There is no such thing as crashing out. The majority of those who could be bothered to vote listened to what Cameron and many others said,discounted the hysteria and exaggerated claims from both sides of the argument,and expressed their desire to leave the EU and all of it's institutions. Both major parties campaigned on a promise to deliver the result of the referendum-deals were not mentioned,agreements were not mentioned. The decision to leave has been taken and further discussion will not change the result,a second referenda will just show that democracy in this country no longer,(if it ever has),exists. Personally,I would like the subject of the debate to change to; If a recipient of public funds fails to fulfil a campaign promise,fails to deliver the result of a democratically held referendum,or works against the express instructions of the majority of voters,(who could be bothered to take part),are they guilty of a crime?
There is no "No Deal". The options are, the EU deal as shilled by May, or the well-established, globally used "deal" of WTO.
exactly option 4 tell them to get real shove it walk away to WTO then re negotiate when they come back running to us..
The one thing that politicians are good at is making a simple thing complicated. When one enters into a negotiation,both parties have to have an understanding of what the end result will be IF the negotiation fails to deliver an agreement acceptable to both sides. The default position of the UK government from the day the referendum result was anoounced should have been No Deal:there is no reason to have a deal,there was no mandate from the voters to have a deal,and the government have no right to translate the referendum result as anything other than leaving the EU without a deal. Any AGREEMENTS between the UK and the EU should have been negotiated on that basis,and the result clearly in the interests of the UK taxpayer.It's not the responsibility of the UK taxpayer to ensure the wealth and prosperity of the citizens of any other country,in or outside the EU. The failure of this pathetic bunch of corrupt crooks in parliament to make clear from the very outset is what has caused uncertainty,and allowed undemocratic voices to claim that the result of the referendum was something different to what is actually was,i.e,a clear instruction from the majority of of those who could be bothered to leave the EU and all of its institutions.
That’s interesting. Basically I agree with you. I think, like her or loathe her May is trying to deliver on the democratic decision of the people. Perhaps not fully in the desired way of some or even many people but she is trying to leave. Whereas many around her are just throwing rocks at her without any constructive plan and as such dragging us all into the abyss of indecision. Whoever accepted that job would have got the same treatment, terrible job. I don’t mind admitting that I voted to stay in. However I fully accept the decision of democracy and now I just want to get on with it. For me it is no longer about remaining. We’ve done that bit. It’s about how we leave. Another referendum about remaining would be undemocratic. Then we’d need the best of 3 if the result was different. On the other hand if the result was to leave it would be clear but wouldn’t solve the question of how. I still feel it would be undemocratic to go back over a result that the people have answered. Get....it... done!
put a forth option in there, split up the uk and give each country what it wants. its inevitable anyway.
Let's be clear here. May is a Remainer and is the tool of those who wish to overturn the referendum result. She isn't negotiating with the EU, she is acting on behalf of it. One proper look at this "deal" tells you that but if you need more proof, listen to what Lightning said ^^^ and what I have mentioned several times now: if a genuine deal was ever going to be negotiated, May would have started off by telling the EU, "We leave on WTO terms, change my mind". There is simply no doubt any more that May's job, her function, was to engineer a deal so bad, the UK would soon be begging to rejoin the EU. There is no other possible, logical conclusion one can draw from events thus far.
I agree, also they’re trying to do it in a way that the people that voted leave can’t or won’t argue with
And before anyone says "Bloody Tories, all their fault", bear in mind that Leave and Remain transcends party politics. This is a battle between globalists and nationalists, with globalists holding many of the top jobs in Westminster and Whitehall. If the EU plot to put an end to Brexit is to be defeated, it will be because honest politicians in Parliament, from all parties, manage to defeat the government-within-government.
I think they tried this fin, the deal was Scotland got duke and we got you, you can understand why they are still looking at other options.
Finm, you had a referendum and Scotland democratically decided to remain in th UK. We didn’t even get the choice of whether we wanted you to stay. I wish Jimmy Crankie would shut up. However if she wants yet another referendum she can have one..... ..... ..... in another 500 years.
i still dont get yer reasoning, while believe it or not, it was Alex Salmond when he was last an MP that was making the biggest noise in Westminster about the timing of May presenting the article 50 letter and her opening gambit, what deal was there ever really to be had? it was the result and the way the whole brexit vote was carried out and the divisions that resulted that sealed the deal May has not achieved. to much conspiracy going on here. if you had secured 55%+ based on a detailed white paper in a 2014 stylie. it would of been job done. now, if you where to say, all this was planned when Camoron pulled the trigger, then maybe, just maybe i could go with the conspiracy theories
Are you saying a win just across the line isn't a win fin? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40214545
