Brexit has well and truly begun!

[G-Unit]

Why is it undemocratic to give people a vote?  Any ideas?  Didn’t think so.

It's undemocratic to ignore the result of a vote. Another vote on this affair would be ognoring the result of the first vote.

[Venturi Swirl]

It's undemocratic to ignore the result of a vote. Another vote on this affair would be ognoring the result of the first vote.

That’s silly IMO.  We’re only in this mess because the government acted on “the will of the people” and triggered article 50.  Now we know precisely what the options are, how is it undemocratic to have a vote on them, unless you are saying that the people all voted for “no deal” nearly 3 years ago?

[Carana]

There was an interesting debate this morning. Lord Mandelson was predicting awful consequences if the UK left the EU without a deal. Piers Morgan reminded him of the awful consequences he predicted if the UK didn't join the Euro; which never occured. Why, he asked, should people believe Mandelson this time? A reasonable point.

Esther McVey then spoke on the subject and sounded like the voice of reason to me. She said the Remainers were trying to scare people just as they did during the referendum campaign. According to her we have no need to fear leaving without a deal. Preparations have been made and trading under WTO rules isn't the end of the world; much of our trade is already done that way, as is much of world trade.

I agree with Piers Morgan. He thinks the population were asked a question and promised that the result of the referendum would be honoured. The political classes need to stop patronising the electorate and carry out their democratically expressed will.

The problem, it seems to me, is not whether we stay in the EU or leave, the problem is the reluctance of politicians to uphold democratic ideals. It first emerged in the Labour Party following the election of Corbyn and it now seems that we have few if any politicians who actually believe in democracy. They only believe in it if it delivers what they want in my opinion.

Re Esther McVey, and others who find that sailing off into the sunset into the unknown without a deal is no big issue, IMO they're either blissfully ignorant or deliberately misleading.

"Trading under WTO rules" is an example - 163 member countries trade under WTO rules (otherwise they couldn't be members), but the crucial point is that they don't JUST trade on WTO terms. The WTO is a treaty (and dispute-resolution body) that establishes the skeleton of trade (but doesn't deal with the intricacies of trade in numerous services). The whole purpose of trade treaties and bi-multilateral agreements is to improve on the "worst-case scenario" which is... WTO terms.

As a member of the EU, the UK has tariff-free access to the biggest trading bloc in the world (the EU single market) and the customs union, and to 36 non-EU countries.

Another point is that, for some strange reason, a lot of these politicians seem to think that tariffs are the only issue and ignore the much more complicated issues of regulations, certification, customs, etc.

Beyond all that, leaving the EU isn't just about trade, either. What about all the areas of cooperation that the UK will no longer have access to (or will have limited access to), such as security, research, mutual recognition of academic  qualifications... even pet passports?

Many of the gripes that the media has been whingeing about for decades are domestic issues, not EU ones.

The EU certainly isn't perfect, but the UK is about to lose what was considerable influence in shaping it.

[Venturi Swirl]

G-Unit, if you take “no Brexit” off the ballot card and hold a second referendum would you consider THAT undemocratic?

[Venturi Swirl]

Re Esther McVey, and others who find that sailing off into the sunset into the unknown without a deal is no big issue, IMO they're either blissfully ignorant or deliberately misleading.

"Trading under WTO rules" is an example - 163 member countries trade under WTO rules (otherwise they couldn't be members), but the crucial point is that they don't JUST trade on WTO terms. The WTO is a treaty (and dispute-resolution body) that establishes the skeleton of trade (but doesn't deal with the intricacies of trade in numerous services). The whole purpose of trade treaties and bi-multilateral agreements is to improve on the "worst-case scenario" which is... WTO terms.

As a member of the EU, the UK has tariff-free access to the biggest trading bloc in the world (the EU single market) and the customs union, and to 36 non-EU countries.

Another point is that, for some strange reason, a lot of these politicians seem to think that tariffs are the only issue and ignore the much more complicated issues of regulations, certification, customs, etc.

Beyond all that, leaving the EU isn't just about trade, either. What about all the areas of cooperation that the UK will no longer have access to (or will have limited access to), such as security, research, mutual recognition of academic  qualifications... even pet passports?

Many of the gripes that the media has been whingeing about for decades are domestic issues, not EU ones.

The EU certainly isn't perfect, but the UK is about to lose what was considerable influence in shaping it.

Well said. 

[Carana]

Rubbish, the currency markets have already factored in BREXIT.  What the man in the street will enjoy though is foodstuffs from outside of the EU getting to them without EU tariffs.

Re the £, if by "factored in Brexit" you mean the fact that it is now close to the worst-ever FX rate from a UK perspective since the banking crisis, then yes, one could hope that it won't crash too much further (unless the UK crashes out with no deal).

Re your second point, trading with countries outside of the EU with which the EU has already negotiated treaties and agreements will mean WTO tariffs. So how do the higher WTO tariffs, coupled with a £ that is 30% weaker than it was before the referendum equate to cheaper foodstuffs, unless the UK allows dumping from countries with lower phytosanitary standards?

How will UK farmers who export their produce fare with all the extra admin and EU tariffs that will make their produce more expensive for EU consumers?

[Carana]

Another elephant in the room is what on earth are the UK plans for the service sector, which happens to make up 80% of the UK economy? Mystery...

[Carana]

It's undemocratic to ignore the result of a vote. Another vote on this affair would be ognoring the result of the first vote.

On one level, I can understand that perspective. However, I don't see it that way regarding this issue as no one seems to have had a clear idea of what Brexit actually meant. Even the politicians who are supposed to don't seem to know, let alone agree, so how could the ordinary voting public have done two years earlier?

[Carana]

All this twaddle about a second referendum or a people's vote.  Even if there was such a vote and even if a small majority voted to remain this time, we would be back to the same hung Parly.  The only sensible way forward is to leave now on the 29 March and do the deals afterwards. That's what happens in many divorces, they separate and do the deals after the actual split.

With what as bargaining chips?

[Carana]

It was as democratic as any general election, unless you think politicians know the truth and tell it when canpaigning. The truth is that no-one knows what the implications will be, they're all guessing no matter which point of view they have.

If you're going to break the vote down into areas you might as well start arguing about how counties or towns voted. The referendum was a UK referendum, so how parts of the UK voted isn't relevant.

There is a cut-off point for voting if people live abroad and they know it. Tough.

It might be worth remembering that the UK vored to join the Common Market originally, it never voted to join the European Union.

I'm aware of that. The EU didn't exist at the time, but the UK (of varying party flavours over time) has been one of the key players at the table shaping what it has become.

There appears to be a saying that for the EU, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. (I don't fully agree with that in this instance as the EU appears to have bent over backwards to be as helpful as possible without crossing its own red lines.) However, once the UK is out, I wouldn't expect the EU to be quite so accommodating...

[G-Unit]

That’s silly IMO.  We’re only in this mess because the government acted on “the will of the people” and triggered article 50.  Now we know precisely what the options are, how is it undemocratic to have a vote on them, unless you are saying that the people all voted for “no deal” nearly 3 years ago?

It's not triggering Article 50 that created the mess, it's the fact that instead of preparing for leaving the EU the government spent the time trying to make a deal. Why? No-one asked them to do that.

[Carana]

It's not triggering Article 50 that created the mess, it's the fact that instead of preparing for leaving the EU the government spent the time trying to make a deal. Why? No-one asked them to do that.

Despite the fact that some politicians appeared to believe that Brexit somehow meant largely carrying on as before minus freedom of movement, and that mega deals on every issue would be ready to sign at 23:10 GMT, the current "deal" is simply about the terms of the divorce, with a non-binding waffly annexe about the future.

[Carana]

It's not triggering Article 50 that created the mess, it's the fact that instead of preparing for leaving the EU the government spent the time trying to make a deal. Why? No-one asked them to do that.

Hmmm. The referendum was advisory.

If the government had done its homework BEFORE a) the referendum and b) before triggering Article 50, the UK might not be in its current mess.

[Carana]

I wish someone could explain to me - with fact-based pointers - just how UK citizens will be better off than it currently is as a member.

[G-Unit]

On one level, I can understand that perspective. However, I don't see it that way regarding this issue as no one seems to have had a clear idea of what Brexit actually meant. Even the politicians who are supposed to don't seem to know, let alone agree, so how could the ordinary voting public have done two years earlier?

It seems to me that it's time for some truth. Those who don't know should say so. Those with a vested interest should reveal it. Those taking idealogical positions should admit it.

The electorate has been subjected to so much spin and misinformation in recent years that they don't believe what anyone says any more. Therefore they made their own minds up during the referendum campaign and voted for what they wanted.

The electorate was then castigated for the way they voted. Those whose job it was to inform didn't blame themselves for dailing to convince, they blamed the voters for failing to understand. They were told they were too stupid, too racist or too old to know what they were doing.

I think the voters remember that and won't be swayed by those people in future either. I'm not a Conservative but I've seen two recently speaking calmly and, I believe, sincerely; Esther McVey and Jacob Rees Mogg. If another vote becomes a reality it is my opinion that the voters will listen to those who are calm, sincere and reassuring, not the prophets of doom.