Would You Back A Second Referendum

[Bobbisox1]

I would not and if one was implemented I won’t vote again, there’s calls for another one, what happened to democracy ?

[naomi24]

Jim, //a [no deal] vote that, as JD had it, would be meant to tell the EU to "get stuffed"//

Not so. It would simply be a rejection of the deal on offer. We have no reason to accept any deal that is detrimental to us – and we are under no obligation to do so. That’s business.

The only ‘fair’ referendum is the one we’ve already had.

[jim360]

Well, yes, I'd agree that we should reject the deal. But the same analysis applies to no deal -- how can that not be "detrimental" to us? And to the EU, for that matter. Analysis from almost every source I'm aware of confirms it, even if the scale of the impact is debated.

[naomi24]

The scale of the impact is also, in the main, exaggerated... but every little helps I suppose.

[jim360]

Well, for my part I hope that it *is* exaggerated, but also that we will never actually test it. Listening to the various business leaders, farmers, etc etc, who are all communicating the same message ("anything but No Deal") ought to tell you something. It would be an irresponsible course of action, and should be rejected on the same grounds that you are dismissing the deal.

[naomi24]

Jim, I have listened to farmers and to business leaders – first hand - and you may rest assured that they are not all communicating the same message. You really shouldn’t believe all you read. I don’t.

There's a big, thriving world out there Jim, most of it unattached to the EU.

[spathiphyllum]

Naomi, What countries are thriving, and have they agreed to discuss trade?

If so... What products do they have to offer us, that they have going spare? Because they can only provide to us produce and trade that they're not providing elsewhere.

[douglas9401]

I believe they're under the umbrella Nebulous Alliance.

[naomi24]

spath. You don't know much about business.

[jim360]

Farmers don't have to speak with exactly 100% one voice to have an overwhelming majority in a given direction. Even though a great deal of farmers voted for Brexit, many understand that a No Deal Brexit will be damaging to them. None of that is undermined by the somewhat nebulous point of there being "a big, wide world out there". There is simply no future in which the UK can avoid having to deal extensively with the EU. Damaging our relationship with them is therefore detrimental to the UK. Common sense should tell you that, if hard, cold evidence can't do the job.

As to the idea, voiced in another thread, that much of "Project Fear" has been debunked -- it has not.

[spathiphyllum]

"spath. You don't know much about business."

You evidently don't know much about discussion and debate. That doesn't answer my question, it's a failed attempt at
patronization.

Now about this big old world you talk about, anything set in stone regarding trade outside the EU?

I thought as much.

[spathiphyllum]

Jim, the issue is naomi believes it so hard, she'll fight it's corner with no foundation or fact, simple speculation. Dare you do that, then you're part of project fear.

Better than project BS!

[naomi24]

Jim, our relationship with the EU doesn’t have to be ‘damaged’, nor theirs with us – which, since they benefit more from us than we from them, is clearly as important to them – if not more so. Regardless of the eventual outcome will always trade with the EU and it with us. Business is business. This is not World War III.

[spathiphyllum]

Naomi you act like they are a couple of big fat men sat in the office.

Fact is it's 27 other countries...

I do wonder how you picture the "EU".

Imagine saying to 27 countries "you benefit more from us than we do from you"

They'd laugh in your face.

[naomi24]

Most of them do spath - and they know it - which is why they don't want us to leave. They're not that keen on us - but our money is handy.

[spathiphyllum]

I think that's an extremely arrogant ideology.

[jim360]

The UK may be a net contributor to the EU but the longer this goes on the more painful it is for them. It holds up business, taking up time that the EU would frankly much rather spend elsewhere.

It's also factually wrong. When the UK and EU agreed that we would continue paying into the EU budget, that was based on the idea that a transition period would end in December 2020. That is still the agreement. Therefore we actually owe the EU no extra money than we did before all these extensions.

[naomi24]

No arrogance in truth, spath.

//The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. In other words, it contributes more to the EU budget than it receives back from it.

In 2017, another nine countries were also net contributors://

The rest - the majority - are net recipients.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48256318

[naomi24]

Jim, you've gone off at a tangent again - or perhaps you're talking to someone else? I haven't mentioned owing money.

[spathiphyllum]

Oh gosh! We contribute to help others? How awful.

[naomi24]

:o)