'Brexit 50-50' if May's deal rejected, says Liam Fox

[White_Unifier]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46713498

If I were the UK Parliament, I'd call a new referendum:

1. Remain in the EU.

2. Unilateral global free trade.

If the final Brexit deal is even worse than remaining in the EU, then I imagine even many Brexiteers would rather remain for now but follow it up with a new referendum with a clearer referendum question that would ensure a beneficial Brexit option, not a Brexit that's far worse than remaining.

 

[Blackleaf]

They should, and will, reject May's deal. It's a cowpat of a deal that isn't really Brexit - and I'm baffled as to why a Brexiteer like Fox supports it.

Britain will leave the EU in three months' time without a deal - full-blown Brexit.

 

[Blackleaf]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46713498
If I were the UK Parliament, I'd call a new referendum:

Good. That means the Government and the Labour Party will campaign for Leave and when Leave win again but by an even bigger margin it'll be interesting to see what the Remainers do then. Call for a third referendum? Maybe make it best of five?

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has urged the UK to "get your act together and then tell us what it is you want" for Brexit.

Speaking to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, he said it was "unreasonable" for parts of the British public to expect Brussels to solve "British problems".

Mr Juncker also rejected the idea that the EU wanted to keep the UK in the EU "by all possible means" and suggested the majority of MPs "deeply distrust" the EU and Theresa May.

"Hic! Hic!"

 

[White_Unifier]

Good. That means the Government and the Labour Party will campaign for Leave and when Leave win again but by an even bigger margin it'll be interesting to see what the Remainers do then. Call for a third referendum? Maybe make it best of five?
"Hic! Hic!"

The first referendum allowed for too much ambiguity as to what Brexit was supposed to mean. A second referendum giving a choice between remain and unilateral global free trade allows for some ambiguity too. For example, if the majority voted unilateral global free trade and the EU were willing to grant the UK that within the EU, then that would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.

That said, since I can't imagine the EU agreeing to that, and since the referendum would make clear that any deal must include unilateral global free trade, this would pretty much force a hard Brexit unless the EU surprisingly allowed it within the EU.

 

[Blackleaf]

The first referendum allowed for too much ambiguity as to what Brexit was supposed to mean. A second referendum giving a choice between remain and unilateral global free trade allows for some ambiguity too. For example, if the majority voted unilateral global free trade and the EU were willing to grant the UK that within the EU, then that would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
That said, since I can't imagine the EU agreeing to that, and since the referendum would make clear that any deal must include unilateral global free trade, this would pretty much force a hard Brexit unless the EU surprisingly allowed it within the EU.

You're making the Remainer mistake of thinking just about money and the economy.

The majority of Leave voters voted the way they did to regain their country's sovereignty and independence.

That's why most Leave voters just ignored Project Fear's silly apocalyptic economic warnings - a return to full sovereignty and independence is the most important thing to Leavers.

 

[White_Unifier]

You're making the Remainer mistake of thinking just about money and the economy.
The majority of Leave voters voted the way they did to regain their country's sovereignty and independence.
That's why most Leave voters just ignored Project Fear's silly apocalyptic economic warnings - a return to full sovereignty and independence is the most important thing to Leavers.

Sovereignty is relative. Any trade agreement involves some exchange of sovereignty. Perhaps the most sovereign state in the world today is North Korea. Is that really what you want: total, absolute sovereignty?

 

[White_Unifier]

Even Canada is not totally sovereign when we consider its trade agreements, NATO, the UN, the Commonwealth, etc.

 

[White_Unifier]

Consider too that less wealthy Leavers probably do care more about bread and butter issues than you think.

 

[Blackleaf]

Even Canada is not totally sovereign when we consider its trade agreements, NATO, the UN, the Commonwealth, etc.

None of those are actual countries in the making, with their own parliament, unelected president, capital city, national anthem and currency all at once.

Canada isn't run by a bunch of Americans, Mexicans, Jamaicans, Costa Ricans, Haitians, Hondurans and Guatemalans in Tegucigalpa.

Of course, were that the case, I doubt you'd like it very much.

 

[White_Unifier]

None of those are actual countries in the making, with their own parliament, unelected president, capital city, national anthem and currency all at once.
Canada isn't run by a bunch of Americans, Mexicans, Jamaicans, Costa Ricans, Haitians, Hondurans and Guatemalans in Tegucigalpa.
Of course, were that the case, I doubt you'd like it very much.

Like I said, sovereignty is relative and I agree that Canada retains more sovereignty than the UK does relatively speaking. But some Leavers in principle might also fear a fanatical retention of sovereignty which isn't good either as that would stagnate your economy. I personally opine that Signapore has found a good balance between retaining a degree of sovereignty while still ensuring access to world markets. Unilateral global free trade could reassure those Leavers that the UK is not looking to greedily hold on to absolute sovereignty to the point of economic isolationism.

 

[Blackleaf]

Like I said, sovereignty is relative and I agree that Canada retains more sovereignty than the UK does relatively speaking. But some Leavers in principle might also fear a fanatical retention of sovereignty which isn't good either as that would stagnate your economy. I personally opine that Signapore has found a good balance between retaining a degree of sovereignty while still ensuring access to world markets. Unilateral global free trade could reassure those Leavers that the UK is not looking to greedily hold on to absolute sovereignty to the point of economic isolationism.

Why's it OK for other countries to gain independence from empires but not OK for Britain to do so?

As for "economic isolation", Britain is a far more global and outward-looking country than any of her neighbours.

 

[White_Unifier]

Why's it OK for other countries to gain independence from empires but not OK for Britain to do so?
As for "economic isolation", Britain is a far more global and outward-looking country than any of her neighbours.

I agree with you, but perception is important. In the last referendum, I would most certainly have voted remain for two reasons:

1. The leave option was too ambiguous.

2. Some Leavers' rhetoric came across as too isolationist so I would have worried had their version of Brexit taken hold (again related to the ambiguity of the Leave option). If you had a referendum 2.0 with the same options as the last, I'd again vote remain for the same reasons. Unilateral global free trade as thealternative to remainwould address both concerns. It would be a somewhat more clearly defined option and woukd ensure that the isolationist vision not gain the upper hand. If I were British, I'd probably identify myself as a cautious Leaver in principle. I imagine that at least some who voted remain fell in the same camp.

So in the event of a referendum 2.0, how would you reword the referendum to asdress their concerns so Aston avoid a repetition of the present chaos?

Same with NAFTA. I see flaws in it, but I'd never vote to leave it withno clear indication if would replace it. I'msure many remain voters voted remain for the same reason.

 

[Blackleaf]

I agree with you, but perception is important. In the last referendum, I would most certainly have voted remain for two reasons:

1. The leave option was too ambiguous.

So was the Remain option, using your logic.

2. Some Leavers' rhetoric came across as too isolationist so I would have worried had their version of Brexit taken hold (again related to the ambiguity of the Leave option).

What's isolationist about leaving an inward-looking, highly-protectionist union and becoming more outward-looking and global?

There's nothing isolationist about Brexit. Britain is a member of many other multinational organisations: ADB (nonregional member), AfDB (nonregional member), Arctic Council (observer), Australia Group, BIS, C, CBSS (observer), CD, CDB, CE, CERN, EAPC, EBRD, ECB, EIB, EITI (implementing country), ESA, FAO, FATF, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-10, G-20, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC (national committees), ICCt, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IGAD (partners), IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, ITUC (NGOs), MIGA, MINUSMA, MONUSCO, NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS (observer), OECD, OPCW, OSCE, Pacific Alliance (observer), Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), SELEC (observer), SICA (observer), UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNMISS, UNRWA, UNSC (permanent), UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC.

If you had a referendum 2.0 with the same options as the last, I'd again vote remain for the same reasons. Unilateral global free trade as thealternative to remainwould address both concerns. It would be a somewhat more clearly defined option and woukd ensure that the isolationist vision not gain the upper hand. If I were British, I'd probably identify myself as a cautious Leaver in principle. I imagine that at least some who voted remain fell in the same camp.

Again, you're going down the Remainer route of thinking of Brexit in terms of money and economics and what it means for such things. Most of the 17,410,742 people who voted Leave did so purely to regain the country's sovereignty and independence, and were willing to do so even if the economy took a short-term hit.

Only for Remainers is it about economics. For Leavers, it's about sovereignty.

how would you reword the referendum to asdress their concerns so Aston avoid a repetition of the present chaos?

I wouldn't reword it. I don't agree with undemocratically gerrymandering the Leave option.

Same with NAFTA. I see flaws in it, but I'd never vote to leave it withno clear indication if would replace it. I'msure many remain voters voted remain for the same reason.

There's no comparison between NAFTA and the EU. NAFTA isn't a burgeoning nation state like the EU.
Canada hasn't given up the dollar to adopt a new NAFTA-wide currency. 90% of Canada's laws aren't created by unelected Americans and Mexicans at the NAFTA parliament in Mexico City. Canada doesn't have to accept unlimited numbers of migrants from the rest of NAFTA.

If Canada was part of an organisation that is identical to the EU, you'd be wanting out.

 

[Blackleaf]

I'm here at my parents' house and they've just been discussing what different internet provider they are to go with in the new year when they ditch crappy TalkTalk.

My mum said: "What about Virgin?"

My dad replied: "No. I'm not putting money into that anti-Brexit bastard's pocket."

 

[MHz]

Perhaps the Royals and their friends that are planning British Global Empire II should use the Falklands as a jumping off point. How much have they milked out of the public coffers for all the nonsense on that last year that were the constant headline. I would say 'before taxes' by why really?

 

[White_Unifier]

So was the Remain option, using your logic.
What's isolationist about leaving an inward-looking, highly-protectionist union and becoming more outward-looking and global?
There's nothing isolationist about Brexit. Britain is a member of many other multinational organisations: ADB (nonregional member), AfDB (nonregional member), Arctic Council (observer), Australia Group, BIS, C, CBSS (observer), CD, CDB, CE, CERN, EAPC, EBRD, ECB, EIB, EITI (implementing country), ESA, FAO, FATF, G-5, G-7, G-8, G-10, G-20, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC (national committees), ICCt, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IGAD (partners), IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, ITUC (NGOs), MIGA, MINUSMA, MONUSCO, NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS (observer), OECD, OPCW, OSCE, Pacific Alliance (observer), Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), SELEC (observer), SICA (observer), UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNMISS, UNRWA, UNSC (permanent), UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC.
Again, you're going down the Remainer route of thinking of Brexit in terms of money and economics and what it means for such things. Most of the 17,410,742 people who voted Leave did so purely to regain the country's sovereignty and independence, and were willing to do so even if the economy took a short-term hit.
Only for Remainers is it about economics. For Leavers, it's about sovereignty.
I wouldn't reword it. I don't agree with undemocratically gerrymandering the Leave option.
There's no comparison between NAFTA and the EU. NAFTA isn't a burgeoning nation state like the EU.
Canada hasn't given up the dollar to adopt a new NAFTA-wide currency. 90% of Canada's laws aren't created by unelected Americans and Mexicans at the NAFTA parliament in Mexico City. Canada doesn't have to accept unlimited numbers of migrants from the rest of NAFTA.
If Canada was part of an organisation that is identical to the EU, you'd be wanting out.

The remain option was at least clear enough to understand that it meant to remain in th EU at least for now.

The Leave option could be interpreted to mean almost anything from the Finnish model all the way to WTO rules and everything in between.

As for Nafta, have you not seen how Trump essentially bullied us into the more recent version making it harder for us to negotiate trade deals with other states? That's why I like the idea of unilateral global free trade. While it would still make Canada quite economically dependent on the US, it would help to diversity our economy at least somewhat more so as to make us less dependent on one single state. I'd rather the Canadian economy depend on many different states than just on one single one as that allows us to hedge our bets a little better.

 

[White_Unifier]

I'm here at my parents' house and they've just been discussing what different internet provider they are to go with in the new year when they ditch crappy TalkTalk.
My mum said: "What about Virgin?"
My dad replied: "No. I'm not putting money into that anti-Brexit bastard's pocket."

So your father implicitly complimented Brexit Virgin's as better than Leave's Talk Talk? Interesting.

 

[White_Unifier]

Sorry, I meant Remain Virgin's...

 

[Blackleaf]

So your father implicitly complimented Brexit Virgin's as better than Leave's Talk Talk? Interesting.

No. He said doesn't want to give money to an anti-Brexit billionaire.

 

[Blackleaf]

The remain option was at least clear enough to understand that it meant to remain in th EU at least for now.
The Leave option could be interpreted to mean almost anything from the Finnish model all the way to WTO rules and everything in between.
As for Nafta, have you not seen how Trump essentially bullied us into the more recent version making it harder for us to negotiate trade deals with other states? That's why I like the idea of unilateral global free trade. While it would still make Canada quite economically dependent on the US, it would help to diversity our economy at least somewhat more so as to make us less dependent on one single state. I'd rather the Canadian economy depend on many different states than just on one single one as that allows us to hedge our bets a little better.

We could have made the Remain option clearer.

Put in several Remain options, such as:

1) Remain in the EU but stay out of the euro, end free movement and oppose ever closer union.

2) Remain in the EU, join the euro, keep free movement and participate in ever closer union.


3) Remain in the EU and keep things as they are now.

As it was, the simple "Remain in the EU" option was far too ambiguous and Remainers didn't know what they were voting for.