you’d prefer another referendum to decide.
You're missing my point, the Government said what a leave vote means & they should stick to it irrespective of the probable outcomes.
I don't trust the Government to do anything they say, so having another referendum because you don't trust them to act on the first one is a bit stupid logic IMO.
By the way I am a remainer but accept the result & firmly believe in carrying out the result no matter what may come."
Okay so you don’t trust the government or want another referendum?
I’m asking because I find it interesting, not because I am trying to imply an opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean.
That’s all great and all.
Are you trusting the current regime to deliver what you want. Or would you prefer a vote to decide which type of Brexit?"
I don't support any kind of 2nd referendum. If Theresa May can get a deal and get it voted through Parliament then so be it. If not then we leave with no deal at the end of March when the article 50 period ends. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean.
Yes your right that was what was said which given the consequences for the GFA was beyond naive..
That's what the remain campaign said, yes, but it was of course dismissed as "project fear" and it the lost. The winning leave campaign said nothing about leaving the single market and leading leavers like Johnson and Hannan explicitly said a leave vote did not mean leaving the single market.
If Theresa May had been more concerned with bringing the nation together than the internal politics of the tory party. She could have said we would go for the Norway option which would have fulfilled the referendum mandate whilst recognising the closeness of the result. Most of Parliament would have supported her in that leaving the right wing extremists isolated.
But we now have the cluster fuck we have.
No. Leading figures on the leave side said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. Michael Gove was asked this specific question on his appearance on the BBC Andrew Marr show during the referendum campaign in 2016. Gove made it crystal clear in his answer to Andrew Marr that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and the customs union.
Boris Johnson was then asked later by a reporter if he agreed with Michael Gove's comments about leaving the single market and the customs union on the Marr show, and Bojo said he "agreed with Michael".
Leaving the customs union and the single market was also on the official Vote Leave campaign material (leaflets, website, etc). To end free movement of people from the EU you must leave the single market as membership of the single market means accepting free movement. It was also made clear that to make our own trade deals would mean leaving the customs union as you can't do your own trade deals as a condition of being in the customs union. "
So what’s your preference now? Leaving this to the government to sort out and hope they pick your preferred course of action, or another referendum or what’s the best way from your perspective? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean.
That’s all great and all.
Are you trusting the current regime to deliver what you want. Or would you prefer a vote to decide which type of Brexit?
I don't support any kind of 2nd referendum. If Theresa May can get a deal and get it voted through Parliament then so be it. If not then we leave with no deal at the end of March when the article 50 period ends. "
Yeah that’s what I was trying to get at. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
So you want to government to take a certain course. Would you prefer leave that up to them to decide, or put it to the electorate? (To remind you, I’m talking a referendum with no remain option).
The leaders and main players on both sides of the referendum in 2016 said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union. It's amazing how 2 years later that remainers still can't understand or accept this. The then Prime minister David Cameron said a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and the customs union and his chancellor George Osborne said the same. There was no ambiguity about this it was crystal clear to everyone what a vote to leave would mean.
That’s all great and all.
Are you trusting the current regime to deliver what you want. Or would you prefer a vote to decide which type of Brexit?
I don't support any kind of 2nd referendum. If Theresa May can get a deal and get it voted through Parliament then so be it. If not then we leave with no deal at the end of March when the article 50 period ends. "
I can see why you would say that, you've been consistent on that but I can't see any PM at this point walking away and opting for a no deal..
There will be some sort of fudge and it will be extended till its sorted out, I honestly think any PM saying no deal and it goes wrong even for a short time will be slaughtered politically at the first opportunity..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Northern Ireland is not an issue. Switzerland borders with 5 EU countries "
Ha, such comments never help...
One word blows your statement apart...
Schengen
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Schengen is not the EU
Switzerland is in Schengen, Ireland & the UK is not."
& last I looked Switzerland didn't have a tendancy for terrorism before an agreement over borders etc
The 2 cannot be compared |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The EU refer to the UK smuggling into the EU. That is their issue.
But they don’t have the issue with non EU Switzerland "
Because the UK has said we're leaving everything as it stands, becoming a 3rd Country status, Switzerland are a EFTA member with access to the Single market, hence the difference regarding borders etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union."
Actually they didnt say theyd leave both, just the SM |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Northern Ireland is not an issue. Switzerland borders with 5 EU countries "
Switzerland is in Schengen...that makes a world of difference as does their membership of the single market through a series of treaties |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The EU refer to the UK smuggling into the EU. That is their issue.
But they don’t have the issue with non EU Switzerland "
switzerland is land locked (indeed it is double land locked). Iirc it’s only non Eu border is Lichtenstein and that only has a border with Austria. So the only risk of smuggling is through flying.
The uk on the other hand is very susceptible to smuggling. And allows (allegedly) Chinese custom fraud.
So maybe it’s understandable why they have an issue with us and not Switzerland. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There should be no referendum / people's vote.
The Government should do what they said they would do if people voted to leave.
There should be no going back on that.
Cool so you agree with out of the EU then and still in the CU and SM as well? If we have to leave, then that sounds like the least damaging option to me too. Would make the Irish border problem easier to deal with at least.
-Matt
You normally talk sense on here but that statement is just absurd.
You know exactly what the Government said a leave vote meant leaving the Single market and Customs union.
Actually they didnt say theyd leave both, just the SM"
The Leave campaign was banging on about striking our own trade deals too which cannot be done if we we're to stay in the Customs Union. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
"Would you support a referendum to decide what type of Brexit the UK should have. IE, no remain option.
And if so, what would the options be?
Checkers plan
No deal
Other?
Seems you maybe looking for some assurance that people think the way you want to them to, do you want to explain your thoughts?
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Would you support a referendum to decide what type of Brexit the UK should have. IE, no remain option.
And if so, what would the options be?
Checkers plan
No deal
Other?
Seems you maybe looking for some assurance that people think the way you want to them to, do you want to explain your thoughts?
"
I didn’t vote leave, but I wanted to know if people who did wanted another say in how the UK leaves the EU, if they wanted to leave it up to the government, or if they didn’t care which flavour of Brexit we got.
A quick read tells me that people seem angry, but on the whole don’t mind which type of Brexit we get.
My personal stance is that I haven’t supported another referendum, for a couple of reasons. The main one being, I don’t know what we would be asked, Id need to know that before I would be in favour or not.
In general I’m not a fan of referendums. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
"Would you support a referendum to decide what type of Brexit the UK should have. IE, no remain option.
And if so, what would the options be?
Checkers plan
No deal
Other?
Seems you maybe looking for some assurance that people think the way you want to them to, do you want to explain your thoughts?
I didn’t vote leave, but I wanted to know if people who did wanted another say in how the UK leaves the EU, if they wanted to leave it up to the government, or if they didn’t care which flavour of Brexit we got.
A quick read tells me that people seem angry, but on the whole don’t mind which type of Brexit we get.
My personal stance is that I haven’t supported another referendum, for a couple of reasons. The main one being, I don’t know what we would be asked, Id need to know that before I would be in favour or not.
In general I’m not a fan of referendums. "
So you are worried about the future question if there was a peoples vote and another referendum is not a good idea? Am I right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eussyMan
over a year ago
Stockport |
what puzzles me is why if Labour win the next election on less than 52% there should be full privatisation of the railways - it should be the same as the amount they got on the day.
Also, I think that they should share cabinet responsibility with `soft labours` as well as `hard labours`. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Would you support a referendum to decide what type of Brexit the UK should have. IE, no remain option.
And if so, what would the options be?
Checkers plan
No deal
Other?
Seems you maybe looking for some assurance that people think the way you want to them to, do you want to explain your thoughts?
I didn’t vote leave, but I wanted to know if people who did wanted another say in how the UK leaves the EU, if they wanted to leave it up to the government, or if they didn’t care which flavour of Brexit we got.
A quick read tells me that people seem angry, but on the whole don’t mind which type of Brexit we get.
My personal stance is that I haven’t supported another referendum, for a couple of reasons. The main one being, I don’t know what we would be asked, Id need to know that before I would be in favour or not.
In general I’m not a fan of referendums.
So you are worried about the future question if there was a peoples vote and another referendum is not a good idea? Am I right?"
Not really worried about it. I just wondered what leavers would prefer at this stage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
