Are you sure a soft Brexit is out of the question?Originally Posted by Burney
No Deal would be voted down by Parliament and the government would almost certainly be forced to ask for more time to negotiate, which the EU is likely to accept. This would force May out and would probably prompt a GE. Labour would campaign on the promise that they'll honour the referendum result by negotiating a soft Brexit.
Had Cameron been a little less thick, he would have structured the referendum such that there was no lack of clarity as to what was being voted for. Which basically means it would have had to have been a Remain or Hard Brexit choice only.
I suspect he didn't do that because he would have been accused of setting it up in a way that didn't give the public enough flexibility in their vote but the reality is that, especially with hindsight, that was the only sensible thing to do.
I'm up for a hard Brexit now, should be great fun either way.
Well he did do that in a sense by explicitly stating (along with Osborne, et al) that a vote to leave would be a vote to leave the single market and customs union
If it was clear that voting Leave meant a hard Brexit what are we having these negotiations for?Well he did do that in a sense by explicitly stating (along with Osborne, et al) that a vote to leave would be a vote to leave the single market and customs union
I expect that a large number of Leave voters never believed that a hard Brexit would happen, mostly because so many people kept telling the public that a hard Brexit wasn't in either sides interests.
I'm really struggling to see a way out of this that doesn't at some point involve asking the people if they want a hard Brexit.
We're having these negotiations because our leaders are too weak and remain-focused to have negotiated properly. Hard Brexit (ie walking away) should always have been our basic negotiating position, allowing for concessions to be made where both sides could agree. Instead, our government has gone into negotiations trying essentially to remain in the EU in all but name - something for which they had no mandate and which they could never deliver.
Partly true. But we're also having them because the question in the referendum allows them to. Had it explicitly been a hard Brexit option, as it should have been, this would not have been an issue.
Hard and soft Brexit are terms that have only come to exist after the vote, though, as remainers have tried to water down the initial vote into something they prefer. I would argue that there was a vote for a hard Brexit - it's only remainers who pretend there wasn't.
Because the ruling class was physically sick when the proles refused to obey their orders, and is doing everything it can to overturn the result of the referendum.
They had no plans for implementing a leave vote before the referendum, and they have had no plans for a no-deal scenario even up this point, over two years after the vote. When you have no plans for something, you have no serious intention of doing it.
A no-deal brexit (currently the most likely outcome) cannot be voted down by Parliament. It is, by its nature, not a deal and therefore cannot be voted on.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote