Brexit Referendum Superthread

marienbad

First Up wrote: »

Only changes to treaties.

Am I correct in saying that is only because we have done so from the start as it has never actually been tested in court ?

Now the precedent may have been set , though I don't now how valid that is in law .

catbear

marienbad wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that is only because we have done so from the start as it has never actually been tested in court ?

Now the precedent may have been set , though I don't now how valid that is in law .

It could also be contested in the German federal courts too.

Fratton Fred

First Up wrote: »

Only changes to treaties.

Is it a change, or a clarification though and what does it matter to the Irish constitution?

murphaph

My understanding was that any treaty the Irish government signs that cedes any sovereignty must (or has been historically) put to referendum. I personally cannot imagine the Irish electorate voting to prevent the UK from revoking A50 if it ever came to that (ie, that a treaty change that ceded further sovereignty was required to allow A50 to be revoked).

catbear

murphaph wrote: »

My understanding was that any treaty the Irish government signs that cedes any sovereignty must (or has been historically) put to referendum. I personally cannot imagine the Irish electorate voting to prevent the UK from revoking A50 if it ever came to that (ie, that a treaty change that ceded further sovereignty was required to allow A50 to be revoked).

No nation is going to waste an opportunity is extract something out of the UK in return.

Spain alone could demand dual custody of Gibraltar and Ireland could demand all kinds of things in relation to the north like further inquests into British backed murder squads for instance.

Eastern European countries and the rest of the EU could demand that their citizens be granted automatic UK residency rights to protect them against future lunges towards British isolation.

And no eurozone nation is going to want to let the UK continue to do Euro finance business without at least committing to the currency.

Why would anyone reward the UK for creating its own crisis?

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

No nation is going to waste an opportunity is extract something out of the UK in return.

Spain alone could demand dual custody of Gibraltar and Ireland could demand all kinds of things in relation to the north like further inquests into British backed murder squads for instance.

Eastern European countries and the rest of the EU could demand that their citizens be granted automatic UK residency rights to protect them against future lunges towards British isolation.

And no eurozone nation is going to want to let the UK continue to do Euro finance business without at least committing to the currency.

Why would anyone reward the UK for creating its own crisis?

Ireland won't demand a thing. Ireland would be breathing a huge sigh of relief if the UK revoked A50. Sure, we'd be annoyed at the UK for wasting our time and would hope that they at least pay for the cost of their silliness but nobody would put a significant roadblock in the way of the UK remaining in the EU.

Eastern European states would know that without the UK's contribution that their structural funds would decrease significantly.

Spain makes noises about Gibraltar but they also want to see the UK stay together: if the UK breaks apart and Scotland is admitted to the EU it will set a precedent that Spain does not want....but it would be hard for Spain to deny Scottish admission when the bulk of the EU would presumably be strongly in favour of supporting the "little country that tried to stay in the club". Spain would make huge enemies of several northern European countries by attempting to block Scottish admission to the EU.

In short I see a lot of arm waving (and rightly so) and the UK paying some expensive bills but I don't see any changes to the UK's membership, opt-outs etc. being forced on them in return for treaty change to allow A50 to be revoked (if it even needs treaty change).

Leonard Hofstadter

murphaph wrote: »

Ireland won't demand a thing. Ireland would be breathing a huge sigh of relief if the UK revoked A50. Sure, we'd be annoyed at the UK for wasting our time and would hope that they at least pay for the cost of their silliness but nobody would put a significant roadblock in the way of the UK remaining in the EU.

Eastern European states would know that without the UK's contribution that their structural funds would decrease significantly.

Spain makes noises about Gibraltar but they also want to see the UK stay together: if the UK breaks apart and Scotland is admitted to the EU it will set a precedent that Spain does not want....but it would be hard for Spain to deny Scottish admission when the bulk of the EU would presumably be strongly in favour of supporting the "little country that tried to stay in the club". Spain would make huge enemies of several northern European countries by attempting to block Scottish admission to the EU.

In short I see a lot of arm waving (and rightly so) and the UK paying some expensive bills but I don't see any changes to the UK's membership, opt-outs etc. being forced on them in return for treaty change to allow A50 to be revoked (if it even needs treaty change).

Absolutely, even if it means some relocations from the city and other EU institutions don't move here and stay in the UK, we're still better off with them in - even with all the opt outs they have. By far and away the best outcome for Ireland is for the British to get a dose of collective amnesia and decide to stay in after all. If they had a change of heart it would result in a massive boost in the value of sterling, which would be massively beneficial to many Irish businesses and obviously would allow things to continue as they currently do with regards to the North.

catbear

captainspeed wrote: »

Absolutely, even if it means some relocations from the city and other EU institutions don't move here and stay in the UK, we're still better off with them in - even with all the opt outs they have. By far and away the best outcome for Ireland is for the British to get a dose of collective amnesia and decide to stay in after all. If they had a change of heart it would result in a massive boost in the value of sterling, which would be massively beneficial to many Irish businesses and obviously would allow things to continue as they currently do with regards to the North.

You're counting on a British government somehow making running with their tail between the legs in march 2019 seem like a victory with an election due the next year!

The problem with British society is that even with dementia their rabid programmed version of sovereignty means that any compromise equals defeat.

i reckon it's a decade and a generation before you get the amnesia you're talking about. I'll be glad to be wrong but I don't see it otherwise.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

. . . For example, all commentators seem to be stating it as a fact that the UK can rollback on article 50 if all of the EU member states agree to let it.

Yes, but that ducks the question of what procedurs must be followed under the law of each member state for that state to agree to revocation of the Art. 50 notice.

This is basically the flip side of the kerfuffle the UK have just been through. Under Article 50, the UK has a right to give withdrawal notice in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. What does the UK constitution require? The UK government has just been through painful and embarrassing litigation to establish that the UK constitition requires the consent of parliament before A50 notice can be given.

And the same will apply if the UK ever seeks to withdraw A50 notice. If the ECJ hods that the there is no right of withdrawal implicit in the Lisbon Treaty, then agreement to withdrawal is effectively a Treaty amendment, or a new Treaty. And Irish law/political convention will apply to determine when and how that treaty/treaty amendment can be ratified. A constitutional amendment is required if the treaty amendmebnt/new treaty involves a diminution of sovereignty, and there has been a practice of securing a constitutional amendment for the ratification of all EU treaties to avoid dispute/argument/uncertainty over whether the Treaty did or did not involve a diminution of sovereignty.

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

You're counting on a British government somehow making running with their tail between the legs in march 2019 seem like a victory with an election due the next year!

The problem with British society is that even with dementia their rabid programmed version of sovereignty means that any compromise equals defeat.

i reckon it's a decade and a generation before you get the amnesia you're talking about. I'll be glad to be wrong but I don't see it otherwise.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the UK will change its mind, merely that if it did, no major roadblocks would be put in its way to prevent it continuing more or less as before.

View

First Up wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote:

does every change in eu legislation need a referendum in Ireland?

Only changes to treaties.

That's incorrect.

The only changes to EU Treaties that require referenda are those that impact sovereignty.

We have only had two Supreme court judgments on EU related treaties hence only in the cases of TWO treaties can we say whether or not the treaties concerned required referenda. Those were: the SEA in '87 (due to a small part of it, not all of it) and the ESM (which did NOT require a referendum).

In general the situation is: Accession Treaties for new member states do not require referenda; technically a "house keeping" treaty change would not require one either (and many of those we have put to referenda probably are "house keeping" ones) and, lastly, changes using the two limited simplified Treaty revision mechanism should not require them (and we have had such minor changes in the last five years).

demfad

• The UK has no chance of negotiating a good (or any) trade deal in 18 months (2 years - ratification time)
• The UK will either get a poor deal or no deal.
• The UK Govt is fighting to make sure that no deal = Messy exit and splat on the hard WTO floor.
• The UK is not ready to make a deal. White paper is waffle. 'Global Britian' was a theme lifted from the UKIP leave.eu campaign document.
• Ergo: The UK will crash out and will blame the EU/media/remainers.
• The only viable option is the low tax, small Govt Tax haven
• Crash out--Blame--Tax haven: This is in fact the UK 'plan'
• Ireland must now view the most likely outcome as a huge shock from messy hard Brexit followed by the massive threat of a Tax Haven of 60+ million as our nearest neighbour.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

• The UK has no chance of negotiating a good (or any) trade deal in 18 months (2 years - ratification time)
• The UK will either get a poor deal or no deal.
• The UK Govt is fighting to make sure that no deal = Messy exit and splat on the hard WTO floor.
• The UK is not ready to make a deal. White paper is waffle. 'Global Britian' was a theme lifted from the UKIP leave.eu campaign document.
• Ergo: The UK will crash out and will blame the EU/media/remainers.
• The only viable option is the low tax, small Govt Tax haven
• Crash out--Blame--Tax haven: This is in fact the UK 'plan'
• Ireland must now view the most likely outcome as a huge shock from messy hard Brexit followed by the massive threat of a Tax Haven of 60+ million as our nearest neighbour.

could you PM me the winner of the Gold Cup by any chance?

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

could you PM me the winner of the Gold Cup by any chance?

Cut out the nonsense please.

catbear

demfad wrote: »

[*]Ireland must now view the most likely outcome as a huge shock from messy hard Brexit followed by the massive threat of a Tax Haven of 60+ million as our nearest neighbour.
[/LIST]

For gods sake, a low corporation tax rate does not = tax haven. Greece charges its shipping magnates zero tax and see the state of that place.

There is no magic bullet substitute for real productivity unless you're a small trading hub like Singapore or a resource exporter like Australia.

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

could you PM me the winner of the Gold Cup by any chance?

If there is an ill-prepared donkey entered, then I can certainly PM you the loser.

demfad

catbear wrote: »

For gods sake, a low corporation tax rate does not = tax haven. Greece charges its shipping magnates zero tax and see the state of that place.

There is no magic bullet substitute for real productivity unless you're a small trading hub like Singapore or a resource exporter like Australia.

I didn't say it was the best possible future for Britian, I said it was the likely best future on the road they are currently travelling.

The hit from the messy exit and low tax, free market economy will negatively affect an economy like ours.

It will also not deliver the fair economy that May promised for the UK: the opposite in fact.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/full-transcript-tony-blairs-brexit-speech/

This free market vision would require major re-structuring of the British economy and its tax and welfare system.

It will not mean more money for the NHS but less; actually it probably means a wholesale rebalancing of our healthcare towards one based on private as much as public provision. It will not mean more protection for workers, but less. And if that were what we wanted to do as a country, we could do it now. Europe wouldn’t stop us. But as of now the British people would, because they wouldn’t vote for it. So the ideologues know they have to get Brexit first; then tell us this is the only future which works; and by that time they will be right.

Leonard Hofstadter

catbear wrote: »

You're counting on a British government somehow making running with their tail between the legs in march 2019 seem like a victory with an election due the next year!

The problem with British society is that even with dementia their rabid programmed version of sovereignty means that any compromise equals defeat.

i reckon it's a decade and a generation before you get the amnesia you're talking about. I'll be glad to be wrong but I don't see it otherwise.

I completely agree. No evidence whatsoever that the British are regretting their choice, the country is as divided as ever (I should know since I live in the North of England), remainers, like me watch in sheer bewilderment and are aghast at the carry on by the Tories and the way we are being completely ignored by the appalling Conservative Government, leavers are like the 'snowflakes' they criticise the liberal/left for, a bit of 'we're right and you're wrong' whenever there is a good news story, and then like spoilt children whenever something doesn't go their way, see the newspaper articles about judges being 'enemies of the people' for example and the wilful ignorance of the Tories about the House of Lords votes.

Unless there is a short, sharp, shock to the UK economy (ideally before 2019) I can't see any way they'll change their minds on it - and even by then, it will be too late. The best thing for Ireland to do is to plan for life without Britain as a major export and trading partner, it will take them an awful long time to realise their sheer stupidity. Also, the longer it's left before they want to change their minds, the less likely they'd be allowed opt outs should they want to rejoin the EU. It would be massively advantageous to Ireland if they were made use the Euro, not to mention the fact it would greatly boost cross border trade. I always maintain we should never have joined the Euro, but if the British were using the same currency as us it would be much easier to make a case for us using the Euro as well.

Lemming

captainspeed wrote: »

I completely agree. No evidence whatsoever that the British are regretting their choice, the country is as divided as ever (I should know since I live in the North of England), remainers, like me watch in sheer bewilderment and are aghast at the carry on by the Tories and the way we are being completely ignored by the appalling Conservative Government, leavers are like the 'snowflakes' they criticise the liberal/left for, a bit of 'we're right and you're wrong' whenever there is a good news story, and then like spoilt children whenever something doesn't go their way, see the newspaper articles about judges being 'enemies of the people' for example and the wilful ignorance of the Tories about the House of Lords votes.

TBH, sitting here amidst it all (South Yorkshire for myself), it appears that leave supporters - as a group - are now starting to add rampant paranoia into the mix by the behavioural traits on display. They have "won" so to speak, you'd think they'd be magnanimous in victory but if anything it's gotten worse as they see conspiracy around every corner whenever reality turns up to point out yet another reason why their decision was and still is, a very f*cking bad idea.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, sitting here amidst it all (South Yorkshire for myself), it appears that leave supporters - as a group - are now starting to add rampant paranoia into the mix by the behavioural traits on display. They have "won" so to speak, you'd think they'd be magnanimous in victory but if anything it's gotten worse as they see conspiracy around every corner whenever reality turns up to point out yet another reason why their decision was and still is, a very f*cking bad idea.

In fairness, David Cameron did say he's be triggering Article 50 immediately. I do agree with you though. It only hit me when I saw that "Enemies of the people" headline in the Daily Mail after Gina Miller's lawsuit. It's something I would expect to see in Pravda or a DPRK outlet. "The revolution is here, comrades". People are buying this nonsense from tax-dodging, non-domiciled billionaires and it's utterly insane. They have no interest in reconciliation or showing any sort of consideration to the 16 million+ who voted remain. There could be another referendum tomorrow with a win for remain. It was that slim and it's being presented as the unequivocal will of the people.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In fairness, David Cameron did say he's be triggering Article 50 immediately. I do agree with you though. It only hit me when I saw that "Enemies of the people" headline in the Daily Mail after Gina Miller's lawsuit. It's something I would expect to see in Pravda or a DPRK outlet. "The revolution is here, comrades". People are buying this nonsense from tax-dodging, non-domiciled billionaires and it's utterly insane. They have no interest in reconciliation or showing any sort of consideration to the 16 million+ who voted remain. There could be another referendum tomorrow with a win for remain. It was that slim and it's being presented as the unequivocal will of the people.

It's precisely because it was that slim that I think the brexiters are so insecure. Well, that and the fact that the Brexit campaign was based so much on ignorance and misrepresentation. You can't really be confident that a decision so narrowly arrived at in such circumstances will last; therefore it's vitally important to proceed as fast as possible to implement the decision, so that reversing it becomes more and more difficult/expensive/impractical.

Lemming

Nail. Hammer. Head. Peregrinus. And they know it too.

First Up

Lemming wrote: »

TBH, sitting here amidst it all (South Yorkshire for myself), it appears that leave supporters - as a group - are now starting to add rampant paranoia into the mix by the behavioural traits on display. They have "won" so to speak, you'd think they'd be magnanimous in victory but if anything it's gotten worse as they see conspiracy around every corner whenever reality turns up to point out yet another reason why their decision was and still is, a very f*cking bad idea.

It was paranoia spread by the Daily Mail etc. that caused them to vote to leave in the first place.

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

It was paranoia spread by the Daily Mail etc. that caused them to vote to leave in the first place.

No, in the first place it was just deceit and a chance to grab more sales; the more outrageous the headline the better. It's morphed into something more sinister now, being fueled by outright paranoia and fear that because it isn't going to happen quickly and ergo deliver a fait accomplait when found out, they're afraid it'll be overturned.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's precisely because it was that slim that I think the brexiters are so insecure. Well, that and the fact that the Brexit campaign was based so much on ignorance and misrepresentation. You can't really be confident that a decision so narrowly arrived at in such circumstances will last; therefore it's vitally important to proceed as fast as possible to implement the decision, so that reversing it becomes more and more difficult/expensive/impractical.

The revocability and meaningful Parliamentary vote on the deal are key.
It is likely the difference between brexit and remain.
Leavres know this and are concentrating on eliminating the possibility of safety nets regardless of national interest.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

No, in the first place it was just deceit and a chance to grab more sales; the more outrageous the headline the better. It's morphed into something more sinister now, being fueled by outright paranoia and fear that because it isn't going to happen quickly and ergo deliver a fait accomplait when found out, they're afraid it'll be overturned.

That is also true but the British public has been fed a diet of anti-Europe hysteria for forty years. Some of it was bound to stick.

swampgas

First Up wrote: »

That is also true but the British public has been fed a diet of anti-Europe hysteria for forty years. Some of it was bound to stick.

It has never been popular in the UK to look favourably on the EC/EU, or to see the other EU countries as anything other than objects of fun.

The TV tropes down the years have reflected this, Manuel in Fawlty Towers, the French in Allo Allo, the Spanish in Don't Drink the Water, never mind endless WW2 films where Germans and Italians are usually shown as complete caricatures, while the plucky Brits are shown as heroes.

In some ways the UK's view of the world seems to be stuck in WW2: the US and UK are good, Australia/NZ good, Europe weak or evil.

An Ciarraioch

Ipsos Mori/STV poll:

Should Scotland be an independent country:

Yes: 50% (+3)
No: 50% (-3)

The SNP conference is being held on Patrick's weekend ...

catbear

Also add the fact that the rapine of Empire isn't really covered in their schools and the attitude that theirs was a purely benevolent global presence completely ignores the volatile borders they created all over the world.

The generations who witnessed the war and the collapse of Empire were more realistic about Britains place in the world but as they die off, a new nostalgic delusional version of british history has taken over with the annual Poppy fascism increasing every year.

"Lest we forget"

You can't forget what you were never thought.

ambro25

demfad wrote: »

The revocability and meaningful Parliamentary vote on the deal are key.
It is likely the difference between brexit and remain.
Leavres know this and are concentrating on eliminating the possibility of safety nets regardless of national interest.

I'm afraid I'm wholly unconvinced by that point, demfad, after the ignominiously collective trouser-dropping session in Parliament on 1 February, moreover which only came about as a result of private individuals' initiative and efforts [Gina Miller et al]. I don't recall seeing or hearing many MPs lending her much of a hand at the time.

It took the Lords, unencumbered as they are by re-election worries, to stand up to May and Corbyn in the name of national interest. Repeatedly.

Same story with Blair's speech, arguably fully borne from a deep consideration for the national interest, more coherently and cogently than any other by anyone in the opposition, and the best he's ever delivered bar none (and that's all grudgingly from me, as I can hardly tolerate the man). Promptly derided by all, torpedo'ed by labour, trap-door'd inside 48 hours.

Stop peeing in the violin to try and get a tune, and just let them jump off the cliff edge, says I.

Best thing that could happen to the Tory and Labour machines and the British political dualism altogether. Give it 10 years and Tories, Labour and UKIPpers will likely be regarded by the bulk of the British electorate nationally, with the same amount of "esteem" as Maggie still is here, in t' People's Republic of South Yorkshire :pac: