Brexit Referendum Superthread

smjm

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you expect the UK to manufacture?

Whatever they currently import from ourselves and the wider EU, if tariffs make manufacturing a more viable option than importing?

Inquitus

smjm wrote: »

Whatever they currently import from ourselves and the wider EU, if tariffs make manufacturing a more viable option than importing?

You don't just magic up the expertise and the plants to manufacture whatever you desire at the drop of a hat.....

embraer170

Matthew Tempest 28/06/201620:02
Am hearing that the Irish will be pushing very hard for the Taoiseach to have a major role in the Brexit negotiations, considering the Northern Irish peace process, and the UK-Irish economy.

http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/live-first-eu-summit-post-brexit/

ancapailldorcha

smjm wrote: »

Interesting article by the UK Constitutional Law Association, arguing that the UK government cannot, constitutionally, invoke Article 50 without an Act of Parliament!

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

Interesting. Most MP's are in favour of remain.

Bob24

smjm wrote: »

Interesting article by the UK Constitutional Law Association, arguing that the UK government cannot, constitutionally, invoke Article 50 without an Act of Parliament!

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

Difficult to know which of these legal opinions to believe. For exemple this one says "The first point to note about Article 50 is that it is a once-and-for-all decision; there is no turning back once Article 50 has been invoked" whereas another one posted earlier on this thread was saying the exact opposite (I can't find the post anymore but it was linking to a PDF produced by a UK institution).

Edit: here it is (see chapter 1, point 10, which clearly says the decision to withdraw can be reversed): http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf

smjm

Inquitus wrote: »

You don't just magic up the expertise and the plants to manufacture whatever you desire at the drop of a hat.....

Of course not - it will take time - and they'll have plenty of time. You don't expect them to sit back and do nothing do you?
Plus, of course, outside of EU regulation, they might be able to undercut EU manufacturing exports to the wider world. Again, it would take time - but it shouldn't be dismissed.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

Difficult to know which of these legal opinions to believe. For exemple this one says "The first point to note about Article 50 is that it is a once-and-for-all decision; there is no turning back once Article 50 has been invoked" whereas another one posted earlier on this thread was saying the exact opposite (I can't find the post anymore but it was linking to a PDF produced by a UK institution).

I linked to it above. Here it is:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-process-for-withdrawing-from-the-european-union

A Dub in Glasgo

Bob24 wrote: »

Difficult to know which of these legal opinions to believe. For exemple this one says "The first point to note about Article 50 is that it is a once-and-for-all decision; there is no turning back once Article 50 has been invoked" whereas another one posted earlier on this thread was saying the exact opposite (I can't find the post anymore but it was linking to a PDF produced by a UK institution).

Probably my post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100184439&postcount=2988

Inquitus

smjm wrote: »

Of course not - it will take time - and they'll have plenty of time. You don't expect them to sit back and do nothing do you?
Plus, of course, outside of EU regulation, they might be able to undercut EU manufacturing exports to the wider world. Again, it would take time - but it shouldn't be dismissed.

If they couldn't be competitive manufacturing within the EU how can they hope to be more competitive outside of it, unless they utterly erode workers rights, environmental regulation and the like, and take part in a race to the bottom?

Bob24

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Probably my post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100184439&postcount=2988

Yep that was the one :-)

smjm

Bob24 wrote: »

Difficult to know which of these legal opinions to believe. For exemple this one says "The first point to note about Article 50 is that it is a once-and-for-all decision; there is no turning back once Article 50 has been invoked" whereas another one posted earlier on this thread was saying the exact opposite (I can't find the post anymore but it was linking to a PDF produced by a UK institution).

Even as things stand now, the UK are in no way legally obliged to invoke Article 50, as far as I have read. They could drag this out forever if they wanted, causing mayhem within the EU. That may be a bargaining chip for them in getting informal negotiations started as soon as possible, no matter what Merkel or others have said publicly.

A Dub in Glasgo

smjm wrote: »

They could drag this out forever if they wanted, causing mayhem within the EU.

There will be calls from within the EU to trigger article 7 in response

Bob24

smjm wrote: »

Even as things stand now, the UK are in no way legally obliged to invoke Article 50, as far as I have read. They could drag this out forever if they wanted, causing mayhem within the EU. That may be a bargaining chip for them in getting informal negotiations started as soon as possible, no matter what Merkel or others have said publicly.

Yes that point is crystal clear: on the UK can decide when to invoke it (although I assume if nothing happens for months other states will find ways to pressure the British).

But I guess my points is that legal opinions floating around shouldn't be taken at face value as clearly between the one you posted and the one A Dub in Glasgo posted, one has to be wrong about the possibility to cancel the process or not once article 50 has been triggered.

embraer170

I just watched the livestream of the Council press conference.

Art 50 expected 2 weeks after the new PM, or the next day if the PM is from the Leave campaign.

They ended on a reassuring note: the immediate consequences of Brexit have not been as bad as expected.

K-9

smjm wrote: »

Even as things stand now, the UK are in no way legally obliged to invoke Article 50, as far as I have read. They could drag this out forever if they wanted, causing mayhem within the EU. That may be a bargaining chip for them in getting informal negotiations started as soon as possible, no matter what Merkel or others have said publicly.

The problem then becomes Farage and loads of those 17 million voters getting very annoyed. There's only so much delaying a new PM can do internally.

smjm

Inquitus wrote: »

If they couldn't be competitive manufacturing within the EU how can they hope to be more competitive outside of it, unless they utterly erode workers rights, environmental regulation and the like, and take part in a race to the bottom?

Within the EU it might not have been worth their while manufacturing certain goods. Easier to import without tariffs. If EU tariffs change that position, and they start manufacturing their own goods for themselves, then they might look to export them as well. They'll then be competing with EU companies for the first time in certain sectors. Will this happen? I don't know. Neither do you. We'll have to wait and see!

smjm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There will be calls from within the EU to trigger article 7 in response

Interesting, thanks!

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

The problem then becomes Farage and loads of those 17 million voters getting very annoyed. There's only so much delaying a new PM can do internally.

Yep, the European Council can send an open letter to Number 10 the morning after the new PM is determined asking if the UK intends to exit the EU in line with the referendum result.

The next Tory PM will have had to already insist they will activate Article 50 or they simply wont become PM. They simply wont be able to hold off a clear confirmation of activating Article 50 if the European Council publicly inquire their intention. The political and economic pressure and distrust is just too great for any wink-wink, nudge-nudge long game.

The UK cant afford to dawdle - it needs to deal extremely fast or it will be economically crushed by investors who hate uncertainty and will have no idea what terms their UK investment will be under in 2-3 years until the UK and EU agree a deal.

Pro Hoc Vice

smjm wrote: »

Within the EU it might not have been worth their while manufacturing certain goods. Easier to import without tariffs. If EU tariffs change that position, and they start manufacturing their own goods for themselves, then they might look to export them as well. They'll then be competing with EU companies for the first time in certain sectors. Will this happen? I don't know. Neither do you. We'll have to wait and see!

You understand that UK is 11th biggest manufacturing nation in the world. This from a country that is tiny compared to China or India. Where is all this manufacturing capacity going to come from. U.K. For example produces about 10% of all cars made in the world.

gandalf

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

You understand that UK is 11th biggest manufacturing nation in the world. This from a country that is tiny compared to China or India. Where is all this manufacturing capacity going to come from. U.K. For example produces about 10% of all cars made in the world.

Are those cars manufactured by UK owned companies or manufactured in plants that were based in the UK to gain access to the common market?

If they lose access to the EU then you could find a lot of the car plants being moved. There are stories circulating with the Hungarians actively polling some of those companies offering to help them relocate the plants.

The UK could find themselves plummeting down the list of worlds top manufacturing nations even further than they have since the 1960's.

Bit cynical

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

There will be calls from within the EU to trigger article 7 in response

This is what Farage perhaps would like to happen.

The problem:

Article 7 (extract):

On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.

Article 2:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

The problem is that holding a referendum to find out what people think is not in breach of any of the above values. If anything it is a lesson to Europe in democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

If the EU were to haul in the UK for holding a referendum they would be showing themselves up as hypocrites. They would give fuel to to anti-EU groups throughout the continent. Exactly what Farage wants.

marienbad

Bit cynical wrote: »

This is what Farage perhaps would like to happen.

The problem:

Article 7 (extract):

On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.

Article 2:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

The problem is that holding a referendum to find out what people think is not in breach of any of the above values. If anything it is a lesson to Europe in democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

If the EU were to haul in the UK for holding a referendum they would be showing themselves up as hypocrites. They would give fuel to to anti-EU groups throughout the continent. Exactly what Farage wants.

Surely it is the reverse ? The EU would be following through on the referendum result and questioning why the UK was not acting on it and thus subverting that democratic result ?

Sand

Bit cynical wrote: »

This is what Farage perhaps would like to happen.

The problem:

Article 7 (extract):

On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2.

Article 2:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

The problem is that holding a referendum to find out what people think is not in breach of any of the above values. If anything it is a lesson to Europe in democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

If the EU were to haul in the UK for holding a referendum they would be showing themselves up as hypocrites. They would give fuel to to anti-EU groups throughout the continent. Exactly what Farage wants.

Well, it only needs a QMV, and if the UK was ****ing about, 'causing mayhem' within the EU and its decision making process and exhausted the EU's patience then they could make an argument that the UK deliberately sabotaging the EU as a negotiating tactic was anti-democratic to the people of the EU and against the rule of law.

Not saying it wouldn't be an inventive case, but we all saw the way Farage is viewed in Europe. If the UK tries to fight dirty the EU will hold its nose and use Article 7 as a nuclear option.

It wouldnt even get to that - the EU could start leaking horrific draft deals for the UK that startle investors and lead to further capital flight from the UK. The UK simply does not have the time to dawdle - it needs to achieve a measure of certainty a lot faster than the EU does.

Bit cynical

marienbad wrote: »

Surely it is the reverse ? The EU would be following through on the referendum result and questioning why the UK was not acting on it and thus subverting that democratic result ?

It is not like an election has been held and the losing side refuses to cede government. This is a non-binding, advisory referendum. Yes, if the government there delay it year after year they will face political problems within their own country, but that is their business and not the business of anyone outside.

And moreover there's no evidence yet that a significant delay will happen. Cameron has announced his intention to stand down. It will take a few months to find a replacement and it is quite right that this replacement should invoke Article 50. Most likely by the end of the year or early in the new year, it will be invoked.

The alternative would be for Cameron to invoke the article, stand down and leave a vacuum while a replacement is found. He would be perfectly entitled to do this but there would be even more griping if he did this from EU functionaries as well as those in denial on the losing side.

gandalf

Link to that story about Hungary rubbing against UK companies legs.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-hungary-minister-idUKKCN0ZD0SX

Hungary's government is drawing up a list of incentives to lure companies leaving Britain after the Brexit vote, Economy Minister Mihaly Varga told business daily Vilaggazdasag in an interview published on Monday.

I would be very surprised if the IDA weren't working on a list of prospects since the Brexit Referendum was announced as well.

marienbad

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is not like an election has been held and the losing side refuses to cede government. This is a non-binding, advisory referendum. Yes, if the government there delay it year after year they will face political problems within their own country, but that is their business and not the business of anyone outside.

.

It is not just their business though, it is the business of all of us within the EU . No one benefits from destabilisation and uncertainty least of all the UK

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Interesting. Most MP's are in favour of remain.

It would be a UKIP wet dream if a new PM doesn't invoke article 50 or they call a general election and both the Tories and Labour run on a platform not to leave the EU. While there are voters who would vote differently in a new referendum, the majority want to leave the EU and it could be that if the main parties aren't careful you could end up with UKIP picking up a lot of MPs.

embraer170 wrote: »

I just watched the livestream of the Council press conference.

Art 50 expected 2 weeks after the new PM, or the next day if the PM is from the Leave campaign.

They ended on a reassuring note: the immediate consequences of Brexit have not been as bad as expected.

I would hope the consequences not as bad as expected would be mainly for the EU and not the UK?

Bit cynical

Sand wrote: »

Well, it only needs a QMV, and if the UK was ****ing about, 'causing mayhem' within the EU and its decision making process and exhausted the EU's patience then they could make an argument that the UK deliberately sabotaging the EU as a negotiating tactic was anti-democratic to the people of the EU and against the rule of law.

Not saying it wouldn't be an inventive case, but we all saw the way Farage is viewed in Europe. If the UK tries to fight dirty the EU will hold its nose and use Article 7 as a nuclear option.

Yes they could do it. It's their rules and they are entitled to break them if it suits them. The problem is doing this and at the same time trying to present themselves as a rule of law based organisation that respects democracy and those aspects of government that fall within the remit of the member state.

Like I said, Farage would love to show themselves up in this way.

It wouldnt even get to that - the EU could start leaking horrific draft deals for the UK that startle investors and lead to further capital flight from the UK. The UK simply does not have the time to dawdle - it needs to achieve a measure of certainty a lot faster than the EU does.

This is a cleverer approach.

However like I said in an earlier approach, there's no evidence that the UK intends to delay indefinitely. Why cause any disruption to the EU economies (some of which are in bad shape already) when Britain is leaving anyway.

The danger is that all this will be seen as childish posturing by EU electorates. Sour grapes. The EU would give the impression that it is not really a voluntary association of countries if it is seen to punish electorates who voice a desire to leave.

Sand

Bit cynical wrote: »

Yes they could do it. It's their rules and they are entitled to break them if it suits them. The problem is doing this and at the same time trying to present themselves as a rule of law based organisation that respects democracy and those aspects of government that fall within the remit of the member state.

Like I said, Farage would love to show themselves up in this way.

Well, ze Germans are not all smiles unt sunshine. You saw what European solidarity was displayed for Ireland, Portugal and Greece.

Big boy games, big boy rules.

If the UK feels salty about that its going to get the shock of its life dealing with the Chinese, the US, India, Russia, etc without the EU backing it up.

This is a cleverer approach.

However like I said in an earlier approach, there's no evidence that the EU intends to delay indefinitely. Why cause any disruption to the EU economies (some of which are in bad shape already) when Britain is leaving anyway.

The danger is that all this will be seen as childish posturing by EU electorates. Sour grapes. The EU would give the impression that it is not really a voluntary association of countries if it is seen to punish electorates who voice a desire to leave.

Because the terms of the UKs exit are extremely important to the EU.

This is a very simple thing that Brexiteers cant seem to acknowledge. The EU has objectives that go beyond just the economic. The UK might wish for the EU to be a purely economic association, but it is not. The deal the UK gets will be worse than their current deal - it must be measurably worse and must be broadly recognised by everyone as being worse because the EU must demonstrate that membership (which has costs) is clearly superior to external association. That impression is far more important to the EU to some bitterness on the part of Brexiteers crying over the smoking ruins of their romantic fantasy.

Bit cynical

marienbad wrote: »

It is not just their business though, it is the business of all of us within the EU . No one benefits from destabilisation and uncertainty least of all the UK

But all that has been done so far is that a non-binding referendum has been held where it was found that the majority voting in it want to leave the EU.

I think most would agree that there's nothing wrong with this in itself.

What you might have a problem with is the UK not invoking article 50 the very next day. However this was never going to happen given that the Cameron and his government were against leaving the EU.

If he had been in favour of the Leave side then he could have invoked the article since he would still be in power to see through the negotiations. Since he lost, however, it is quite right that he should step down and leave it to someone else to negotiate. If he stayed in office then he would be the wrong person to proceed.

It is also correct that he should leave the invocation of the article to his successor. There would be far more uncertainty if the negotiations had already started but without the certainty of who would be continuing them after Cameron leaves.

The EU could calm down a lot of this uncertainty by announcing as a group that they understand the need for certain internal processes to occur in Britain before negotiations can start, but that when they do start, the EU will work constructively with the new leadership to ensure deal which is to the mutual benefit of both the EU and the UK.

I do understand that some EU states have problems with their electorates and that they need to be seen to be tough with the UK people for having the temerity to want to leave. But that it is not the fault of the UK government that this is the case and it is unfair to blame them.

Even this last paragraph betrays problem with the EU. The idea that a State can be fine but the electorate found wanting really only arises in the context of an organisation like the EU. Outside of the EU, democratic governments derive their power from the people. Inside the EU they derive their power partly from the people and partly through membership of the EU. This is great for individuals making up the government but it leaves people on the ground wondering why their voices aren't being heard.