Brexit Referendum Superthread

recedite

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry, but this is nonsense – businesses are accused of anti-competitive practices all the time. Try and buy a PC that doesn’t have Windows pre-installed, for example.

I could buy a mac, which as far as I'm concerned is a kind of personal computer
But yes, sharp practices do exist in business. That does not mean the EU should conduct international relations with friendly countries along those lines.

djpbarry wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is the case. If anything, pro-EU sentiment rebounded strongly across the EU in the wake of the Brexit vote.

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out though? Have a referendum in every EU country.
The question; "Should non-EU european countries be punished with trade tariffs if they don't open their borders unconditionally to EU citizens?"

Jim2007 wrote: »

If you look at the Protocols to the EU treaties, you will discover that the CTA plus any other similar agreements is allowed between between Ireland and the UK as member states (it does not constitute an international agreement). Once the UK becomes a third country it is history!

The CTA is an agreement between two sovereign countries signed after we left the UK. Just because some Ploncker in Brussels copied and pasted it into EU law since then, does not mean he can dissolve it. The ploncker can tell us it has been dissolved, but its up to us whether we play by his rules, or think for ourselves.

Sadly, like most other Europeans, we have become the proverbial lions led by donkeys.

recedite

devnull wrote: »

The UK is in a real danger of turning into a fascist country that is run by one person who is accountable to nobody and nothing she does can ever be challenged since the elected representatives don't have a say and neither do the courts, how can that be considered democracy?

This essentially means the Prime Minister becomes a de-facto dictator....

You're missing the whole point. The PM is putting into operation the wishes of the people as expressed by a free and fair referendum. That's democracy in its purest form. Anyone who tries to subvert that is "an enemy of the people" as the press quite rightly pointed out.

Nody

recedite wrote: »

The question; "Should non-EU european countries be punished with trade tariffs if they don't open their borders unconditionally to EU citizens?"

Russia would love that idea; how about we turn the question around and instead ask why Should a non EU country NOT be punished for not being part of EU like any other third party country and be given all the benefits with none of the cost of a EU membership? See how turning the question around suddenly highlights exactly why your suggestion simply does not work? Either you're part of the EU solution and pay for it or you're not; what you want is that UK should get all the benefits for none of the cost which means you want the rest of EU to take the bill on their behalf. Why would any country want to do this?

The CTA is an agreement between two sovereign countries signed after we left the UK. Just because some Ploncker in Brussels copied and pasted it into EU law since then, does not mean he can dissolve it. The ploncker can tell us it has been dissolved, but its up to us whether we play by his rules, or think for ourselves.

Or you know the treaties signed by the Irish government on behalf of the Republic of Ireland committing Ireland to follow certain rules such as border controls towards third party countries and the related punishments for failing to comply. Oh well time to walk away from dreaming to deal with realities again.

recedite wrote: »

You're missing the whole point. The PM is putting into operation the wishes of the people as expressed by a free and fair referendum. That's democracy in its purest form. Anyone who tries to subvert that is "an enemy of the people" as the press quite rightly pointed out.

No you are getting it wrong; the PM can not do what ever they want but have to follow the laws of the country which are interpreted and enforced by the judiciary force. And that's exactly what she got slapped down on; she has to follows the law of UK and she's been told exactly what that means. Now she can pout about it but that does not change that what she intended to do was illegal and against the laws and regulation of UK in the same way that she can't dictate that as of tomorrow she's going to be PM for life. That's called checks and balances but as wast swaths of the people arguing for a Brexit has shown the grasp of such things only apply one way if it's supports their argument; never if it goes against it.

devnull

recedite wrote: »

You're missing the whole point. The PM is putting into operation the wishes of the people as expressed by a free and fair referendum.

The people voted to stay or leave and decided to leave.

The vote was about nothing more or nothing less.

That's democracy in its purest form.

Nobody is trying to stop the UK leaving the EU and nobody is trying to subvert that. However much the media and Farage try and state that this is real intention behind this, that simply isn't the case.

I'd like to remind you that one of the people who took the court challenge actually voted to leave and a politician this week stepped down also voted to leave. If it was all about trying to prevent the UK leaving, a leave voter wouldn't be behind it and a leave MP wouldn't resign.

This is a false and red herring that is being put out by the leave side who are acting like dictators and believe that the Prime Minister's authority should not be held to account by democratically elected members of Parliament or the independent judiciary if she does not like what they might say. This essentially is a Prime Minster attempting to abuse her power and has to be stopped.

The leave campaign stated that they want British Politicians in Parliament to have the final say on British matters rather than having others dictate what they should do and that if there was any disagreement the British Courts should be the ones to uphold the law and constitution free of political influence. They argued for it, now they suddenly don't want it anymore?

The people voted to leave and that must and will be respected. It is an important decision however and it should be under the proper scrutiny of elected representatives, who should work together in the national interest, if they are not allowed to have a say then you essentially negate the whole point of having elected representatives in the first place if you are just going to ignore them.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

You're missing the whole point. The PM is putting into operation the wishes of the people as expressed by a free and fair referendum. That's democracy in its purest form. Anyone who tries to subvert that is "an enemy of the people" as the press quite rightly pointed out.

The referendum is non binding and advisory. Ultimate sovereignty lies with parliament on the issue however. The courts just established that fact they didn't create it.

recedite

Nody wrote: »

what you want is that UK should get all the benefits for none of the cost which means you want the rest of EU to take the bill on their behalf. Why would any country want to do this?

Dropping trade tariffs is not a "cost". It should be of benefit to both countries. Increased trade= increased wealth for both. This is not a zero sum game, but you are treating it like one. There is no "bill" to be paid.

The converse is also true. It is very possible that both the UK and the EU could become poorer if the EU tries to punish the UK in some spiteful way.

Nody wrote: »

No you are getting it wrong; the PM can not do what ever they want but have to follow the laws of the country which are interpreted and enforced by the judiciary force. And that's exactly what she got slapped down on; she has to follows the law of UK and she's been told exactly what that means.

In a republic things are run according to a clearly written law, but nobody said the UK was a republic. Things are more flexible there and open to change and re-interpretation. At the end of the day they will uphold their democracy, and that's the main thing. The Supreme Court will decide on the correct interpretation of this matter. The PM will not go against the Supreme Court. The SC, having witnessed the reaction of the people and the free press, may be inclined to take a broader view of the principles involved. The parliament has said that it alone is sovereign, and the High Court has backed that view. But IMO things are not that simple. There is also the people, and the monarch, whose levels of sovereignty are not always clearly defined.

recedite

devnull wrote: »

The people voted to leave and that must and will be respected. It is an important decision however and it should be under the proper scrutiny of elected representatives, who should work together in the national interest, if they are not allowed to have a say then you essentially negate the whole point of having elected representatives in the first place if you are just going to ignore them.

The PM is respecting that mandate given by the people, nothing more.
The PM's job is to govern. The parliament's job is to enact laws.
That separation of powers should be respected. Parliament does not "have a say" in governance.

Jim2007

recedite wrote: »

devnull wrote: »

The people voted to leave and that must and will be respected. It is an important decision however and it should be under the proper scrutiny of elected representatives, who should work together in the national interest, if they are not allowed to have a say then you essentially negate the whole point of having elected representatives in the first place if you are just going to ignore them.

The PM is respecting that mandate given by the people, nothing more.
The PM's job is to govern. The parliament's job is to enact laws.
That separation of powers should be respected. Parliament does not "have a say" in governance.

You left one thing out - you get to rewrite 100s of years of constitutional law and precedence! Especially the bit where under the separation of powers where the judiciary are responsible of interpreting the law as they just did.

solodeogloria

PeadarCo wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote:

There are several countries with free trade agreements with the European Union who don't require freedom of movement. South Korea, South Africa and soon to be Canada are just some that I can think of.

The thing about those agreements is as far as I know don't cover services. Services particularly in the area of financial services are key exports and make a big contribution to the overall UK tax revenue. If a decent chunk of those companies were to leave London there would be a big hole in the UKs budget. For other countries in the EU like Ireland would very much like to get hold of some of that money.

Good evening,

Countries arrange trade deals according to their needs. South Africa and South Korea aren't huge importers of services. The UK is. Trade deals are by their nature bespoke. The EU wasn't working for Britain and to be honest Britain wasn't working for the EU. The next question is how to move forward.

Sweden has taken a position that giving Britain a benevolent trade deal will cause the least amount of economic damage to it and to many other countries. The markets are already volatile and they want certainty. A tough line in Brussels will harm many member states including Ireland.

It's in Ireland's interests to argue for the very best deal for the UK in the European Council. We should want to maintain a close friendship with Britain and part of that is respecting the sovereign decision that they have made.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

But, it's simply not true to say that every country with a free trade arrangement into the single market has to accept all four of these freedoms.

That’s because having a free trade agreement with the EU is not the same as being a member of the single market.

djpbarry

recedite wrote: »

The question; "Should non-EU european countries be punished with trade tariffs if they don't open their borders unconditionally to EU citizens?"

I think a more reasonable form of the question would be “Should any member state within the single market be permitted to abandon its commitment to any of the four founding principles of the single market?”

recedite wrote: »

The CTA is an agreement between two sovereign countries signed after we left the UK. Just because some Ploncker in Brussels copied and pasted it into EU law since then, does not mean he can dissolve it. The ploncker can tell us it has been dissolved, but its up to us whether we play by his rules, or think for ourselves.

Well, except that EU law has been “copy and pasted” into Irish law.

recedite wrote: »

The PM is putting into operation the wishes of the people as expressed by a free and fair referendum. That's democracy in its purest form. Anyone who tries to subvert that is "an enemy of the people" as the press quite rightly pointed out.

The PM has no idea what the wishes of the people are, beyond leaving the EU. Forcing through her own version of what the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU should be, without consulting either the electorate or their elected representatives in parliament, certainly does not constitute modern democracy.

recedite wrote: »

The PM is respecting that mandate given by the people, nothing more.

She was not given a mandate to do whatever the hell she wants.

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's in Ireland's interests to argue for the very best deal for the UK in the European Council. We should want to maintain a close friendship with Britain and part of that is respecting the sovereign decision that they have made.

The EU had a super-close relationship with Britain, but Britain wants out, remember?

It’s the UK that’s taking a tough stance, not the EU.

recedite

Jim2007 wrote: »

..under the separation of powers where the judiciary are responsible of interpreting the law as they just did.

Nobody disputes that. The SC will decide whether the PM has the authority to trigger Article 50 now, or whether Parliament has to consent first.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Britain didn't want to stay in the European Union but contrary to popular Europhile opinion it can remain close to other countries even if it doesn't want to divest a great deal of sovereignty to a club.

I don't get why people think that having good relationships with other countries involves divesting a huge amount of sovereignty to them.

Why? Trade and commerce to and from Britain is (despite popular opinion) hugely important to other member states and particularly Ireland. It's in our interests to respect Britain's position and to be a strong ally at the negotiation table.

The EU is the only party arguing for punitive tariffs that will hurt both parties.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

devnull

Jim2007 wrote: »

You left one thing out - you get to rewrite 100s of years of constitutional law and precedence! Especially the bit where under the separation of powers where the judiciary are responsible of interpreting the law as they just did.

Dictators don't care about peoples rights or constitutional law and precedence. What they say goes or else, they just ignore anything they don't like and plough on.

I read now that there is calls for the person who brought it to the court to be gang raped and deported, murdered among many other horrific things just because someone has a different view to them which really is disgusting

I don't agree with a lot of what some of the leave side has to say, but I acknowledge they have a right to air their views and make their arguments without intimidation or threats since i believe in free speech and both sides being able to put their point across.

The trouble is that the leave side have a small but vocal minority of real extreme bigots and xenophobes and complete lunatics on their side who in the absence of getting their own way are coming out with extremely vile stuff and are anything but dignified.

It's a very fierce debate and divisions between society in the UK and many groups of people are getting bigger and bigger divides and whilst both sides have a right to have their say it feels out of control at the moment and the media are making this division even bigger and who knows where it will end.

recedite

djpbarry wrote: »

The PM has no idea what the wishes of the people are, beyond leaving the EU. Forcing through her own version of what the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU should be, without consulting either the electorate or their elected representatives in parliament, certainly does not constitute modern democracy.
She was not given a mandate to do whatever the hell she wants.

I'm not aware of her mentioning any plan other than to leave the EU, which action is officially triggered by Article 50. Are you?

A Dub in Glasgo

recedite wrote: »

You're missing the whole point. The PM is putting into operation the wishes of the people as expressed by a free and fair referendum. That's democracy in its purest form. Anyone who tries to subvert that is "an enemy of the people" as the press quite rightly pointed out.

You continously miss the open goal

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain didn't want to stay in the European Union

The UK as a whole didn't want to stay in the EU. Within the UK, Scotland and NI did want to stay in the EU.

solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain didn't want to stay in the European Union

The UK as a whole didn't want to stay in the EU. Within the UK, Scotland and NI did want to stay in the EU.

Good evening!

Britain voted as a United Kingdom and has to leave as a United Kingdom. People talk up Scottish independence but I don't think it's very likely or that Scottish opinion is in favour of it. Sturgeon can try another referendum but she should step down if she loses it. Scottish independence wouldn't make anything better for Scotland.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain voted as a United Kingdom and has to leave as a United Kingdom

Britain is not the UK

devnull

Since someone PM'd me (thanks!) telling me to put up or shut up about the Brexit press coverage, here you are!

K-9

recedite wrote: »

You're splitting hairs now. Tariffs may or may not be introduced. UK economic output and exports have been boosted by a weaker £. That may or may not be cancelled by tariffs.

On this note, tariffs between Ireland and UK would be harmful to both.
Why are we listening to unelected bureaucrats like Juncker telling us the UK cannot be part of a European wide customs union?

Its nonsense, we should be campaigning for free trade with the UK, post Brexit. Who's idea was it to irreversibly link free trade with residency permits anyway?

I think what Juncker et al are pointing out is you can't be a member of the customs union without concessions from the UK. So far we have heard nothing about what the UK is willing to give up, only what they want to keep!

It's a one sided public negotiation so far with the Uk saying how nothing will change but everything will, with zero detail about how they will do that.

We know the Tories will want to protect the likes of Nissan and the financial industry in London, but there's no talk of what the UK will give up in return.

ancapailldorcha

I don't know if anyone caught Question Time this week but Sajid Javid was pressed about what the government actually wants. He deflected, trying to make out that he didn't want to show his cards.

Inquitus

K-9 wrote: »

know the Tories will want to protect the likes of Nissan and the financial industry in London, but there's no talk of what the UK will give up in return.

Tories just digging themselves a bigger and bigger hole atm, the high court decision hamstrings them. Making promises to Nissan on Tariffs, andto the people on immigration, that are likely mutually exclusive, is just a shítshow tbh.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why? Trade and commerce to and from Britain is (despite popular opinion) hugely important to other member states and particularly Ireland. It's in our interests to respect Britain's position and to be a strong ally at the negotiation table.

UK is very low on the list of trade partners compared to for example USA, China etc. (nothing changed and it would come in after Russia on 5th spot just above Turkey at 149 billion EUR vs 140 using Aug. 2016 trade as base) where as EU makes up 50% of UK's trade and even more on the import side (i.e. UK would end up losing in a tariff war due to importing more than they export to EU). EU trade is important for UK; UK trade is no where near as important for EU (it currently makes up about 8% if unchanged but without car manufacturing, passporting etc. this is likely to drop towards 5% or less quickly) and any deal will reflect this esp. as a significant portion of that trade would most likely end up moved to EU instead (see financial services for passporting, car manufacturing, research etc.).

As a reference this is the Aug. 2016 UK export data and the EU top trading partners.

K-9

devnull wrote: »

Since someone PM'd me (thanks!) telling me to put up or shut up about the Brexit press coverage, here you are!

Jaysus, that is despicable.

Bit cynical

devnull wrote: »

The UK is in a real danger of turning into a fascist country that is run by one person who is accountable to nobody and nothing she does can ever be challenged since the elected representatives don't have a say and neither do the courts, how can that be considered democracy? It's the complete opposite of it. It's ploughing along doing everything you want when you want without anyone being able to stop you apart from once every 5 years with nobody that can challenge it.

The big problem with this is if the appeal is up-held, it gives the green light for a Prime Minister just to do whatever she wants, when she wants and nobody can do anything to stop her, neither the courts, nor the elected people of the UK, every time she feels she won't get her own way she can just bypass Parliament.

This essentially means the Prime Minister becomes a de-facto dictator, because she no longer has to hold votes for anything at any time unless she doesn't want to. Now of course this can be offset by the politicians voting no confidence in her, but many of them won't do that, especially with the increasingly right wing nature of the tory party, which is assisted by a deliberately misleading press.

I think in fairness, this is a bit far fetched. If the appeal is upheld, then the situation simply returns to what almost everyone on both sides of the argument thought was the case anyway. The parliament continues to be responsible primarily for legislation, and the executive continues to be responsible for executive decisions such as in this case entering in to and bringing to an end international treaties. It was not generally considered a dictatorship before the ruling and won't therefore turn into one if the ruling is overturned.

Nevertheless, I can see a certain amount of merit in the ruling. The EU, though it claims to be a treaty organisation, is in many ways more like a state with its law making capabilities. Therefore ending the treaties with the EU is not like ending a normal treaty and therefore needs parliamentary approval.

On the other hand, if the ruling stays, then this calls into question those treaties that the UK has been signing to date that did not require parliamentary approval. Are they now illegitimate? Therefore I think it is likely that this current ruling will be thrown out on appeal.

In any case, all this rubbish could have been avoided if the referendum had been made binding and not advisory. Cameron has a lot to answer for.

KingBrian2

devnull wrote: »

Since someone PM'd me (thanks!) telling me to put up or shut up about the Brexit press coverage, here you are!

The British are know for spreading these sort of articles. The Arabs have a name for it. I personally like to call it bull****.

PeadarCo

The UK will in all likelihood leave the EU unless a referendum is called. You'd only imagine what possibility happening towards the end of the 2 year negotiation period and if the UK gets such a s*** deal that no party will stand behind it.

The thing is you'd imagine that if the UK parliament gets more control over the process your much more likely to get a soft brexit than a hard brexit. Only 52% voted to leave and the one thing you can say is that all of that 52% definitely didn't want a hard brexit. You'd actually end up with something more in line with what the uk public wants. But that won't do for the hardliners.

devnull

Bit cynical wrote: »

The parliament continues to be responsible primarily for legislation, and the executive continues to be responsible for executive decisions such as in this case entering in to and bringing to an end international treaties.

The court case is nothing to do with changing the decision to leave the European Union, it's about ensuring that the elected people of the country have a say over what should happen to give effect to that and what happens thereafter.

Nevertheless, I can see a certain amount of merit in the ruling. The EU, though it claims to be a treaty organisation, is in many ways more like a state with its law making capabilities. Therefore ending the treaties with the EU is not like ending a normal treaty and therefore needs parliamentary approval.

On the other hand, if the ruling stays, then this calls into question those treaties that the UK has been signing to date that did not require parliamentary approval. Are they now illegitimate?

Nobody is disputing the referendum result so this is a non issue.

In any case, all this rubbish could have been avoided if the referendum had been made binding and not advisory. Cameron has a lot to answer for.

This isn't even about the referendum for the last time. The UK voted leave. That has to be respected, this is not about re-running it or trying to change the result.

This is about on what terms leaving should be and for such a big situation as this the elected reps of the country should be allowed to have a say in it.

The only people who claim that this is some backdoor way by the remainers to try and block brexit are the people on the leave side and has no foundation apart from inside their own heads.