Brexit Referendum Superthread

solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

^^^^

It is a 2% margin and what scenarios are you claiming is staying in the EU by the back door?

Good morning,

The one Peregrinus described a few posts ago.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

This brings about the philosophical question.

If "leaving" the EU means being bound to it in the same way as it is today then have Britain really left the EU?

The people definitely voted for more than that. The polling that was posted earlier on this thread shows that. Leaving the EU must involve some form or change - that's what the people asked for. I disagree with the view that we somehow know nothing of the motivation of the voters.

If we get the status quo what was the point in holding the referendum - we might as well just stay in the EU. That definitely isn't what the people wanted.

I think May is right to try and deliver both sovereignty over legislation and over borders. I think it is the job of politicians to enact the will of the people. Anything else will be seen as a betrayal by remainers. I also question that the difference of a million voters can be viewed as "slender".

I also disagree that free trade isn't attainable. It may be via a third country agreement rather than single market membership but I don't share the assumption that a good trade deal isn't attainable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

hmm, here's the question I answered.

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

Was there another ballot paper that I missed?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Brexit vote was 51.9% to 49.1%, a margin of 3.8%, meaning that if one voter in 50 changes their mind, the margin could go. And we can't ignore the practical reality that the 51.9% leave vote was endorsing a really not very well-thought-out or well-presented proposal. If one voter in 50 thought that they could vote 'Leave" and the UK could still participate in the single market, for example, a Brexit strategy which leads to the EU exiting the single market could put the kibosh on the pro-Brexit majority. That's the kind of risk that May has to factor in when deciding on the Brexit strategy.

I agree with you that the referendum creates an irresistible mandate for Brexit, and that Brexit must mean real change. But in implementing that change May would be in a much happier position if (a) there had been a thumping majority for Brexit, more spread across the UK as a whole, or (b) the Brexit vote had been based on a concrete and detailed Brexit proposal, including a model for future British engagement with the EU, or (c) preferably both. She's now in the unenviable position of having to do the Brexit planning that should have been done before the referendum and put before the people so that they could know about it when they voted, and of having to do so without taking decisions which could threaten the margin of support for Brexit which, I still say, is quite vulnerable, both because of the relative thinness of the margin and because of the poor quality of the campaign that preceded the vote.

2.8% surely?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Politically, she can't;

That's what I mean - you say she must do what is in the UKs best interest, but politically, she can't.

So hard Brexit it shall be - the Brexiters will never swallow a Swiss or Norwegian deal, and she has already said to the Conference that there will be no more EU courts and the UK will have its immigration control back.

swampgas

There are political pressures on the EU side as well, as described here:

From: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/22/stay-out-of-eu-affairs-leading-mep-manfred-weber-tells-british-government

Verhofstadt also said he Brexit was not his only priority, as he urged the EU to pull together in the face of Donald Trump’s election. In a striking intervention, he grouped the US president-elect with two of the world’s most powerful authoritarian leaders, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Instead of “the ring of friends around Europe”, Verhostadt said, he saw people who want to “bash and destroy our values”. “What I see today is now Russia, Americans and Turks working together on European soil to destroy the European model,” he said.

There is an existential threat to the EU as a whole - this is the context in which the UK-EU Brexit negotiations will take place. A hard border in Ireland or problems for the GFA or a recession in Ireland are very small potatoes indeed when you look at the bigger picture.

Johnson's idiotic comments aren't helping the UK much either.

robinph

solodeogloria wrote: »

See that's my point. I don't agree with your claim that the votes of a million people are slender or that 2 percentage points is "thin".

Whilst a million sounds like a big number, you of course only needed half of them to vote the other way and the result would have been reversed. But we all know that and saying 500,000 people doesn't sound as good from a brexiteer perspective trying to make out it was won by a big majority when it wasn't.

KingBrian2

swampgas wrote: »

There are political pressures on the EU side as well, as described here:

From: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/22/stay-out-of-eu-affairs-leading-mep-manfred-weber-tells-british-government



There is an existential threat to the EU as a whole - this is the context in which the UK-EU Brexit negotiations will take place. A hard border in Ireland or problems for the GFA or a recession in Ireland are very small potatoes indeed when you look at the bigger picture.

Johnson's idiotic comments aren't helping the UK much either.

It is up to the EU to permit the UK to leave without a disorderly and bitter affair. Britain never really wanted to be in the EU from the beginning and like Greenland don't have the appetite for being part of the club. The European Commission has its work cut out to see this out in a professional manner. They are getting well paid. This is the type of work they are supposed to be masters of. They have had plenty similar situations to Brexit although this will be the biggest in terms of scale.

swampgas

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is up to the EU to permit the UK to leave without a disorderly and bitter affair. Britain never really wanted to be in the EU from the beginning and like Greenland don't have the appetite for being part of the club. The European Commission has its work cut out to see this out in a professional manner. They are getting well paid. This is the type of work they are supposed to be masters of. They have had plenty similar situations to Brexit although this will be the biggest in terms of scale.

It's up to the EU to ensure its self-preservation. The EU has already bent over backwards for decades to help the UK, however there comes a point where "Brexit means Brexit" can cut both ways.

The UK embarked on this ill-advised and ill-planned adventure all by itself, it's not up the the rest of the EU to wrap them in cotton wool or make special concessions.

If the UK want out, so be it. But expecting the rest of the EU to do all the work for them to avoid it being an unmitigated disaster is ridiculous.

There is nothing to stop the UK walking away right now, hard Brexit style. Except that's not what they want - they want to magic up a having-their-cake-and-eating-it solution and want to blame the EU when such a solution isn't designed for them by the EU itself. It's pathetic. It's a display of breath-takingly gross political incompetence.

Jaysus, it's no wonder some of the senior EU people are getting shirty with them.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is up to the EU to permit the UK to leave without a disorderly and bitter affair.

The EU has no responsibilities to the UK once they opt out. Likewise the EU is in no position to 'permit' the UK to leave or stay, that's 100% the choice of the UK. If it doesn't work for the EU's benefit, the EU isn't going to take any line on Brexit - regardless of any disorder or bitterness that might result in.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree with you that the referendum creates an irresistible mandate for Brexit, and that Brexit must mean real change. But in implementing that change May would be in a much happier position if (a) there had been a thumping majority for Brexit, more spread across the UK as a whole, or (b) the Brexit vote had been based on a concrete and detailed Brexit proposal, including a model for future British engagement with the EU, or (c) preferably both.

I have to disagree with you on point (b), that May would have liked to have had a detailed brexit proposal. This would tie her hands going into negotiations on article 50. Her opposite number would know exactly what was acceptable and what was not acceptable and could use that against her. I doubt very much if she would have wanted this.

KingBrian2

swampgas wrote: »

It's up to the EU to ensure its self-preservation. The EU has already bent over backwards for decades to help the UK, however there comes a point where "Brexit means Brexit" can cut both ways.

The UK embarked on this ill-advised and ill-planned adventure all by itself, it's not up the the rest of the EU to wrap them in cotton wool or make special concessions.

If the UK want out, so be it. But expecting the rest of the EU to do all the work for them to avoid it being an unmitigated disaster is ridiculous.

There is nothing to stop the UK walking away right now, hard Brexit style. Except that's not what they want - they want to magic up a having-their-cake-and-eating-it solution and want to blame the EU when such a solution isn't designed for them by the EU itself. It's pathetic. It's a display of breath-takingly gross political incompetence.

Jaysus, it's no wonder some of the senior EU people are getting shirty with them.

Britain was one of the 15 members that co-wrote the rules of the EU should other member states make it difficult for them to leave, Britain would be right in suspecting that the EU's intentions are provocative to British interests. The EU stayed out of the Scottish referendum precisely because it would be overreach and damage internal politics within the EU member states. This is not the case here Britain leaving can cause all sorts of chaos across the EU so a quick separation is less damaging to both sides. The longer this process goes on the longer it will take the UK to reconfigure their national economy and start trading with the rest of the world.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Britain was one of the 15 members that co-wrote the rules of the EU should other member states make it difficult for them to leave

Nobody is making it difficult to leave, and the process takes exactly the same amount of time regardless of the success or otherwise of any negotiations. Nobody can drag it out.

swampgas

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Britain was one of the 15 members that co-wrote the rules of the EU should other member states make it difficult for them to leave, Britain would be right in suspecting that the EU's intentions are provocative to British interests. The EU stayed out of the Scottish referendum precisely because it would be overreach and damage internal politics within the EU member states. This is not the case here Britain leaving can cause all sorts of chaos across the EU so a quick separation is less damaging to both sides. The longer this process goes on the longer it will take the UK to reconfigure their national economy and start trading with the rest of the world.

I'm not sure what you are driving at here? The UK wants out.
Nobody is making it hard for them to leave. They can invoke Art 50 now, go for hard Brexit, get WTO status sorted, and try to negotiate what happens to UK citizens in the EU and vice versa. A hard border with customs and immigration control would be needed along the Irish border and the UK would lose its financial passport to the EU.

All worth it to "get back control", I'm sure.

Actually what the UK seems to want (as far as anybody can tell) is some kind of half-in half-out arrangement, which is effectively a special kind of EU membership just for them. That's what Cameron negotiated previously, and the EU went as far as they could possibly go to meet him half-way. It wasn't enough then, and I can't see the EU having much appetite for making any extra effort now.

A Dub in Glasgo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Britain was one of the 15 members that co-wrote the rules of the EU should other member states make it difficult for them to leave, Britain would be right in suspecting that the EU's intentions are provocative to British interests.

The UK agreed to the Lisbon Treaty which states the exact mechanism and timeline for withdrawal, not sure I understand your beef with Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

KingBrian2

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The UK agreed to the Lisbon Treaty which states the exact mechanism and timeline for withdrawal, not sure I understand your beef with Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

They did not agree to being part of a club that punishes member states for wanting to leave. The EU was always designed as a voluntary union. The rush to the exit was always a political drama or some states wanting to boost their trade by devaluing their currencies.

It worked well for the eastern states as the EU subsidies old industries. Now that Britain is leaving they can start trading with non EU Nations. Big deal for them and the European Commission is left with weaker economies to control. Britain can make them look silly and preoccupied on the Brexit and take their attention off other EU states that are fully committed to Europe.

Foghladh

Deleted User wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Brexit vote was 51.9% to 49.1%, a margin of 3.8%, meaning that if one voter in 50 changes their mind, the margin could go. And we can't ignore the practical reality that the 51.9% leave vote was endorsing a really not very well-thought-out or well-presented proposal. If one voter in 50 thought that they could vote 'Leave" and the UK could still participate in the single market, for example, a Brexit strategy which leads to the EU exiting the single market could put the kibosh on the pro-Brexit majority. That's the kind of risk that May has to factor in when deciding on the Brexit strategy.

I agree with you that the referendum creates an irresistible mandate for Brexit, and that Brexit must mean real change. But in implementing that change May would be in a much happier position if (a) there had been a thumping majority for Brexit, more spread across the UK as a whole, or (b) the Brexit vote had been based on a concrete and detailed Brexit proposal, including a model for future British engagement with the EU, or (c) preferably both. She's now in the unenviable position of having to do the Brexit planning that should have been done before the referendum and put before the people so that they could know about it when they voted, and of having to do so without taking decisions which could threaten the margin of support for Brexit which, I still say, is quite vulnerable, both because of the relative thinness of the margin and because of the poor quality of the campaign that preceded the vote.

2.8% surely?

3.8%. It was 51.9% to 48.1% not 49.1%

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

They did not agree to being part of a club that punishes member states for wanting to leave.

No-one is punishing them (other than themselves).

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The EU was always designed as a voluntary union. The rush to the exit was always a political drama or some states wanting to boost their trade by devaluing their currencies.

It worked well for the eastern states as the EU subsidies old industries. Now that Britain is leaving they can start trading with non EU Nations. Big deal for them and the European Commission is left with weaker economies to control. Britain can make them look silly and preoccupied on the Brexit and take their attention off other EU states that are fully committed to Europe.

There will be very limited EU resources engaged with the UK exit process. The EU will continue being focussed on EU activities. It's not going to be 'preoccupied', let alone distracted.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

No-one is punishing them (other than themselves).


There will be very limited EU resources engaged with the UK exit process. The EU will continue being focussed on EU activities. It's not going to be 'preoccupied', let alone distracted.

It already getting a lot of attention. Article 50 has yet to be triggered. Yes the cat will come out of the bag that day. In terms of the EU states cooperating on having a common position via Britain. Are European heads of states expected to cheerlead the UK out of the EU or perhaps different member states should have their own views aired. Instead of each state singing out of the same hymn sheet Britain leaving allows grater debate on the role the European Parliament should have on decision making.

Nody

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It already getting a lot of attention. Article 50 has yet to be triggered. Yes the cat will come out of the bag that day. In terms of the EU states cooperating on having a common position via Britain. Are European heads of states expected to cheerlead the UK out of the EU or perhaps different member states should have their own views aired. Instead of each state singing out of the same hymn sheet Britain leaving allows grater debate on the role the European Parliament should have on decision making.

Press does not equal work or attention being done by the people on the ground; UK will leave, EU will continue and prosper while UK will continue at a lower growth path then when it was in EU. UK will be able to trade with exactly the same number of countries as previously except they now need to have and pay for the whole operation to do the trade deals on their own rather than split it with 27 other countries.

Foghladh

Foghladh wrote: »

3.8%. It was 51.9% to 48.1% not 49.1%

ha, I mathsed the wrong maths!

Lemming

robinph wrote: »

Whilst a million sounds like a big number, you of course only needed half of them to vote the other way and the result would have been reversed. But we all know that and saying 500,000 people doesn't sound as good from a brexiteer perspective trying to make out it was won by a big majority when it wasn't.

That'd be a million spread across the length & breadth of the UK & N.Ireland, not just concentrated in a single area. Just to put it in perspective; Sheffield voted to leave by a margin of - quite literally if I recall - 1000 votes. I know more than a few workmates who didn't vote who would have voted to stay for example; and a thousand voters across a single city is absolutely chump-change in terms of swing numbers. You only need that sort of scenario across a handful of large urban areas to see a dramatic swing either way for any given vote.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It already getting a lot of attention. Article 50 has yet to be triggered. Yes the cat will come out of the bag that day. In terms of the EU states cooperating on having a common position via Britain. Are European heads of states expected to cheerlead the UK out of the EU or perhaps different member states should have their own views aired. Instead of each state singing out of the same hymn sheet Britain leaving allows grater debate on the role the European Parliament should have on decision making.

It's managed to tie up a grand total of 20 EU staff to date. More post Article 50, but small beans compared to the rest of EU activities. They UK leaving will not have any bearing on the debate regarding the European Parliament's role. Heads of State will obviously be consulted regarding their attitudes and inputs to negotiations with the UK, but the scope for flexibility is pretty limited, and the EU negotiating team have been delegated that responsibility.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

2.8% surely?

My mistake. What I should have written was "The Brexit vote was 51.9% to 48.1%, a margin of 3.8%".

The margin of 3.8% was correct; I overstated the level of the "Remain" vote. The honours students will have spotted that my original vote figures summed to 101%.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I have to disagree with you on point (b), that May would have liked to have had a detailed brexit proposal. This would tie her hands going into negotiations on article 50. Her opposite number would know exactly what was acceptable and what was not acceptable and could use that against her. I doubt very much if she would have wanted this.

She would have had a mandate for it, is the point. If she knew that the Brexit vote was also a vote not to be in the EEA or the customs union or whatever, because that had been explicitly on the table at the time of the vote, she'd be much more comfortable that she could take the UK in that direction without losing the fairly narrow margin of support that Brexit enjoys.

And, for what it's worth, I've never found this "she needs to keep her cards close to her chest" line very convincing. When she goes into negotiations, she's going to have to say what she's looking for 'cause, if you don't ask, yo won't get. I don't see that she hugely jeopardises her chance of getting by being open about what she is looking for before negotiations start, as opposed to when negotiations start. What use, exactly, are the EU going to make of this information that could be disadvantageous to her? It has always been fairly clear to me that she doesn't want to show her cards because, in fact, she hasn't got any cards yet. She doesn't know what she wants; she doesn't have a Brexit strategy.

This is not really her fault; she became Prime Minister after the Government conducted this train wreck of a referendum without doing any Brexit planning at all. And now she's desparately trying to put together a Brexit strategy and, I accept, it's much easier to do that if you don't have to do it in the full glare of publicity. But once you have a strategy, I don't see that you queer your pitch by telling people what it is.

Her problem is that she has to put together a strategy which (a) is attainable; something she can realistically hope to negotiate with the EU; (b) is sufficient to satisfy the expectation of Leave voters; and (c) won't piss off too many Leave voters so that support for Brexit crumbles. And that's a very difficult balance to find, because Leave voters have very diverse expectations and aspirations, and the nature of the campaign was such that the Brexit vote doesn't really give a mandate for any of them.

murphaph

Parliament erred by allowing such an open ended question to be posed in the referendum. Parliament can make good its error by posing a multiple choice question in which the basic leave options are offered to the people and they get to choose their own poison.

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

Parliament erred by allowing such an open ended question to be posed in the referendum. Parliament can make good its error by posing a multiple choice question in which the basic leave options are offered to the people and they get to choose their own poison.

Or they can make their own life easy; negotiate a deal (what ever it may be) and hold a second referendum on it as a "we take this or we stay in EU" option. That would give a clear mandate one way or another (but if choosing to remain in EU UK is likely to be in a weaker position than previously).

I can't see any realistic outcome that has the UK 'remain in the European Union', given that the direct question which asked if the people wanted that was return negative.

I can see eventualities which result in 'extremely close ties to the European Union' (a la Norway and Switzerland) which imo are worse scenarios than they were in previously, but would of course meet the mandate.

I can see eventualities which result in 'have similar relationship to the European Union as we have with the US', which would of course meet the mandate.

I can see eventualities which result in a 'total independence from all aspects of the European Union' (a la Uzbekistan) which once again is a worse scenario than what they were in previously, which again would meet the mandate.

However, I just cannot see any way for the UK to Remain a member of the European Union in light of the direct answer that they received from the people. It just doesn't fly imo.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

However, I just cannot see any way for the UK to Remain a member of the European Union in light of the direct answer that they received from the people. It just doesn't fly imo.

It does if you take into account people believing the lies stated during the campaign (250 MM GBP for NHS etc.) and how UK would remain part of the inner market after leaving etc. This would now put the real deal on the table for the people to see what's the reality are to choose from; either Deal A or Deal B rather than the made up lies and wishes of politicians. After all if UK is to do politics by referendum then why would they not let the people vote on the final deal as well? At least this time the vote will have an actual deal on the table for comparison.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

It does if you take into account people believing the lies stated during the campaign (250 MM GBP for NHS etc.) and how UK would remain part of the inner market after leaving etc. This would now put the real deal on the table for the people to see what's the reality are to choose from; either Deal A or Deal B rather than the made up lies and wishes of politicians. After all if UK is to do politics by referendum then why would they not let the people vote on the final deal as well? At least this time the vote will have an actual deal on the table for comparison.

They don't. They shouldn't have. They shouldn't then try to 'right that wrong' with another 'wrong'.

There is an inherent flaw in democracy that we must bear; that decisions can be made that appear to be 'objectively wrong', but democracy works because we all agree to be bound by the rules of it.

We cannot mitigate this flaw, all we can do is work towards making it as unlikely to surface as is possible. By educating and deliberating and reasoning.

I say all this as a pretty adamant Remainer, an immigrant in the UK, and someone who agrees wholeheartedly on the ridiculously bizarre campaign that was waged (by both sides).

The UK had a referendum, with a direct question, that was answered directly. The 'rules of democracy' that we all agree to be bound by, suggest that this answer must be upheld. The next step is for the Sovereign Parliament to enact the legislation that the people have requested, and leave the EU.

Unless the Parliament and MPs vote not to enact A50 (I can't see it happening) and a general election is fought on the back of the question, which results in an overwhelming victory/majority (of not Tories) I cannot see any way for the UK to remain within the EU.

From the EU's perspective, even that scenario - A polarised and negative UK finding some mechanism to remain is not an attractive proposition. Rotten apple in a barrel.

alastair

The rules of democracy clearly framed the referendum as advisory. A second referendum, with a refined proposal, would equally be advisory, and the actual democratic decision-making body, parliament, could then legislate with a greater sense of public feeling on the matter. It won't happen because it would be an admission of the incredibly screwed up process, but it would certainly not subvert the rules of democracy in the UK.