The Student Room Group

Who would be to blame if EU negotiations break down and we leave with no deal?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by Burton Bridge
Bang on with that mate


I voted OUT - NO DEAL, s did all EXIT EU voters. May was a sell-out thats why she is no longer the PM. If she was doing the right thing she would still be PM.
Original post by fallen_acorns
shocked by the poll...

12.24% think that the group who just passed a bill to force the PM not to leave without a deal...

Would be responsible if we leave without a deal.

A further 10% believe that its the fault of an organization who expressively don't want a deal, and are acting 100% in line with a path to keep us in the EU... will also be responsible.

makes sense.

It does because it's the actions of these people that are sabotaging the brexit process. As you say labour will simply vote down any deal, no matter what, doesn't matter if they agree with it or not, good or bad. They are doing this to deliberately sabotage brexit.

The surrender benn act, litterally surrenders any hope of a deal. I dont believe it's an act to block no deal, it's an act to make it as difficult as possible for the government to succeed so remainers dont have to dip their hands in the blood and vote a deal down.
Original post by SHallowvale
What section(s) of the referendum act would be broken if we put a multiple-choice vote to the public?

From memory, the dangers of leaving without a deal were mentioned by remainers but had always been passed off as 'Project Fear' by leavers. Easiest trade deal in human history and all that...

The part where you need clear easy to understand fair questions to both sides. Not necessarily a problem with mulipul choice more the questions you were proposing a couple of weeks ago.

I think we are in agreement there, but I do think leavers over use that david davis line. If Davis had not been overruled he'd of brought a Canada style agreement back
Original post by HiViz9
I voted OUT - NO DEAL, s did all EXIT EU voters. May was a sell-out thats why she is no longer the PM. If she was doing the right thing she would still be PM.

I dont see why you linked my post with that reply?

I voted leave ...
Reply 84
Original post by Burton Bridge
I dont see why you linked my post with that reply?

I voted leave ...

the page jumps a lot... this is a common occurrence. Just let it float. LOL I know your stance.. seems in line with my own thinking.
Original post by HiViz9
the page jumps a lot... this is a common occurrence. Just let it float. LOL I know your stance.. seems in line with my own thinking.

Lol fair play, I thought I'd lost the plot for a minute.

My stance may be regards a life outside the EU but I think in social poltical topics we will clash. I voted leave I didn't vote no deal, but... I did not vote for a deal either which is key in this debate.

It's all good noone agrees all the time .
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by SHallowvale
What section(s) of the referendum act would be broken if we put a multiple-choice vote to the public?

From memory, the dangers of leaving without a deal were mentioned by remainers but had always been passed off as 'Project Fear' by leavers. Easiest trade deal in human history and all that...


The problem with a multiple choice referendum is the impossibility of politicians campaigning for their fallback position whilst their main horse is still in the race.

What is needed is a French style double vote. That is how the Newfoundland referendums were handled.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Newfoundland_referendums
Reply 87
Original post by nulli tertius
The problem with a multiple choice referendum is the impossibility of politicians campaigning for their fallback position whilst their main horse is still in the race.

What is needed is a French style double vote. That is how the Newfoundland referendums were handled.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Newfoundland_referendums

I seem to recall we had a referendum?? The contemptuous manner remainers/remoaners treat this fact is beyond mental impairment.
Original post by HiViz9
I seem to recall we had a referendum?? The contemptuous manner remainers/remoaners treat this fact is beyond mental impairment.


Leave was in 2016 and is now a coalition of people who want inconsistent things. Every time Leave have been asked to coalesce around a single version of Brexit that coalition has not held and a body of Leave opinion has sided with Remain. They broke over May’s deal and they broke over No Deal. Twice, once in the summer with the Malthouse Compromise and once with Boris last week, the coalition has held but only around deals that were imaginary in that the EU was never going to agree to them.
(edited 4 years ago)
Reply 89
Original post by nulli tertius
Leave was in 2016 and is now a coalition of people who want inconsistent things. Every time Leave have been asked to coalesce around a single version of Brexit that coalition has not held and a body of Leave opinion has sided with Remain. They broke over May’s deal and they broke over No Deal. Twice, once in the summer with the Malthouse Compromise and once with Boris last week, the coalition has held but only around deals that were imaginary in that the EU was never going to agree to them.

When a referendum decides we get out it is the job/mandate from the people that we get out and we do not need permission from the EU to get out. That is the whole point. Its akin, according to your logic, to Terminating a Gym membership and having to get permission from the Gym you chose to leave, to enter another Gym and when you do the old Gym tells you - "you may use that Gym but you will not use the Weights or Rowing Machine".... this is the same logic the remoaners use. It is actually a mental impairment.
We had a fair referendum with the PM Cameron stating clearly, beyond any doubt... I quote him... "this is an IN - OUT decision, whatever the vote the government will enact it. There will be NO second referendum. THis is it... IN or OUT".
Now, I think that is unequivocal.
Original post by nulli tertius
The problem with a multiple choice referendum is the impossibility of politicians campaigning for their fallback position whilst their main horse is still in the race.

What is needed is a French style double vote. That is how the Newfoundland referendums were handled.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Newfoundland_referendums

Even better, then.
Original post by ColinDent
If you cannot see then I can't be arsed to explain it to you, but I think that the majority of the public see it that way, even many who voted to remain in the referendum.
It is opinion of course but I am allowed one of those, pesky for we members of the hoi polloi to do so.
To be honest it's such an obvious statement that I'm surprised that anyone cannot see it to be true, unless of course they were trying somehow to obsfucate in order to confuse a number of people on some sort of forum.

I can't see it, no. Simply saying something is true doesn't automatically make it true, even if you think "the majority of the public see it that way" (which you don't know either, unless you wish to back that up with real evidence).

Actually explain and justify what you're saying. All you've done is pass the blame onto a group of people who were not actually in charge or even present in the negotiations... which is ludicrous.
Original post by Burton Bridge
The part where you need clear easy to understand fair questions to both sides. Not necessarily a problem with mulipul choice more the questions you were proposing a couple of weeks ago.

I think we are in agreement there, but I do think leavers over use that david davis line. If Davis had not been overruled he'd of brought a Canada style agreement back

So a multiple choice referendum wouldn't necessarily be unclear and difficult to understand?

From my understanding a Canada-style agreement was rejected because it either involved a hard border with Ireland or a border down the Irish sea. If Northern Ireland wasn't a part of the UK I think we would have reached something by now.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by SHallowvale
I can't see it, no. Simply saying something is true doesn't automatically make it true, even if you think "the majority of the public see it that way" (which you don't know either, unless you wish to back that up with real evidence).

Actually explain and justify what you're saying. All you've done is pass the blame onto a group of people who were not actually in charge or even present in the negotiations... which is ludicrous.

Again it is something which if you cannot see then you will not so there's no point anymore, because every other time I have remainers such as yourself just try to deny what is actually happening.
That is all you will get from me on the matter so feel free to poke away but don't be surprised with the lack of response.
Original post by ColinDent
Again it is something which if you cannot see then you will not so there's no point anymore, because every other time I have remainers such as yourself just try to deny what is actually happening.
That is all you will get from me on the matter so feel free to poke away but don't be surprised with the lack of response.

Ah yes, the old 'there's no point explaining it just accept what I am saying is true' argument.

If what you're saying is true and can be justified then you should have no trouble explaining it. I'm more than happy to have an open mind and accept that these people are to blame if you can show that this is definitely true.

What you've said is certainly counter intuitive since the people you're blaming haven't actually taken part in the negotiations. To blame them for a deal agreed between other members of Parliament, the government and the EU doesn't make any sense from the face of it.
Reply 95
"I'm more than happy to have an open mind"??.......................... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha..LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL.... did somebody book a comedian?????
At this point..

1) May - She failed to attain a majority in 2017 and then lacked the resolve to leave
2) ERG - Voted against MV3 (at least partly) knowing May would extend
3) Labour - Voted against the deal for nothing more than political reasoning
4) The Remain Alliance - Passage of the Benn Act means Varadkar has absolutely no incentive to agree to any deal, especially in an Irish election cycle
5) Ireland - Far too much hate is given to the EU who because the treaty needs ratification by each state are now Ireland’s female dog in these negotiations. Ireland are effectively attempting to seize Northern Ireland as highlighted by the fact that they won’t even support Stormont having the final say.

Boris I don’t blame because he’s actually proposed an agreement that probably does have a parliamentary majority.
Reply 97
Original post by Rakas21
At this point..

1) May - She failed to attain a majority in 2017 and then lacked the resolve to leave
2) ERG - Voted against MV3 (at least partly) knowing May would extend
3) Labour - Voted against the deal for nothing more than political reasoning
4) The Remain Alliance - Passage of the Benn Act means Varadkar has absolutely no incentive to agree to any deal, especially in an Irish election cycle
5) Ireland - Far too much hate is given to the EU who because the treaty needs ratification by each state are now Ireland’s female dog in these negotiations. Ireland are effectively attempting to seize Northern Ireland as highlighted by the fact that they won’t even support Stormont having the final say.

Boris I don’t blame because he’s actually proposed an agreement that probably does have a parliamentary majority.

I think you make a sound case.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21

5) Ireland - Far too much hate is given to the EU who because the treaty needs ratification by each state are now Ireland’s female dog in these negotiations. Ireland are effectively attempting to seize Northern Ireland as highlighted by the fact that they won’t even support Stormont having the final say.

It's almost as if being inside the EU has enormouse advantages when it comes to exerting your national influence lol.

Showing thier old imperial masters what for.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
It's almost as if being inside the EU has enormouse advantages when it comes to exerting your national influence lol.

Showing thier old imperial masters what for.

On issues where it's subject to individual ratification, no doubt.

Quick Reply

Latest