Brexit 2019 and Poland

Talking about what had happened after the referendum.

Look at that:


scotsman.com/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-scotland-will-be-independent-in-five-years-1-4871139

Nothing to see here.....just lala land.....

theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/24/brexit-could-be-delayed-until-2021-eu-sources-reveal

Could that happen?

In theory, yes it's possible but I'd say it's not likely. I don't think there's enough support for it. At this stage all the EU member states are fed up of Brexit, Ireland wants closure, the Brexiteers in the UK want out as soon as possible. I think the key point to take from the article you linked to is that "the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, had advised ambassadors last week that the threat of a lengthy extension could be used by May as leverage in talks with her Brexiter MPs as she seeks to nudge the deal through parliament". Barnier and the lads are counting on the fact that those seeking to block the Withdrawal Agreement will react with horror at the possibility of remaining up to another two years in the EU. Also, when you look at the time, energy, money and resources the Brexit negotiations have already cost the UK, any responsible MP would balk at carrying on down the same road while domestic matters are sidelined and neglected.

And if the UK goes for the Article 50 extension they will have to hold European elections in May - that won't go down too well with those members of the public who voted "leave'!

I think, all in all, that's it the EU telling the UK that they can't have things the way it would suit them, with a three month extension, followed by another three months and another etc. They can have two years or nothing - and they're banking on the fact that the UK won't want want that.

It's such a mess right now anything can happen.....

As in...some of us think Brexit wont happen. The big money suggests it would be a bad idea, even if the City has managed its' own "exclusion" zone.

Well, you could be right Doug, judging by Jeremy Corbyn's latest announcement. Of course it's a krok po kroku situation, with the first step tomorrow. If Corbyn's amendment is rejected, then we're on to step two which is getting enough support in parliament for a second referendum and then step three which is setting a date for the referendum and finally, and most importantly, ensuring that the British public understands what the bloody hell it's actually voting for. I have a feeling that if there's a second referendum, the result with be Remain. The result was so close last time that the small percentage of difference is likely to be eliminated by those of the more intelligent Leave voters who have now seen the consequences.

The Brexiters could ask for a third referendum! :)

Then I am sure the Remainers would then insist on a fourth..........ad infinitum.......all so stupid.
If it goes to a second referendum it will destroy The Labour Party.
We had the referendum,voters saw through the lies and exagerations and voted.
End of.

But its not the "end of" anything- because somebody needs to find a solution to this, and it doesn't look like "no deal" will pass parliament.

Most likely an indefinite extension of article 50 I think

Yes,followed by some kind of deal that will please nobody.

Obviously economically any deal will be worse than the existing membership of the EU.

Politically it might be better but there is a slim chance of that and any political deal will probably lead to Scottish independence and more problems in Ireland.

In the short term yes.


Yes,but I really don't think The Scots have the stomach for another Scottish referendum and if they did I think so many Scots have had enough of Nicola and would probably vote the same way as in the last one.

Ireland is another problem....

I don't like her much either but at the moment she is far more rational and clearheaded than the loony tunes show going on in London - and who in London is going to get a good reception if they go to Scotland and campaign for the union? Boris ? May ? Corbyn ?

So it might be that independence comes about almost by default

You have a point there,but it is a referendum,not an election,they would need Scots who believe in the union to campaign.

Right - and that will be a problem to find those. Before Brexit the union had the advantage of bring a risk free option. After Brexit then the union would be just as risky as independence

Not sure.
I think Scotland,without the advantage of oil and gas would struggle.
And there is no guarantee they would be accepted back into The EU.
They need either Brussels or London to support them.
And I think most Scots know this.

It's all those pesky foreigners....

youtube.com/watch?v=1xWHg2mdUgE

Here we go then!

Tonight's vote is 60/40 likely to result in no Brexit, and for the Uk to stay in the EU.
Rock on! Here's hoping May finally gets hers.

Why voting in Parliament takes precedence over voting by the nation?

Imagine a majority would vote for hunting and lynching Jews again?

(After a year-long Jew-dehumanizing campaign by Jew-haters)

Because there was a motion to decide the referundum vote should be debated and then voted on in parliament, or ratified (against the Tories' wishes) If those rightists were left to their devices, we would be out of the EU now.

Thank God for democracy. My view all along was that the UK would tear up article 50 and this is looking more and more likely. All those career politicans are bleating about "things we promised to the British people..."

All they are concerned about is their positions. Sack the lot of them, and let us British keep the status quo, which the majority clearly want, now they know that the country will be worse off outside of the EU.

This is a humiliation for the government but such careerists, holding all the cards, have no pride.

Why do you think that a majority in Parliament would not be able to vote the same?


So you think that if the nation voted to remain, the parliament would have the right to vote something else, that is vote Brexit?

If the referundum had voted to remain, the staus quo would have been preserved, and there would have been no call for a ratification in parliament. The referendum was advisory, and should never have signed off on. It was purely a popularity vote for that silver spoon Cameron.

I think you are simply playing devils advocate here Ziemowit and would vote Remain yourself.

Well, in Germany for once such a question wouldn't be even allowed to be voted about...its against the Grundgesetz. (But then, that would also be true about a referendum...)

There are reasons to believe that full time politicians have better and more informations to make an informed decision than SUN-reading street people do with a referendum. Such campaigns from the Brexiters (like with the lies about the NHS money and most other paradisiacal things promised once Britain gets "freed" from the EU jail) would less likely work just because they KNOW BETTER, know more about Britain, the EU and Britains place in it.

There is a point to be made that putting that question before politicians only there wouldn't be a Brexit mess today...just my two cents.

Merged:

Revoke Article 50 and remain in the EU.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

UK Government: The people have spoken.... now let's ignore them!

Half of them!

(And most of them totally uninformed as it seems)

More than half of them!