Brexit Referendum Superthread

murphaph

If it's revocable then anything can happen still. If it becomes more and more apparent that Brexit is going to be an abject failure then who knows what could happen.

It is however most likely that it will come to pass.

catbear

murphaph wrote: »

If it's revocable then anything can happen still. If it becomes more and more apparent that Brexit is going to be an abject failure then who knows what could happen.

It is however most likely that it will come to pass.

A50 is a one way ticket and if the UK wants to come back it will have to convince everyone that it's a committed constructive believer in the union rather than the recalcitrant self serving half member it is.

Plus I can't see the EU members unanimously waving their vetos to allow the UK to revoke A50 without individually wanting something in return.

Domestically the Tories are actually chasing the Brexit mandate and can't relax until it's triggered.

Leonard Hofstadter

catbear wrote: »

A50 is a one way ticket and if the UK wants to come back it will have to convince everyone that it's a committed constructive believer in the union rather than the recalcitrant self serving half member it is.

Plus I can't see the EU members unanimously waving their vetos to allow the UK to revoke A50 without individually wanting something in return.

Domestically the Tories are actually chasing the Brexit mandate and can't relax until it's triggered.

Depends on the country. For Ireland we'd definitely have them back with open arms, would make the situation in the North a lot easier for starters as well as making it massively easier for rural Ireland. Of course we'd like to get a few concessions out of them (such as using the Euro) but I think most of us would get enough of a laugh at seeing such a turnaround that we'd have them back on all their existing opt outs no questions asked. Germany would probably be similar, Britain is a massive export market for them. Others, like France probably wouldn't let them back in unless there were some pretty big gives from the British side, and I'd say the likes of Juncker would be the same view.

For what it's worth I'd have them back in the morning no questions asked, I still wish they'd change their mind but I know what they're like and there's a better chance of us all getting sunburned tomorrow than there is of them reversing their decision for at least the next 10 years. Even if there is a massive recession (which there won't be) they are too hubristic to admit they made a mistake and then we have the incredibly biased right wing Tory press on top of that who will just blame the EU when it goes all wrong and say how 'great' it is to have their 'freedom' and their 'country back' and all that rabble rousing. At some point the pendulum will swing back, it always does, Thersa May won't be around forever and eventually the Labour party will find someone who is electable once more who isn't a total nutcase (fingers crossed).

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

Brexit is going to happen and you need to just accept that fact. There was never a possibility after the referendum result that brexit was not going to happen. All objections to brexit after 23 June 2016 have had no effect in overturning the result nor will they in the future.

Again with the fatalist sh1te that smacks of "quick! Run before anyone notices! Can't believe we managed to fool them all :pac: ". There was never a possibility that Article 50 would not be served, but to say that Brexit is a foregone conclusion is another matter. Two years is a very, very long time in politics and whilst people may be fooled by odious snake-oil salesmen, money isn't so easily swayed. Now, however likely it is that the UK is going to leave the EU, there is still time a-plenty for the nation to come to its senses.

of course, the above completely belies the argument of "what sort of Brexit" did the people vote for. And for that there is no answer. Why? Because we weren't asked. And we weren't asked in the polling booths for definite. I think you'll find that a lot of the disquiet about the whole debacle is not necessarily that the UK is going to leave the EU as an institution but that a small cohort of extremists are pursuing an ideological bint that will see the harshest of exit strategies inflicted upon the nation, which nobody was consulted upon *



* Yes parliament did a "vote" but for all the cries of democracy, it was an absolute sham of a proceeding, with next to no time given to scrutinise the bill and rail-roaded through as a fait accomplit.

catbear

captainspeed wrote: »

Germany would probably be similar, Britain is a massive export market for them.

And italy need to sell prosecco, we've been through all that Boris Johnson stuff and its doesn't matter when it's politics driving Brexit and not economics.

It would be suicidal to reward the UK for changing its mind. If they got rewarded for it they'd be doing Brexit again in five years times. They've gotten opt outs when they were in and now you want to give them more because they threatened to leave?

We've a wonderful open market between 27 sovereign states and one nation who wants our money but doesn't like us as people.

It's really simple, the girl wants you to buy her nice things but won't be seen with you. Don't be a doormat.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

If it's revocable then anything can happen still . . . .

It's not clear that it is revocable. Opinion on this differs, and we won't get an authoritative ruling on the point unless the UK tries to revoke their Art 50 notice, in which case someone who objects to that will challenge the validity of the purported revocation and the case will go to the ECJ.

In the meantime, the UK would be wise to proceed on the assumption that, once they jump out of this particular airplane, no matter how inadequate their parachute proves to be it may not be possible to climb back in again.

First Up

captainspeed wrote:

Germany would probably be similar, Britain is a massive export market for them.

The UK takes 7% of German exports. Important, but not irreplaceable.

Germany takes 10% of UK exports. Also important and in terms of the relative leverage, a more significant bargaining chip.

Britain's exit from the single market will have an impact on trade in both directions. The UK is vastly more dependent on the EU market (which will negotiate as a bloc) than any individual EU country is on the UK. (We being the most exposed for obvious reasons.)

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

And italy need to sell prosecco, we've been through all that Boris Johnson stuff and its doesn't matter when it's politics driving Brexit and not economics.

It would be suicidal to reward the UK for changing its mind. If they got rewarded for it they'd be doing Brexit again in five years times. They've gotten opt outs when they were in and now you want to give them more because they threatened to leave?

We've a wonderful open market between 27 sovereign states and one nation who wants our money but doesn't like us as people.

It's really simple, the girl wants you to buy her nice things but won't be seen with you. Don't be a doormat.

I wouldn't offer the UK any more than they have, but I wouldn't in a million years support denying them pulling the emergency brake, with the understanding that they cover the costs of Brexit so far on the EU side as well as their own. That would be fair. We actually need treaty change to clarify A50 and the issue of costs. It should be clearer to any nation contemplating leaving, how things will take shape. At least Brexit delivers a blueprint for us in this regard.

It would be biting off your nose to spite your face to deny them this right to change their minds. They are a net contributor and to be perfectly honest it is healthy to have a more fiscally conservative major nation inside the EU acting as a counterweight to France. Germany and the UK would be much more natural economic partners than Germany and France. Germany will certainly miss the UK.

They never were, contrary to popular belief "bad Europeans". The UK was generally among the first the implement EU directives in national legislation, often well before "dedicated members". They had a few opt-outs, as do Ireland, Denmark and so on.

Also remember that only 17 million of the 60 million population voted for Brexit. I personally believe that apathy on the remain side and the tendency of older voters to vote leave while younger people either failed to participate or were too young to do so conspired to deliver the leave result. I'm quite certain if it was run again tomorrow it would be comfortably won by remain, which to me is the saddest thing of all.

Sam Russell

I believe the Tories are going to celebrate the Article 50 on March the 29th by forming a large circle, holding hands, and all shouting in unison - 'May Day, May Day!'

Bit cynical

murphaph wrote: »

Also remember that only 17 million of the 60 million population voted for Brexit. I personally believe that apathy on the remain side and the tendency of older voters to vote leave while younger people either failed to participate or were too young to do so conspired to deliver the leave result. I'm quite certain if it was run again tomorrow it would be comfortably won by remain, which to me is the saddest thing of all.

It may be the case that there's cold feet at the moment and that, as you say, the result would be reversed if it were run tomorrow. But I think as time goes on, the UK being a non-EU member will become an accepted fact. It will seem natural that the UK is outside the EU and the fact that it was once inside will recede into history. Problems associated with being outside will be accepted as the normal challenges faced by an independent country. People will move on and accept the new reality.

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

of course, the above completely belies the argument of "what sort of Brexit" did the people vote for. And for that there is no answer. Why? Because we weren't asked. And we weren't asked in the polling booths for definite. I think you'll find that a lot of the disquiet about the whole debacle is not necessarily that the UK is going to leave the EU as an institution but that a small cohort of extremists are pursuing an ideological bint that will see the harshest of exit strategies inflicted upon the nation, which nobody was consulted upon *

Well I tried to answer that in another post. It did not make sense to ask what kind brexit in the referendum because it was not in the power of UK government to deliver a particular kind of brexit. The type of brexit that will occur will be the result of negotiations between the UK and the EU, not the decision of the UK alone. The only thing that is in the direct power of the UK government is to trigger A50 which they are now doing.

* Yes parliament did a "vote" but for all the cries of democracy, it was an absolute sham of a proceeding, with next to no time given to scrutinise the bill and rail-roaded through as a fait accomplit.

But nevertheless, MPs were free to simply vote no if they so wished if they felt it was rushed. They might have had to answer to their party leadership and their constituents if they had done so but there was no law preventing them from doing that. This is how parliamentary democracy has always worked.

Bit cynical

murphaph wrote: »

Also remember that only 17 million of the 60 million population voted for Brexit. I personally believe that apathy on the remain side and the tendency of older voters to vote leave while younger people either failed to participate or were too young to do so conspired to deliver the leave result. I'm quite certain if it was run again tomorrow it would be comfortably won by remain, which to me is the saddest thing of all.

It is true that had younger voters been more inclined to vote they would probably have reversed the vote. But this is like the saying "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle." You could just as easily say that if some of the 17 million had not turned up, Remain would comfortably have won. Any number of things might have been different but were not.

What counts is not the "ifs" and the "might have beens" but what actually happened. And what happened is that a clear majority voted Leave.

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

They are a net contributor and to be perfectly honest it is healthy to have a more fiscally conservative major nation inside the EU acting as a counterweight to France.

Not sure the UK could be described as “fiscally conservative” – the British debt/GDP ratio is closer to the likes of France and Spain than it is to Germany and the Netherlands. Furthermore, successive governments have struggled to get their deficit under control – it’s still one of the largest in the EU.

murphaph wrote: »

They never were, contrary to popular belief "bad Europeans". The UK was generally among the first the implement EU directives in national legislation, often well before "dedicated members". They had a few opt-outs, as do Ireland, Denmark and so on.

Ireland’s primary motivation for securing opt-outs was because the UK did. Joining Schengen, for example, would be totally impractical for Ireland as long as the UK remained outside.

Also, the notion that the UK are “bad Europeans” is well-earned. They never really committed to the core principles of the EU – they just wanted access to the market. To this day they’re still banging on about the fact that they only voted to join the “Common Market” back in the 70s, not the “political project” that the EU has supposedly since become. This ignores the reality that the EU always has been, and always will be, a political project.

I’ve probably mentioned it already on this thread, but there was an excellent documentary with Nick Robinson on the history of the UK’s post-war relationship with the rest of Europe last year. It’s no longer available on iPlayer but it’s well worth a watch if you get a chance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b077nr8v

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

It did not make sense to ask what kind brexit in the referendum because it was not in the power of UK government to deliver a particular kind of brexit.

There is absolutely no reason why at least one more option, such as “leave the EU but remain in the single market”, could not have been included on the ballot. At the time, the Brexiteers argued against this being necessary because “nobody is talking about leaving the single market”. Polls at the time demonstrated that the electorate believed them – there was very little support for leaving the single market.

So, clearly, at the time, the majority of the electorate believed it was voting either to remain in the EU, or to accept a very particular form of Brexit ( a relatively soft one).

catbear

murphaph wrote: »

We actually need treaty change to clarify A50 and the issue of costs.

Amend a treaty you say?

We may need a constitutional referendum for that in Ireland, better hope the brits don't make any threats towards us in the meantime.

Bit cynical

djpbarry wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason why at least one more option, such as “leave the EU but remain in the single market”, could not have been included on the ballot.

No, because it is not established that it is in the power of the UK government to unilaterally leave the EU but remain in the single market.

Crocked

djpbarry wrote: »

So, clearly, at the time, the majority of the electorate believed it was voting either to remain in the EU, or to accept a very particular form of Brexit ( a relatively soft one).

I've been wondering about this. If a majority either wanted to stay in or just have a soft exit and remain in the single market. Then why hasn't there been a backlash from those people who voted leave in the belief they'd still be in the common market?

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

No, because it is not established that it is in the power of the UK government to unilaterally leave the EU but remain in the single market.

Doesn't matter. The referendum outcome wasn't binding on the UK government, remember; they were't legally obliged to deliver it, so the fact that they might not be able to deliver it wouldn't necesarily be fatal. A "leave the EU, remain in the single market" vote would have given the UK government a strong political mandate to work towards that outcome.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

Doesn't matter. The referendum outcome wasn't binding on the UK government, remember; they were't legally obliged to deliver it, so the fact that they might not be able to deliver it wouldn't necesarily be fatal. A "leave the EU, remain in the single market" vote would have given the UK government a strong political mandate to work towards that outcome.

Legally not fatal. Politically fatal. If the government is elected to make decisions on behalf of the people but on the rare occasions that they ask the people what to do, they need to be able to deliver on the answer to that question or face severe and justified political consequences.

demfad

Crocked wrote: »

I've been wondering about this. If a majority either wanted to stay in or just have a soft exit and remain in the single market. Then why hasn't there been a backlash from those people who voted leave in the belief they'd still be in the common market?

May obfuscated on this until very late. By then she had established that the only real opposition she faced was hard-line Brexiters. She is naturally anti-immigration so she was happy to shift to the hardened position unhindered.

Remember there should have been fierce opposition in Ireland to this but she muddied the waters with the 'no-one wants to see a return to the borders of the past...' fudge.
We bought it.

demfad

Bit cynical wrote: »

Legally not fatal. Politically fatal. If the government is elected to make decisions on behalf of the people but on the rare occasions that they ask the people what to do, they need to be able to deliver on the answer to that question or face severe and justified political consequences.

No. The referendum was advisory. They are representatives not delegates. They are elected to do what they see as best for their country and citizens. Re-election should be secondary to huge constitutional issues of grave national concern.
The current government does not even know if article 50 is revocable. Legality is not an issue, nor is parliamentary sovereignty. A power grab camouflaged by 'the will of the people' is what has happened.

Bit cynical

demfad wrote: »

No. The referendum was advisory. They are representatives not delegates. They are elected to do what they see as best for their country and citizens. Re-election should be secondary to huge constitutional issues of grave national concern.
The current government does not even know if article 50 is revocable. Legality is not an issue, nor is parliamentary sovereignty. A power grab camouflaged by 'the will of the people' is what has happened.

It is a very important issue. That is why they asked the people in the first place. But now that they have asked politically they are compelled to carry out the wishes of the people.

Yes, the precise nature of the future relationship with the EU will be a matter for negotiation and at this stage neither side knows what the final outcome will be. Options have to remain open at this stage. It would be great if the people could also determine by referendum what that relationship will be but by the nature of negotiations that is not realistic and is, I would argue, counter-productive: tying the hand of the negotiator at the outset is likely to lead to an outcome which is substantially different to the original intention. Paradoxically, if one wants a soft brexit, it is more likely to happen if the government is not politically compelled to deliver it.

demfad

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is a very important issue. That is why they asked the people in the first place. But now that they have asked politically they are compelled to carry out the wishes of the people.

That is not true. There was a UK high court case and supreme court case to establish that the UK parliament rather than govt could trigger article 50.
The referendum was only advisory and was legally complied with once the vote was accurately counted.

Yes, the precise nature of the future relationship with the EU will be a matter for negotiation and at this stage neither side knows what the final outcome will be. Options have to remain open at this stage.

Options are not open. The British Govt has declared that the UK will not be under ECJ rules and therefore not in the single market.

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

No, because it is not established that it is in the power of the UK government to unilaterally leave the EU but remain in the single market.

Who cares? As others have said, the referendum was purely advisory.

Bit cynical wrote: »

If the government is elected to make decisions on behalf of the people but on the rare occasions that they ask the people what to do, they need to be able to deliver on the answer to that question or face severe and justified political consequences.

But again, the answer to the question simply advised the government that the electorate wished to leave the EU. What the UK’s future relationship with the EU should be, which will be shaped by the upcoming negotiations, is still up for debate. Or at least it should be, but May and her cabinet seem intent on imposing their version of Brexit on the country and this has been facilitated by an utterly toothless Labour party.

djpbarry

Crocked wrote: »

I've been wondering about this. If a majority either wanted to stay in or just have a soft exit and remain in the single market. Then why hasn't there been a backlash from those people who voted leave in the belief they'd still be in the common market?

Probably because a combination of the British media and May’s cabinet have convinced them that everything is going to be just fine, regardless of whether or not a deal with the EU is reached. A recent YouGov poll suggests that 55% of people support the idea of May “walking away” if the deal Britain wants can’t be secured:

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/public-back-brexit-plan-think-eu-will-nix-it/

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Problems associated with being outside will be accepted as the normal challenges faced by an independent country.

No, every single problem will be highlighted by the Remainers and blamed on the Brexiters. Even Labour will not be able to resist beating the Tories with this stick the Brexiters are handing them.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even Labour will not be able to resist beating the Tories with this stick the Brexiters are handing them.

Labour are also now Brexiters. They voted for article 50 in parliament.

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

Labour are also now Brexiters.

Until political expediency and a wide-open goal present themselves.

Zubeneschamali

Lemming wrote: »

Until political expediency and a wide-open goal present themselves.

Exactly. They will beat the Tories with this for doing Brexit badly.

catbear

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly. They will beat the Tories with this for doing Brexit badly.

I severely doubt it with Corbyn at the helm, he's of the old labour that opposed EEC membership.