Brexit Referendum Superthread

Thomas_..

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, indeed. Nice I, Lisbon I, the first Divorce referendum, the Prolife referendum...

We have lots of clear examples of people voting in stuff they do not understand and rejecting other stuff for mad reasons.

It's a bad way to do politics.

I wouldn´t take off the responsibility from the politicians of which some do like to misinform and mislead the public for various reasons, like vested interests, exaggerated self-importance of their own, or simply being like this polit-clown Johnson who miscalculated his "taking sides" and despite helping the leave camp to win, lost in the end for himself and resigned. He´s IMO what one could call the victim of his own vanity and realised too late that he has been used by his decision to let himself be used and acted accordingly.

Thomas_..

smjm wrote: »

Don't know to be honest. It's all up for grabs in the negotiations. The point I was making to the OP though is that Spain does well enough out of the current arrangements. I can't understand people, like the OP, who hope things are going to turn nasty!

Maybe because "revenge is sweet"? I don´t know either and it´d be better to find a rational and reasonable settlement but also one that deters other EU member states to take an example of themselves and try the same.

Thomas_..

K-9 wrote: »

Would there not be more pressure on May to trigger it than Boris or Gove seeing as she was on the remain side?

That woman switched sides as the opportunity went before and along the whole campaign. Now she´ll be next PM, she has to take on her old role as a staunch Tory Thatcherist.

If it wouldn´t be for the weakness of the Labour Party, a new GE would be on the table. Labour already demanded that, but the chances are rather less that they could prevail with their demand, given the infights Labour faces herself right now and in the coming months.

Maybe Ms May will break on her task to bring the split country and society together. I really doubt that any Tory can do that. Since Winston Churchill, no Tory PM ever achieved that again.

Thomas_..

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think the chaps in the City will be pleased to be out of the Single Market - and their old school chums in Westminster will suddenly realize that they don't care what all the little people think. They'll settle for a Norway deal, the worst of both worlds for the Brexiters.

I don´t hold that settlement for certain. It´s still all in limbo.

Bob24

Lemming wrote: »

This was raised as a question - albeit with a slightly different angle to what you've floated - during the aforementioned parliament.tv committee session from the other week by invoking an emergency provision that was enacted for Lichenstein. The legal perspective was that to attempt to enact this particular provision for a country as large as the UK on a non-temporary basis would do absolutely zero favours for the UK's international credibility. The legal expert went so far as to say that if he were to be cruel, that was the wishful thinking of "armchair lawyers".

I'm talking a whole net set of rules to be defined as part of the negotiation though, not trying to leverage existing ones (meaning the UK would have to compromise on other things, but not as much as if they were to give-up free movement altogether)..

A general election would only solidify the Tory majority at the moment.

Bob24

molloyjh wrote: »

Well I don't assume stupid at all. Misinformed though, definitely. It was a very prominent and common theme to the entire debate. The £350m figure jumps out for starters. What I would say is that there very much is a point to referendums, but they should only be run in areas that the public can add real value rather than areas that they simply don't fully understand. Social decisions for example can be done by referendum, economic and international relations less so. Also there needs to be standards set and adhered to regarding the debate. Anything that is pure lies (of which there was a lot in this campaign) should be banned immediately. It's easy to win people over when you can say whatever the hell you like. When you have to stick to the truth it is a lot harder.

I am not sure people have a better grasp of the consequences of social decisions that political ones, more the impression to have it because social changes seem more immediate and less abstract (but it takes several philosophers of different social biases to start grasping the long terms implications of changing how society is organised).

Also it is a bit funny for people to keep bringing up the 350 million figure and complaining about the standard of the campaigning. Is it not the case for every vote? Why is it different this time? As I said, yes some people will be cheated (by all sides), but if this is stopping someone from accepting the result of a vote they can write-off democracy altogether (demagogy comes with it).

Lemming

smjm wrote: »

The legal expert may have a slightly pro-EU bias of course. Either way, here's the response from the "armchair lawyer":

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86137

No amount of smiley faces wishes away the fact that one is the legal opinion from a legal expert whose entire reputation - as he himself commented - on knowing his craft - vs. a journalist/author. It's like taking the word of a home-taught "Doctor" who once read Greys Anatomy over that of a medical practitioner.

Zubeneschamali

Lemming wrote: »

one is the legal opinion from a legal expert whose entire reputation - as he himself commented - on knowing his craft

Bah! Experts with their so-called knowledge! What do they know?

Thomas_..

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bah! Experts with their so-called knowledge! What do they know?

What we apparently don´t know, as they think.

Pro Hoc Vice

Lemming wrote: »

No amount of smiley faces wishes away the fact that one is the legal opinion from a legal expert whose entire reputation - as he himself commented - on knowing his craft - vs. a journalist/author. It's like taking the word of a home-taught "Doctor" who once read Greys Anatomy over that of a medical practitioner.

The barrack room lawyer does have a PhD though in food poisoning so I know who's opinion I will take.

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bah! Experts with their so-called knowledge! What do they know?

Saying that - as everyone - experts have their own political bias which will lead them to see things in a certain way is not the same as saying experts know nothing or they are dishonest though.

Also they are restricted to providing answers within their technical field but might overlook external factors which could change the assumptions they are working with.

For example the EU law expert quoted here a few times is providing answers based on existing EU laws, but he has not idea what new rules could will be discussed as part of the negotiations as this will be a very political and dynamic process (and his input might be requested throughout the process depending on how things are going, but ultimately with negotiators and politicians making the decisions).

Pro Hoc Vice

Bob24 wrote: »

Saying that - as everyone - experts have their own political bias which will lead them to see things in a certain way is not the same as saying experts know nothing or they are dishonest though.

Also they are restricted to providing answers within their technical field but might overlook external factors which could change the assumptions they are working with.

For example the EU law expert quoted here a few times is providing answers based on existing EU laws, but he has not idea what new rules could will be discussed as part of the negotiations as this will be a very political and dynamic process (and his input might be requested throughout the process depending on how things are going, but ultimately with negotiators and politicians making the decisions).

A expert in law can only provide opinion based on the law as it stands. During the hearing in questioning all experts said more than once we really don't know we are trying to answer your questions but really this has never happened. The MP's are trying to get an understanding of each of the possible models, with experts in different areas trying to answer questions no one has ever asked. I'm a lawyer before this I had never looked at Article 50, in the whole EU I bet other than a few hundred lawyers all the rest had to look it up. But I am going to give more credibility to the statements of a lawyer than a person who has his PhD in public health.

Bob24

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

A expert in law can only provide opinion based on the law as it stands. During the hearing in questioning all experts said more than once we really don't know we are trying to answer your questions but really this has never happened. The MP's are trying to get an understanding of each of the possible models, with experts in different areas trying to answer questions no one has ever asked. I'm a lawyer before this I had never looked at Article 50, in the whole EU I bet other than a few hundred lawyers all the rest had to look it up. But I am going to give more credibility to the statements of a lawyer than a person who has his PhD in public health.

Yes.

Sounds much more balanced and cautious than the previous few posts (which were slightly condescending, caricaturing someone saying one expert opinion should not be taken as absolute truth as being some kind of anti-expertise nut-case).

smjm

Lemming wrote: »

No amount of smiley faces wishes away the fact that one is the legal opinion from a legal expert whose entire reputation - as he himself commented - on knowing his craft - vs. a journalist/author. It's like taking the word of a home-taught "Doctor" who once read Greys Anatomy over that of a medical practitioner.

You mentioned the "armchair lawyer" thing. I'd seen that specific phrase in an article the other day, so I merely pointed the article out to you and others as a matter of interest. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if that somehow upsets you. As for me - I like listening to anyone who has an opinion. I also like to smile.

Lemming

smjm wrote: »

You mentioned the "armchair lawyer" thing. I'd seen that specific phrase in an article the other day, so I merely pointed the article out to you and others as a matter of interest. Please feel free to add me to your ignore list if that somehow upsets you. As for me - I like listening to anyone who has an opinion. I also like to smile.

Captain overreaction much?

Listening to anyone's opinion is one thing, but not all opinions are equal, nor even worth comparison. The opinion of a lawyer/law professor carries significantly more weight than that of a blogging journalist/author/once-upon-a-time-researcher when it comes to matters of law, and the balance of probability rests very much in the author of your referenced blog reading into legalese incorrectly as is incredibly easy to do for the lay-man.

Nody

wes wrote: »

I don't see what they have to offer to have Europe fundamentally compromise on one of the 4 freedoms. I think they will have to accept that single market access is a non-starter, and settler for a free trade deal of some kind.

The problem with that is they need the free movement for the banking sector in London (and losing that would be a significant economical and moral blow); hence I could see something like significant (i.e. larger than today) contributions ear marked for development/asylum seekers etc. as a possible route out (but it would be a hard sell back home to pay even more to EU!). That would basically be similar to what EU did with Turkey except UK does it with EU kind of thing; the problem is to sell it in at both ends though.

wes

Nody wrote: »

The problem with that is they need the free movement for the banking sector in London (and losing that would be a significant economical and moral blow); hence I could see something like significant (i.e. larger than today) contributions ear marked for development/asylum seekers etc. as a possible route out (but it would be a hard sell back home to pay even more to EU!). That would basically be similar to what EU did with Turkey except UK does it with EU kind of thing; the problem is to sell it in at both ends though.

I doubt money will be enough to get the EU to bend on freedom of movement. Turkey btw doesn't have passporting right, and tbh it make no sense to give that ability to a non-member state. The UK made there choice and they need start thinking sensibly about a free trade agreement.

The UK aren't offering anything worthwhile to the EU, there on there way out, so why should they get special treatment?

smjm

Lemming wrote: »

Captain overreaction much?

That's what I thought when I read your initial response.

Lemming wrote:

Listening to anyone's opinion is one thing, but not all opinions are equal, nor even worth comparison. The opinion of a lawyer/law professor carries significantly more weight than that of a blogging journalist/author/once-upon-a-time-researcher when it comes to matters of law, and the balance of probability rests very much in the author of your referenced blog reading into legalese incorrectly as is incredibly easy to do for the lay-man.

You may be right. All I did was give you a link to the other opinion. I didn't say it was right or wrong.

For the record, the "blogging journalist/author/once-upon-a-time-researcher" has at least, as I found out last night, produced a Brexit plan - something that most Leave campaigners were rightly accused of having no clue about. To a humble layman like myself, the plan seems fairly level-headed, involving a phased withdrawal over many years. He/they produced a video overview which is fairly interesting whether you agree with the idea or not:

https://youtu.be/GliFMIHiGog?t=20m14s

(I've skipped the 20 minute introduction).

wes

smjm wrote: »

involving a phased withdrawal over many years.

This would be a non-starter as there is a 2 year time limit once article 50 is triggered. Asking for an extension would be difficult as it would give the EU massive leverage in negotiations.

smjm

wes wrote: »

This would be a non-starter as there is a 2 year time limit once article 50 is triggered. Asking for an extension would be difficult as it would give the EU massive leverage in negotiations.

That's dealt with in their plan. Like I say, worth watching the video.

wes

smjm wrote: »

That's dealt with in their plan. Like I say, worth watching the video.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me, and honestly I don't have much time to watch a 80 minute video, especially as its not an official plan of any kind.

smjm

wes wrote: »

Sounds like wishful thinking to me, and honestly I don't have much time to watch a 80 minute video, especially as its not an official plan of any kind.

Well I cut out 20 minutes at the start, so it's only an hour odd, but your choice of course. It's very honest about the Leave problems and dismissive of people like Johnson and Gove. (The video was produced in May).

wes

smjm wrote: »

Well I cut out 20 minutes at the start, so it's only an hour odd, but your choice of course. It's very honest about the Leave problems and dismissive of people like Johnson and Gove. (The video was produced in May).

If it becomes the basis of an official leave plan, I will take a look then.

djpbarry

Rightwing wrote: »

I don't know if it's free movement within the EU that's the problem.

Really?

djpbarry

smjm wrote: »

I can't understand people, like the OP, who hope things are going to turn nasty!

And I can’t understand how people don’t understand that things have already gotten nasty.

The Brexiteers spent a good deal of their campaign denigrating people from numerous EU states. Now they’re expecting to be treated nicey-nice by those same states in the negotiations?

djpbarry

Thomas_.. wrote: »

The anti-Immigration mood that was stirred by Farage in the first place (and that he did for years) was meant to go against social welfare travellers from Eastern European EU countries...

You mean the fictitious social welfare travellers?

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

Also it is a bit funny for people to keep bringing up the 350 million figure and complaining about the standard of the campaigning. Is it not the case for every vote?

“Ah sure, aren’t they all as bad as each other” is a pretty weak defence.

djpbarry

A view on the general subject of free movement of people from within London…

For what it’s worth (and I accept that this is entirely anecdotal), I work in a fairly high-profile scientific institute were about 40% of the staff are non-British EU nationals (myself included). We had our first post-Brexit address from our directors this morning. While the underlying message was very much “keep calm and carry on”, we were all advised to start applying for British residency/citizenship.

But perhaps more significantly, it was revealed that it is becoming increasingly apparent how badly the UK’s international reputation has been damaged by Brexit (or, more specifically, the UK’s anti-immigrant sentiment). A number of new employees who are due to start in the coming weeks and months have either lodged queries regarding immigration status or, in a few extreme cases, have withdrawn their applications entirely.

In other words, we’re already finding it more difficult to attract people from overseas, both EU and non-EU.

RE: 'Flexcit'

http://www.junepress.com/book.asp?BID=924

He offers six simple stages in order to make withdrawal easier:

Stage 1) The “Norway Option” in which we rejoin the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and trade with the EU through the European Economic Area (EEA). Once the right exit option has been chosen the areas of post-exit cooperation will be defined.

Stage 2) Deals with immigration and asylum. Since as he explains, we have to keep freedom of movement for the time being, a plan to work out how better to manage the flow of people into the UK before a long-term solution is reached.

Stage 3) To replace Brussels administration with the Geneva-based United Nations Economic Commission Europe (UNECE) along the lines proposed by Winston Churchill in 1948 and 1950.

Stage 4) Rebuilding an independent policy on foreign and defence, agriculture and fisheries, while also exploring environmental, climate change and energy. Followed by financial services and the so-called “digital market”.

Stage 5) He explains an eight-point programme which opens the way for us to break out of the EU cul-de-sac and rejoin the global trading system.

Stage 6) Ways to restore democracy, bringing both central and local government back under the control of the people are explained.

Here's a smaller version of the huge doc

http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/flexcitlite.pdf