@
Scribbles There's quite a lot that you've said here which isn't wholly accurate and needs a little clarification. I'll try to keep it simple and brief.
"it was a mistake for the uk to vote remain or leave without a plan already in place"In essence, nobody has left the EU before* which means that it is almost impossible to plan for leaving the EU until you actually start to do it. Nobody knows how the EU will react. Nobody knows what sort of future relationship, with the EU, the leaving nation may or may not want.
And then human nature comes into play where people underestimate the opposition and are overly optimistic about an outcome.
David Cameron, the Remain campaign and the general population as whole didn't expect the Leave campaign to be so visceral and to target peoples fears and weaknesses so much. I don't recall anything like it in British politics before.
So yeah, the government didn't prepare a plan should the result be to leave. Because:
a) it was impossible to plan for something so full of unknowns.
b) very few of us expected a Leave result. And even fewer Parliamentarians expected a Leave result.
*three countries have in fact left the EU before. Two of them (French Algeria and Saint Barthélemy) became Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union. In other words, they are still in the EU. Sort of. The third was Greenland in 1985. The EU was very different back then and nowhere near as complex or as far reaching.
"Because Theresa May's deal didn't go over well"Strictly speaking, it's not Theresa May's deal. The EU drafted the Withdrawal Agreement and Theresa May sought to negotiate changes etc to what they had drafted. After a lot of backwards and forwards, after a lot of squabbles within our Parliament, the EU said, "That's it. That's all you're going to get. There is no other deal to be had."
That's when the shitshow really started.
"Much info is how many brits are now completely regretting their vote now"Actually, the polls have consistently shown that Brexit would be voted for again. In fact, many who voted for Brexit have become even more entrenched in their views. This is partly because, in their eyes, all of the warnings about economic collapse etc have not come to pass. What they fail to realise is that we haven't left the EU yet. So, if those warnings are accurate, they are still to happen. Also, all of the talk of a second referendum has resulted in making those who voted for Brexit feel betrayed.
They voted for something and won. Now the losers want to take that win from them by making them vote again. Personally, I think that a second referendum would result in a much higher vote to leave than the 52% result of the first time around.
"break the gridlock is for your government to decide to go against the vote and commit political suicide and say they have to remain in the EU until there can be some kind of majority vote on a deal that is acceptable to the people."Strictly speaking, that's not legally possible. In March 2017 the government triggered Article 50. In order for them to do this, a Bill went through Parliament. It was agreed by both Houses and passed into law. The EU accepted our triggering of Article 50 which means that it basically became legally binding in the EU. Ergo, we cannot cancel Brexit without pushing through new legislation. Something which is far from certain given the fractures within Parliament. Also, the EU has to be willing for us to cancel Brexit. That would be more do'able.
So why did we trigger Article 50? Because we couldn't begin negotiations with the EU until Article 50 was triggered. Until that point, all we had was a referendum result which could be adopted or dropped or messed about with in all manner of ways. Triggering Article 50 made that shit real.
"Britain would have set the precedent of refusing to pay for exiting, etc as well."Nope. That hasn't happened. The UK accepts that it has to pay a divorce bill. The argument is about (as is always the case) how much and what we get for our cash. In many ways, we want to pay a divorce bill because that is one way to guarantee access to all manner of projects which have nothing to do with trade. Projects such as the EU version of GPS and projects for military weapons and other types of military equipment such as vehicles etc.
"In a No-deal, The UK will be stuck either on their own, or spending alot of time negotiating, right?"erm.......ish. What people don't seem to understand is that the so-called "Theresa May Deal" is simply a withdrawal agreement ie it's what it says on the tin. If and when it is adopted, we still have to negotiate all of the trade deals and all the other technical stuff with the EU. The current wisdom is that that would take at least a further two years. In fact, if I remember correctly, two years is specified in the withdrawal agreement as a minimum.
So, bottom line, we're going to spending a lot of time negotiating whatever happens.
Jeez.....I've just seen how much I've typed and there's still stuff that I would like to say.
OK, I'll stop boring you and anybody else who has been masochistic enough to read all of this 😁
