Brexit Referendum Superthread

dinorebel

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd agree that Independence won't be as easy a sell as a lot of people seem to think it will be.

Either way, Scotland is likely to be poorer. What Sturgeon would need to to is convince voters that Independence and remaining in the EU would be the least worst option.

Except they wont remain in the EU they will have to reapply and sign up to the Euro.

Even with the above it's no certainty that Spain or others that have issues with regions wanting to break away would allow Scotland's entry.

djpbarry

Thomas_... wrote: »

Belgium can fall apart by itself without considering what an Independent Scotland that would be a EU member state would mean for the EU. The Union of the Belgian Kingdom is still fragile.

I am no supporter of such ideas, only in case of Scotland I am in support of their independence. Separatism in other countries have their own cultural and historical backgrounds but what not less of them have in common is that they feel and see themselves as being ill-served by the national government.

There are numerous examples around Europe of regions seeing themselves as being culturally distinct from their parent countries and feeling poorly represented by existing national parliaments – the Scottish case is far from unique.

K-9

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Forgive me but didn't Wales vote for Brexit also?

Also - the referendum was conducted as a United Kingdom and it will leave the European Union as a United Kingdom.

Scotland won't win another referendum. In particular the economic arguments (as dubious as they were in 2014) no longer hold. It's not certain that a remain vote in the Brexit referendum corresponds with independence support.

Interpreting Northern Ireland's result in respect to a United Ireland is even more dubious.

The nations must be consulted but May's mandate from the referendum is to do two things:
- Ensure that Britain takes back control of legislation from Brussels.
- Take control on immigration.

Neither of which are massively unreasonable given the result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The referendum result has consequences though, one of which looks like another vote on Scottish Independence. The SNP will argue that assurances post their vote weren't honoured plus Brexit is a pretty big game changer!

As for Scotland, it can point to East European countries that have gained or are looking for access. It's also a different scenario for Spain and Belgium, the UK has voted to leave the EU now so the direct link doesn't apply as much as before.

KingBrian2

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re right, they don’t – the economic case for remaining in the UK is weaker than it was in 2014.
I’m sorry, but what result are you referring to? Because in the referendum in which I voted, I was simply asked whether I wished for the UK to remain in or leave the EU. May’s mandate is limited to the answer provided to that particular question. She certainly does not have a mandate for the “Hard Brexit” that she seems to be pursuing.

If May wants to have a grand agreement with all of the UK in a post EU future she will have to approach the Scots. This means she will have to negotiate with the SNP the largest voting bloc in Scotland. Cameron did such a disastrous job. He promised that Scotland would get more devolution of power and yet Scotland remains in political and economic limbo as the UK is about to pull themselves out of Europe. Scotland has options, it can apply for EU entry if May refuses to deal with them like Cameron did.

Sam Russell

K-9 wrote: »

The referendum result has consequences though, one of which looks like another vote on Scottish Independence. The SNP will argue that assurances post their vote weren't honoured plus Brexit is a pretty big game changer!

As for Scotland, it can point to East European countries that have gained or are looking for access. It's also a different scenario for Spain and Belgium, the UK has voted to leave the EU now so the direct link doesn't apply as much as before.

But there is the 'poke Britain in the eye' thought process that might support a Scotland application to remain/rejoin. I would imagine quite a few EU countries might delight in this approach - they have lost quite a few friends and created a few enemies by even thinking of leaving the EU and have now voted for it. They have yet to go ahead with it yet though.

FrancieBrady

To get away from the implications for a minute.

What happens if Britain have to pull some stroke/vote to stay in when it all pans out? I know there isn't really a precedent but would it/could it just be business as usual?

solodeogloria

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To get away from the implications for a minute.

What happens if Britain have to pull some stroke/vote to stay in when it all pans out? I know there isn't really a precedent but would it/could it just be business as usual?

Good evening!

Why would Britain do that if it's concerns aren't addressed?

The reality is that the leave campaign won on immigration controls and control of laws. The polling significantly changed in Leaves favour after this was introduced to the campaign.

Cameron aimed to get a compromise on these issues and didn't get it. The people voted.

I don't see why you want an unwilling member in the club.

It's a myth that the UK will go down the tube after Brexit. There are many successful countries outside the EU that we trade with. It's up to the EU as to how hard they want to make it. The WTO have said renegotiation of Britain's terms would be straight forward today but I genuinely think the UK won't have to use this fallback.

I'm hopeful of an amicable deal.

The schadenfreude on this thread is highly worrying. I had hoped that Ireland could and would be a good partner for Britain in this process. But the vote needs to be respected. I voted remain but now I've accepted leave won and May needs to take Britain out of the EU.

Yes that'll be at a price but only in the short to medium term I think.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

The referendum result has consequences though, one of which looks like another vote on Scottish Independence. The SNP will argue that assurances post their vote weren't honoured plus Brexit is a pretty big game changer!

As for Scotland, it can point to East European countries that have gained or are looking for access. It's also a different scenario for Spain and Belgium, the UK has voted to leave the EU now so the direct link doesn't apply as much as before.

The problem with the Edinburgh question is that France and Spain will not want to risk empowering or encouraging their respective Basque and Catalan separatists.

Lemming

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m sorry, but what result are you referring to? Because in the referendum in which I voted, I was simply asked whether I wished for the UK to remain in or leave the EU. May’s mandate is limited to the answer provided to that particular question. She certainly does not have a mandate for the “Hard Brexit” that she seems to be pursuing.

Indeed, just to confirm what djpbarry has said, I cannot recall having any more detailed or nuanced a question than "leave/stay" being put to me when I voted, nor any hint of exactly what shape or form the idea of leaving the EU was to take on the ballot paper. Further to that, an advisory referendum is just that: advisory. It notionally expressed the prevailing sentiment of the people which would encourage politicians & civil servants to discussion the matter further and the political, social, and economic realities of such an idea; not "HEY HO LETS GO" (with apologies to the Ramones).

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem with the Edinburgh question is that France and Spain will not want to risk empowering or encouraging their respective Basque and Catalan separatists.

It's a problem, insurmountable? I don't think so.

For me, possible EU membership is a symtom of the problem. Basically if those countries are worried about that, well, it should be the least of their worries! It's also similar to project fear tactics and electorates throughout the world are in "fcuk you" mode atm.

Anyway, the threat during the independence campaign was you'll never get in the EU if you vote for Scotland to leave the Union.

What's the threat now? You'll be an independent country outside the EU with your own controls over immigration, trade etc. Where have I heard that before?

What was a pretty strong card is now a piss poor argument tbh and with the mood the electorate will be in, can be easily spinned as a positive for the Independence vote.

Chips Lovell

I'd agree that based on the facts presented to them, the public voted for a ard Brexit.

However, you can never say never.

If there is a notable shift in public opinion once the realities of a hard Brexit settle in, it's not inconceivable that it would be put to a vote again.

K-9

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd agree that based on the facts presented to them, the public voted for a ard Brexit.

However, you can never say never.

If there is a notable shift in public opinion once the realities of a hard Brexit settle in, it's not inconceivable that it would be put to a vote again.

Did they though?

48% voted Remain. Maybe 20% would vote leave no matter what so we are talking 30% that it is hard to define what they voted for.

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

It's a problem, insurmountable? I don't think so.

I didn't actually deem it insurmountable. Just pointing it out. I'm fairly sure Sturgeon needs Westminster's assent before calling another referendum but she might be happy to forget that given the role the Sovereignty card played in the EU referendum campaign. Hopefully, she'll try and secure some sort of access to the single market for Scotland before calling a referendum so they can use that as an argument.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't actually deem it insurmountable. Just pointing it out. I'm fairly sure Sturgeon needs Westminster's assent before calling another referendum but she might be happy to forget that given the role the Sovereignty card played in the EU referendum campaign. Hopefully, she'll try and secure some sort of access to the single market for Scotland before calling a referendum so they can use that as an argument.

Well yes, but the point is the EU isn't really that important now, not like the last time.

Pro Union supporter: "You won't get back in the EU if you vote leave"

Pro Scottish Independence supporter: "Yeah, we aren't in the EU now because you voted leave, thanks a bunch for that pal! What's that? You don't want us to have our own control over immigration, trade, taxes etc., the thing you yourself voted for".

A Dub in Glasgo

25 months ago

https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584

KingBrian2

As the old saying goes never hold a referendum you know you can't win.:rolleyes:

solodeogloria

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd agree that based on the facts presented to them, the public voted for a ard Brexit.

However, you can never say never.

If there is a notable shift in public opinion once the realities of a hard Brexit settle in, it's not inconceivable that it would be put to a vote again.

Good evening!

You mean like the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland?

Surely, that is a negative portrayal of how the European Union viewed democracy then, and surely it is a negative view of democracy now?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

KingBrian2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You mean like the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland?

Surely, that is a negative portrayal of how the European Union viewed democracy then, and surely it is a negative view of democracy now?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Every treaty put to us had amendments made to it before it was put back to the electorate so the voters had an input in the decision. When the abortion referendum comes here Irish people will get to decide not an unelected commission in Brussels.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You mean like the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland?

Surely, that is a negative portrayal of how the European Union viewed democracy then, and surely it is a negative view of democracy now?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Lisbon Treaty referendum rejection resulted in clarification and changes particularly with respect to the numbers of Commissioners and small countries which I think most people might consider to have been a benefit to the smaller countries like Ireland.

I get sick of people suggesting we voted twice on the same thing. We didn't. There were differences between what was put to the country both times. If you are unaware of the differences, then please learn. If you are aware of the differences, then please at least be honest about them. Suggesting that it was just sent back for a second vote because the electorate got it wrong is in fact wrong.

swampgas

solodeogloria wrote: »

You mean like the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland?

I really don't get the hate for re-running referendums. If the people really haven't changed their minds, the result will be just the same. If the people have changed their minds, better that the referendum result changes to reflect that.

Quite often people don't think about the real import of their vote until the reality of what they have voted for starts to become real.

I know so many idiots who have voted "No" to Irish referendums first time round because they didn't like the government, or they didn't like some TD or minister, "for the craic, like", and one "because I was in a bad mood".

Referendums are often a way for people to vent their frustrations - sometimes a second go is needed.

Bit cynical

Can't see the point in a government rerunning an advisory election over and over again until the desired result is obtained. Why hold a referendum in the first place if that is what you are going to do? If there is only one acceptable answer to a question, why ask the question in the first place?

Cartouche

How do the United Kingdom envisage migration control when they have an open border with the EU ?

embraer170

Cartouche wrote: »

How do the United Kingdom envisage migration control when they have an open border with the EU ?

They don't have a clue.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Can't see the point in a government rerunning an advisory election over and over again until the desired result is obtained. Why hold a referendum in the first place if that is what you are going to do? If there is only one acceptable answer to a question, why ask the question in the first place?

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Doesn't need to be asked again.

But what do you think the figures would be to;

Should the United Kingdom attempt to become a member of the European Economic Area as it leaves the European Union?

or

Should the United Kingdom attempt to become a member of the European Free Trade Area as it leaves the European Union?

Subtly different questions though enormously different outcomes.

Cartouche

embraer170 wrote: »

They don't have a clue.

Thats what i think. The British governments only answer to this question is "we dont want to see a return to the borders of the past". It sounds like they havent the first idea what their border arrangements will be post brexit !

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Doesn't need to be asked again.

I agree, but that is the question it is proposed be asked again.

But what do you think the figures would be to;

Should the United Kingdom attempt to become a member of the European Economic Area as it leaves the European Union?

or

Should the United Kingdom attempt to become a member of the European Free Trade Area as it leaves the European Union?

Subtly different questions though enormously different outcomes.

Well yes. But you may also want the government to handle questions of the exact relationship between the UK and the EU post-brexit. At some point a line has to be drawn between what the government handles and what is put to the people.

I'm not sure what the outcome will be but I don't think the UK will just join the EFTA as this would only enable them to trade with a few countries. If they do join the EFTA, it will be in order to join (or remain in) the EEA.

I think the choices they will be going for will be 1) some sort of customs union (like Turkey), 2) EEA/EFTA membership, 3) WTO rules if all else fails.

Ireland's interest is probably best served if they get option 2.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well yes. But you may also want the government to handle questions of the exact relationship between the UK and the EU post-brexit. At some point a line has to be drawn between what the government handles and what is put to the people.

Well, I take your point. But the problem is that what has been put to the people can sometime become a bit of a fig-leaf to give cover for politicians implementing their own decisions.

Take Brexit. Initially Ms May came out with the profoundly unhelpful observation that "Brexit means Brexit", but as her thoughts on the subject have become less Delphic it emerges that she thinks (among other things) that the Brexit vote was a vote to regain control of immigration.

Well, maybe. But people weren't actually asked that on the ballot paper. When we claim to know their motivations we're assuming that they were in fact responding to particular issues raised in the campaign.

But this wasn't the only issue raised in the campaign; how do we know their vote was driven by this issue and not by others? And how do we know how they prioritize the various issues raised?

When you conclude (as May seems to have done) that because the Brexit vote was driven by concerns about immigration, therefore the UK must leave the single market, she's ignoring the fact that many voices in the Brexit campaign sought to give the impression that the UK could leave the EU, impose immigration controls, and still trade as freely with the EU-27 as they currently do. For all we know, the Brexit vote, or enough of it to account for the margin of victory, was driven by a belief that the UK could control immigration while retaining its favourable trade regime with the EU-27. May asserts that the Brexit vote means something other than that, but in truth she doesn't know that it does.

I'd said before that this whole Brexit referendum was misconceived. Voters were asked what they didn't want (continued EU membership) but not what they did want. Consequently the government has no mandate for any particular model of Brexit, or any particular post-Brexit relationship with the EU or the rest of the world. And platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit!" are just an attempt to claim that the referendum mandates a particular course of action which, in truth, represents a policy adopted by the government after the referendum.

I agree, you can't keep going back to the people with more and more referenda on ever-finer points of detail. But that just highlights the importance of asking the right question in the first place. It's utter madness - as is now painfully evident - for the government to ask the people if they wish to reject a policy which the government favours. The upshot of this is that the government now has no mandate for any policy in this area. What they should have done is to propose a model of Brexit which they favoured, and seek through a referendum a mandate to pursue it. And, having made such a complete hames of the first referendum, there may be a case for saying that they should now do the job properly. But just once.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

As someone who was on the ground during the referendum arguing for a remain case it was very clear that immigration was a key issue.

The polling numbers jumped strongly for Leave as Cameron couldn't explain how the EU deal from Brussels could give him more control of it other than to say it would drop as the EU economies grow and Corbyn more honestly said they can't control it.

I think if one seriously claims that immigration wasn't a major issue in the referendum they weren't following it. I suspect if you asked Leave voters for why they left you'd find immigration would feature highly.

It came up during the campaign for two different reasons:

There was an impression that low wage labour from the EU is causing difficulties for British workers as they are being undercut from migrants from elsewhere in Europe.

More interestingly from Channel 4's minority Brexit debate coverage there was an issue that a lot of non-EU immigrants felt that it was unfair to favour EU migrants where Britain should seek the best talent world wide. There was an impression from a large portion of people on that programme that EU free movement constituted a form of discrimination. Kwazi Kwarteng a Tory MP representing Spelthorne was a big advocate of this. I personally think it was one of the more convincing cases from the leave side.

The truth is that immigration was the issue that lost the referendum. Control of laws also.

I think a free trade agreement is the best option that would suit the referendum result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think a free trade agreement is the best option that would suit the referendum result.

That really depends on your point of view. Almost 50% of people voted to stay so there is division and not an obvious victor in terms of what to do.

Given how the referendum was worded, I think it is obvious that out of the EU means that they have to leave everything first and then start negotiating their way into the bits they want. Wiser heads, however, at least recognise that this would fundamentally destroy their trading economy which is already subject to a major deficit. So the fudging - for want of a better word - that you see at the moment; the confusion; is an effort to mitigate against the very worst impacts of what is a stupid decision. And I think this point doesn't get adequately recognised. Voting to leave was a poor decision for any number of reasons and the rationale mostly provided by the more vociferous supporters is "independence" and "getting our country back". This is not a decision made rationally.

The other point I would raise is that free movement of European labour is arguably not a form of discrimination. Remember that the UK took in more non-EU immigration in the last few years than EU sourced immigration. If immigration was the problem, the UK had the tools to strongly reduce the numbers. Ultimately the UK signed up to the European project which brought with it certain requirements. They were at liberty to control ex-EU immigration, practically didn't do it to any great extent so effectively, you could argue people coming from outside the EU were not massively disadvantaged in this respect.

Personally I think the problem is that UK people tend to be quite insular. Many of them do not speak foreign languages - in absolute terms more people take higher level French in Ireland than take A-level French in England/Wales/NI for example. Not percentage terms - absolute - absolute terms. They have been having increasing problems getting people into the European institutions because of the language skills deficit. Ireland btw has a similar issue on that front. But I do think that at least in Ireland for various reasons we've seen an uptick in interest in languages like Polish because of intercultural relationships.

However, I think what will be interesting is whether, in fact, Article 50 gets invoked in March or not. Dates have slipped several times already and while March is far enough away to avoid more accusations of slippage, it's coming fast and there is a monumental lack of direction or coherence from the UK Cabinet.

for the tl;dr version: it is just possible that the referendum result actually doesn't suit Britain's interests at all and that perhaps, there needs to be a refocus on the country's interests rather than the referendum. I'm not sure how it will be possible to do this because the level of debate about it so far suggests that ignorance is a driving force and a lack of awareness of that ignorance is also causing problems. Personally I think they need a referendum that provides an indication of the negotiation preference because the one thing the referendum did not do is identify that and it's very much to the detriment of the country that this is the case.

Simple Bayesian problem to realise that unless almost every single vote for 'Leave' was based on shutting down immigration, there is no mandate for that.