Are the EU negotiators a bunch of bullies - Page 12

Probably because a big majority voted in favour 2nd time and the Irish were happy with the concessions they had negotiated. Why wouldn't it be binding? The Irish had EU over a barrel because the Treaty couldn't come into effect until all countries had approved it. Even UK were putting pressure on Ireland!! Alot of useful info out there if only people would deal in facts. Done with this now, thanks for the debate😊

Strange how someone must have last word to amplifie there argument sadly and gladly life is not like that and the debate will continue with or without the participation of the 

I do not want to discuss it further 

Let's see same agenda out no deal stuff the Germans and the French and let's be a proud country again with our own laws etc 69 billion a year crazy to pay lazy MPs in Strasbourg to do nothing 

Let's all get together and tell the EU to get stuffed and there are plenty more markets to deal with who are not meglamaniacs 

I live in Spain they have and continue to build roads airports etc all with EC money most of these are useless like 3 motorways from virtually the same spot go to Murcia plus an airport that is not needed not required and will probably close within a year who pays UK and others 

The remainers 

I will ask you again 

And again untill you answer the correct answer 

Give me a break 1 vote 1 answer end 

Lewie, the first Irish referendum about Lisbon was binding, we voted not to change our constitution (to allow the State ratify the Treaty). Following that, our Government went back to the EU and presented the concerns which arose during the referendum campaign and changes were re-negotiated to address those concerns.  We then had a second referendum which voted to allow the State ratify the Treaty, together with the negotiated changes. Had there been a third referendum, it too would have been binding, but given the changes negotiated and the swing in the vote as between the two referendums, there was no political or public appetite or agitation for a third vote. 

In fact Ireland voted twice in referendums on European Treaties on two separate occasions, firstly about the Nice Treaty (when we were definitely not bankrupt) and the second time about Lisbon (when we were seeking a bailout). So anyone who thinks/says that Ireland were simply doing what Ireland were told to do by EU, believes and spreads fake news.

That's what happens with democracy, each vote overtakes the previous one, nothing is for ever. Circumstances and opinions change with time. Equally there is a different electorate every time, as some of those under 18 come to voting age and previous voters die. So ongoing voting is a cornerstone of democracy worldwide. Even in the UK, where the result of the 1975 referendum was overturned by the 2016 referendum and every general election overturns the previous general election result. Hope the above is not too pedantic for anyone.

Having viewed the UK Brexit debate for a while from a  distance,  I have come to the conclusion that now is too soon to have a second referendum on leave-remain. Regardless of the outcome, if a second leave-remain vote were to occur, the margin (one way or the other) would, I think, be very narrow and would effectively leave the issue hanging. The People voted to leave in 2016 and it looks like Parliament (who currently has the final say) will reject the "deal" negotiated by the UK Cabinet, but I suspect that Parliament will not be able to decide on what to do then or how to go about it. So in those circumstances, perhaps Parliament needs further direction from the People? In which case a deal-no deal referendum might occur? Options being exiting the EU on the terms currently negotiated by Cabinet (it seems to be not renegotiable), or exiting the EU without any negotiated terms. This would honor the 2016 vote to leave, while also deciding on how to leave, which, it seems to me,  was not adequately considered in 2016, and which is now  central, but seems cannot be agreed upon. Even if deal-no deal is agreed upon by Parliament, that might not reflect the will of the People, as the opinion of those who voted remain in 2016 are now relevant on how to leave, (as are the opinion on 2016 leavers, I suspect some leavers will be happy with a no deal situation while others won't be). After all it was Boris Johnson & other Brexiteers who promulgated the idea that the UK can have its cake and eat it (by leaving the EU while retaining access to the single market and other "good" aspects of the EU, despite the evidence to the contrary when Cameroon tried to negotiate something similar prior to eth 2016 vote) 

BTW, I am not telling the UK what to do, the UK is well able for that themselves, but am simply opining. Whatever the outcome, I wish the UK well, I certainty do not wish ruin (financial or otherwise) on the UK because of Brexit, though that unfortunately seems to be an outcome desired by some, but not all, posters on this forum as regards what might/should happen to the EU, and or some of its member States, following Brexit.  

Sean95

Don't become one of the bigots.
If you had answers you would gladly continue to 'debate'.
You answer a question with a question. "Why wouldn't the second vote be binding?"
You didn't answer the question, why wasn't the first binding?
I didn't want the CONservatives to get in to Westminster, but they did.
We didn't go back to the polls, that's not how democracy works.
Though our voting system is hardly democratic (just over 13.5 million voted for them, over 18 million didn't).
I cannot understand why some humans have this need to be part of a 'gang'.
A bit like religion.
Most are pretty sure there isn't a 'God' controlling what goes on in the universe but feel the need to be led.  
We don't need unelected bureaucrats telling us what we can and can't do in our country.
We would not be leaving Europe, that's impossible (barring a major upset in the plate tectonics) we would just be leaving the dictatorship of the EU.
It would be oh so good.

Conor

Are you serious? 'the UK is well able'.
Far from it.
The question was clear, the result was clear, no matter the margin.
Leave was the answer.
We don't need to pay them a penny. let alone 39 billion.
If anyone really thinks trade will cease between the UK and EU member businesses they are on cloud cuckoo land.
France goes up in flames with a fuel price rise.
Imagine what would happen if they were told they couldn't sell their goods to us.
Chaos.
Call their bluff, walk away.

As for the 'each vote overtakes the previous one' comment, that happens after the first vote has been honoured.
As in, a party is elected, they do the opposite to what they promised, then another vote takes place, usually after a set time.
In the case of the EU, they don't act on a result they don't like.
They immediately say that's the wrong answer, try again.
If they get the answer they were after, end of debate.
Zero democracy.  

Mass corruption at all political and municipal levels. Serious riots and discontent in France. Germany bankrupting Greece in order to sell their manufactured goods and keep the Euro weaker to the advantage of their exports.Italy on the brink of bank defaults.Sanchez thinks he sees an opportunity to attack a bullied country (we will remember that). Spain locks up its opposition and has political prisoners....you could go on and on and on. Who would want to remain and contribute to this club of corrupt members. Great Britain does not need this and a no deal Brexit will cause more problems to their economies than ours. Incidentally I lived in Spai and owned property for 5 years when it was a dictatorship and not in the EU. Nothing has changed except there wasnt any crime then. I am still only here for the winter sunshine. I love my country and what it allows me to do. Idealistic lefties who want easy advantage are the worry. That never changes either. Enjoy the sunshine and hope common sense prevails amongst the great British people and we leave this shambles of a political union called EU.

Lewie, whatever. End of debate = Zero democracy? Life and debate are ongoing, always changing, never static. Always has been and always will be. 

I do not think anyone ever though or said that trade will cease between UK and EU or EU member states after Brexit,  so why raise that? Nobody (incl UK) wants that, and nobody expects that, or maybe I missed something.

As for the EU saying that the UK vote is the wrong answer, the EU will no doubt agree to the deal mutually negotiated with the UK. If what the UK Cabinet or Negotiators sought and got is not what the People voted for, surely that is down to the UK negotiators? Each member state, and the EU itself, has its own interest to look after, you can hardly expect the EU to do the UK's job for the UK? Presumably in deciding to leave, the UK decided what was in its best interests, regardless of what the EU thought. 

You are correct saying that UK is far from able to decide, though I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant. 

Real Politic

Wales has a population of  3.8 miilion   -voted (amazingly) to leave would rank 22nd  largest country in EU

Scotland a-population  of 5.4 million   - voted to remain, would rank  19th Largest

N Ireland  a population  of 1.8 million  - voted to remain

if reunified with southern Ireland a total population of 6.6 million  - would rank 17th just above Denmark.

Another referendum will unleash all manner of destructive forces. Good bye to the United Kingdom?