Shard

Yes, I think they are. In the regulated industries (finance, insurance, pharmaceuticals, etc.) there is also huge amount of 'under the bonnet' integration which will seize up should we leave with No Deal. I am pleased that the government's Yellowhammer report will be made available to the public as it will at least give some people pause for thought.

Almost Canadian

Challenging it may have been but that was what each side had to do.

I don't believe that I have ever stated that the referendum in 2016 was remotely similar to a divorce. Of course, I will completely apologise to you if you can show me where I did.

It also appears to me that that the EU and the UK were relatively close to agreeing upon how to proceed to look to agree in the future and, if your version of history is correct, this was done by May in a relatively short period of time. It will not serve the interests of either party to take "10 years" to reach an agreement and, once again, it appears that you wish to look at everything from a negative perspective.

SultanOfSwing

Yo Shard, as requested:

Novocastrian

Which, as either Jings or Oakvillian pointed out earlier, was ludicrous.

Almost Canadian

Where did I suggest that it wasn't? That's right, I haven't.

Changing the "rules" after the result doesn't alter that.

Shard

I don't dispute that the remain side was some what complacent in 2016.

You didn't state the the referendum was like a divorce. I'm simply trying to figure why you keep insisting that there's no such thing as a partial Brexit, and I am guessing that you are viewing it through the lens of divorce law. This is not about the referendum question being binary, it's about the implementation of the Leave vote.

My negative perspective is on a No Deal Brexit. It will be utter chaos, no ifs, no buts (as Boris would say). As to a WA style Brexit (which you don't seem to recognise) I am grudgingly accepting that it might be the only way forward when half the country is so unwilling to inform themselves. That's not to say all leavers are uninformed, there are a great many that are informed and have a different analysis; what concerns me is the lump that are keen to leave the EU for all the wrong reasons.

Novocastrian

Ah, I see. You think the Manichean choice was ludicrous, but given that neither choice was well defined ,it's somehow a God given imperative?
Remain was fairly clear, but obfuscated by Cameron's very poor tactics and frankly his inability to be a leader. Leave on the other hand was guaranteed by all Leave protagonists (all of them, check it out) to not mean leaving the customs Union or the Single Market.

There was an option to Leave gently by joining the EEA, but that disappeared when a panicking May set out her stupid, mutually exclusive Red Lines in her speech and then triggered A50 with absolutely no idea of her goals (although she should have figured to they'd all be penalties).

We no longer have a Conservative Party in the UK (nor even in England which soon be all that's left of the UK). We have two Brexit Parties lead by two egomaniacs.

Happy days, jet be happy you no longer have a say.

Oakvillian

But changing the "rules," as you put it - or deciding on a different course of action as a result of considered analysis of the implications - is PRECISELY what the general public elects Members of Parliament to do. That is what they're there for. For the last three years it's been clear to anyone with at least one eye and half a brain that the referendum was hopelessly flawed, both in its premise and in its execution. That much has become even more obvious as it has become clearer that it's impossible to "honour" the result of the referendum without a whole hell of a lot more work put in first to answer some of the more intransigent questions, relating to trade relationships, regulatory arrangements, the Irish border, and so on and so on.

Parliament has, as is its duty, decided in the national interest - and against the rather extraordinary position of the government (beholden as it is to a small faction in its own party) - to prohibit by law a no-deal exit from the EU. If the government can't come up with an acceptable alternative then the only possible solution is to rescind Article 50 and, if necessary, start again when everybody's calmed down a bit.

dave_j

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49646544
It would seem that Corbyn and his Labour Party is to follow the the path of other inconvenient referenda, that of repeating them until you get the 'right' answer.

Shard

Good idea. We should always aim at the right answer. No idea why this is controversial.

Almost Canadian

Are you F*&^ing serious? I have constantly referred to it. You know, the one that was rejected a number of times by your representatives.

Do you not believe that you are completely arrogant when you say that people are keen to leave the EU for all the wrong reasons. How dare you believe that your reasons are more "right" than theirs?

As I have said above, I don't like the result, but I would never suggest that my opinion is superior to the opinion of any other.

Almost Canadian

Are you prepared to balance your obvious disdain for the Cons by stating that Lab completely screwed up their campaign to remain too?

Almost Canadian

You'll have to explain to me how implementation of the result, as proposed by the SNP and the Libs, is in any way related to the decision that the electorate provided.

If you say so.

dave_j

You will note that I placed the word right in quotation marks to ensure that it wasn't to be taken literally.
It's clear that the 17.4M who rightly thought the referendum result to be 'right' were right but apparently this 'right' result wasn't sufficiently right to satisfy the self righteous 16.1M, hence the controversy.

BristolUK

Isn't that what your signature suggests?