Should the UK renege on the Brexit vote?

Harry Palmr

The result of the referendum is advisory, the UK has to precipitate its leaving of the EU by invoking Article 50, the parliament.uk campaign to have a second referendum has passed 2.5 million signatures, already various Leave figures are damping down some of what some on the Brexit side suggested would happen/should happen - re foreign residents, immigrants, etc while making vague commitments to fund EU backed projects post leaving. Ratings agencies are downgrading the UK worthiness. Scotland is agitating to leave again.

David Cameron has tossed results hand grenade without it's pin towards Boris Johnson to deal with in the Autumn.

Will everyone start to row back as they see an appalling vista opening up before them? Would there be insurrection in the heartlands of the poor white working classes? Or can they be talked round? Would an early election won by a different leader or even party (as unlikely as that seems with Corbyn leading Labour) effectively nullify the result?

K-9

Unless they can get some new deal from the EU (seems unlikely) I can't see why there would be another vote. Turnout was high as well so that can't be blamed like previous Irish ones.

Really it's too early to be deciding to rerun it yet anyway, markets will calm down in a couple of weeks and move on to oil, Trump or whatever else catches their attention.

KingBrian2

Absolutely not. It would justify the claim by the English who voted no that they are being cheated out of their democratic verdict. Massive time and energy went into the campaign. To rerun it again would cause a fortune. Beside up to the last minute it was close so a similar result might occur.

No Britain will have to make do. Their are many avenues they can take to change the outcome without going through the referendum process again. The best one would be Parliament overturning the vote following a general election. I know very little on this area but the idea of a new Anglo Scottish Union could work.

mistermouse

Absolutely not. I don't see how the poll is in any way invalid and democracy should be seen to be carried out. Even if a petition reaches 17 million it is not the same as a valid democratic referendum vote.

The EU itself should not be seen to go along with any sweeping under the carpet of a democratic vote.

However I do believe the EU should negotiate a special treaty with the UK and take into consideration our border with Northern Ireland.

To punish or put in overly punitative terms on the UK with be nothing short of bullying and its obvious that the UK do want to work with the EU, just not fully take part. There are many who already view the EU in a bad light in its treatment of members during the financial crisis and also Germany's mess of the refugee situation. The EU would need to get back to its basic principles rather than how it has been for the past few years

J Mysterio

It should, but it can't. They've made their bed.

It's a catastrophe. Biggest political shock in my lifetime I think.

mansize

No. They are gone. Europe must move on without them

swampgas

The referendum wasn't sold to the British public as "an advisory" that the government would take into consideration - it was sold as empowering the people to decide the future of the UK in the EU. They really have painted themselves into a corner with this one.

Wanderer78

swampgas wrote:

The referendum wasn't sold to the British public as "an advisory" that the government would take into consideration - it was sold as empowering the people to decide the future of the UK in the EU. They really have painted themselves into a corner with this one.

Not at all, something like this or even worse was inevitable for the eu. Shocked at the result myself but everybody needs to calm down. The fall out will be serious enough though, labour this morning looks serious. The eu either takes note and reforms or faces ultimate collapse, the latter is not good.

moleyv

If they had another referendum with the result being 52% remain, I'm sure there would be another petition.

What are they supposed to do, best of three?

Cosmo Kramer

Nothing is ever certain in politics, least of all public opinion. Already a chunk of the pro-leave media appear to be rowing back on their previous positions, leave voters are showing regret as they realise finally that they were sold a lie, the opportunist politicians that sold it to them are suddenly realising that they have backed themselves into a corner and have nowhere to turn to, and with the conservative party stupidly pushing itself to the far right just as the current Labour shadow cabinet implodes, it looks like we are about to see the emergence of a new labour leadership that can retake the centre ground.

So, in short, this is far from over. My best guess this morning is that, second referendum or not, the UK will not be leaving the EU. If a second referendum is needed to determine that, then remain will win it in a landslide. And British politicians as well as its print media will have to find a new scapegoat as it becomes clear to even the most dimwitted of British society - working class Sun readers and little Englander Daily Mail readers - that the EU was never the problem.

RandomName2

J Mysterio wrote: »

It should, but it can't. They've made their bed.

It's a catastrophe. Biggest political shock in my lifetime I think.

A bit melodramatic, no?

I mean Greek debt was more of a catastrophe.

As for the OP question: it is fair enough for the stay side to advocate ignoring the referendum result. It goes with the general position of being anti-democratic among the most ardently pro-EU people (who think that the people are too stupid to make important decisions; hence the smear campaign now to say that none of the 17 million people who voted leave knew what they were doing)

moleyv wrote: »

If they had another referendum with the result being 52% remain, I'm sure there would be another petition.

What are they supposed to do, best of three?

One No campaigner joked about that after the second Lisbon referendum, but he wasn't serious. I was always curious if the government would have run a third Lisbon referendum had it been rejected a second time. THey said they wouldn't, but then again they said they wouldn't run a second one, either.

BoJack Horseman

J Mysterio wrote: »

Biggest political shock in my lifetime I think.

You must be very young!

And, no.... there should not be a do-over.....



.... However, there absolutely will be another vote, or the vote will be ignored.

micosoft

Looks like the Scottish Government are going to Veto Brexit... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244

This is turning into a massive constitutional crisis for the UK. The Queen must be rueing her alleged support of leave... it must be dawning on a lot of leave voters that it's not the EU in danger of collapsing, it's the UK.

micosoft

moleyv wrote: »

If they had another referendum with the result being 52% remain, I'm sure there would be another petition.

What are they supposed to do, best of three?

Well the fundamental question is whether the British electorate were lied to to such an extent that they voted based on falsehoods. The evidence over the past two days is that is the case - whether about immigration or the NHS the leave side are now admitting their case was entirely untrue.

However I would ask the opposite question. From the other EU members perspective do we really want to let them back in if it's half hearted? We cannot continue with this uncertainty. Why should the EU take back a country whose media has relentlessly told lies about the rest of the EU for decades. I would suggest that this type of referendum needs at least a 2/3's majority and a guarantee (as far as you can go) that the EU will not be held hostage by English Nationalists (or faction of the Tory party) for a number of Generations.

Call me Al

I foresee fall-out within the Labour party. And a possible new general election being canvassed by them as a return-to-Europe party..
All dependent on the removal of Corbyn of course.
And that will keep this referendum rerun chatter rumbling in.

LiamoSail

It's a question of should the UK Governemnt do what is economically and politically best for the UK and what is essential to prevent the break up of the Union, or should they do what the majority of England wants them to do.

Democracy dictates the latter, as poor and self detrimental a decision as that may be.

swampgas

micosoft wrote: »

Well the fundamental question is whether the British electorate were lied to to such an extent that they voted based on falsehoods. The evidence over the past two days is that is the case - whether about immigration or the NHS the leave side are now admitting their case was entirely untrue.

However I would ask the opposite question. From the other EU members perspective do we really want to let them back in if it's half hearted? We cannot continue with this uncertainty. Why should the EU take back a country whose media has relentlessly told lies about the rest of the EU for decades. I would suggest that this type of referendum needs at least a 2/3's majority and a guarantee (as far as you can go) that the EU will not be held hostage by English Nationalists (or faction of the Tory party) for a number of Generations.

It's quite amazing (if not all that surprising) just how little coverage the British media is giving to the way this is playing out in the EU. You could be forgiven for thinking that this was entirely an internal British affair.

The UK may be in for a rude surprise when they get their act together, and realise that while they've been in-fighting the EU has already resolved to ditch them.

micosoft

mistermouse wrote: »

Absolutely not. I don't see how the poll is in any way invalid and democracy should be seen to be carried out. Even if a petition reaches 17 million it is not the same as a valid democratic referendum vote.

The EU itself should not be seen to go along with any sweeping under the carpet of a democratic vote.

However I do believe the EU should negotiate a special treaty with the UK and take into consideration our border with Northern Ireland.

To punish or put in overly punitative terms on the UK with be nothing short of bullying and its obvious that the UK do want to work with the EU, just not fully take part. There are many who already view the EU in a bad light in its treatment of members during the financial crisis and also Germany's mess of the refugee situation. The EU would need to get back to its basic principles rather than how it has been for the past few years

Nobody is arguing that a democratic vote took place. However there is an increasingly strong view by those that voted out that they were misled. One of the principles of democracy is that voters get to change their mind later.

So basically the UK get's it's cake and gets to eat it? Free trade but no freedom of movement? Access to all markets but no transfer of structural funds to poorer parts of the EU (the kind that build the Irish economy). I think most EU citizens would say no to that. The other EU countries and their citizens have a right to an opinion too.

The only reason people view the EU in a bad light is because of repeated tropes that don't stand up to any scrutiny...
- How did Germany mess up the refugee situation? Arguably one created by the US and it's ally the UK. Throw people back into the sea? Merkel and Germanys response to the very difficult Refugee was the most decent and humane response out there. It's a really dumb comment to think that anyone could magic up a wonderful solution to the refugee crisis.
- What treatment? Are we still on about how the criminal Greek electorate expected everybody (included poorer EU states) to subsidise their tax free lifestyles in the med? Massive sums of other EU members citizens money went to bailing out the feckless Irish and Greek people who created their own mess. This is one lie that has to stop being repeated.
- What are these basic principles you talk about? How are the EU not doing them?
TBH the same nonsense spread by the UK press. None of it stands up to scrutiny

Balmed Out

I personally think there should be a do over. This isn't like a typical referendum where the choice can be reversed at some stage theres a finality to it and if one is to believe media reports much of the no vote seems to have been as much a protest against government or done with a belief it wouldn't be carried.

micosoft

swampgas wrote: »

It's quite amazing (if not all that surprising) just how little coverage the British media is giving to the way this is playing out in the EU. You could be forgiven for thinking that this was entirely an internal British affair.

The UK may be in for a rude surprise when they get their act together, and realise that while they've been in-fighting the EU has already resolved to ditch them.

Well the issue is that people keep referring to "The EU" as if it is some monolithic entity making these decisions. And of course it's the British people vs "The EU". The EU is it's members and they have strong opinions as well. Everything from the Poles who want freedom of movement (As their citizens have benefited from (as have the host countries) to the Spanish who want Gibraltar back to the French who want protection for their key industries to the Irish who want base their peace process on the edifice of the EU. Everyone else has a complex agenda - that's why the EU is such an extraordinary achievement based on the compromise of all these viewpoints. The problem with critics is that they think their viewpoint should be the one forced on everyone...

I think the other EU members are absolutely seething now that infighting in the Tory party and Boris Johnsons ambition have created such chaos. Like a drunken party guess who has accidentally trashed the house, not matter how much remorse we just want them gone. And if they want back in it will be next week when they are sober and we can trust them never to do this again...
The English have always laughed and looked down on the funny continentals democracies but the chaos of the last few days make Italy look positively stable!

GekkePrutser

I wish the EU itself would learn from this and go back to the drawing board. They've gone too far too fast. It was not ready for the Euro, rushed it through anyway and the current crisis is a direct result. Unfortunately it's too costly to turn that back now. But what we need is chosen European Commissioners, it's frankly ridiculous that the most powerful faction is not directly chosen by the people.

And it needs to reduce its mandate. Regulating trade stuff and free movement fine. Telling us what hoovers and lightbulbs to use NO. And they have to stop the industry lobbyists in Brussels. Europe belongs to the people not business. And lastly stop kowtowing to the French, this monthly move to Strasbourg really needs to go.

If that would happen then the UK would have a good reason for a new vote. And it would be a better and fairer EU for all of us.

Unfortunately this will never happen. They'll just harden their stance as they always have and continue on the path of even more Brussels rule.

Harry Palmr

Agree about that - freedom to move people, money and goods with some "global" issues like environment should be what the EU is about. Not the angle of bananas

CMOTDibbler

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Agree about that - freedom to move people, money and goods with some "global" issues like environment should be what the EU is about. Not the angle of bananas

The bananas angle is always used as an exmple of 'Brussels bureaucracy' gone mad. A bit like the Yes Minister sausages sketch that made Jim Hacker Prime Minister.

But if we agree that the EU should set standards for the produce that is imported into the EU, like no foot and mouth beef from Argentina or poisonous toys from China then we can't really circumscribe the extent to which that happens.

Finnbar01

Cosmo Kramer wrote: »

Nothing is ever certain in politics, least of all public opinion. Already a chunk of the pro-leave media appear to be rowing back on their previous positions, leave voters are showing regret as they realise finally that they were sold a lie, the opportunist politicians that sold it to them are suddenly realising that they have backed themselves into a corner and have nowhere to turn to, and with the conservative party stupidly pushing itself to the far right just as the current Labour shadow cabinet implodes, it looks like we are about to see the emergence of a new labour leadership that can retake the centre ground.

So, in short, this is far from over. My best guess this morning is that, second referendum or not, the UK will not be leaving the EU. If a second referendum is needed to determine that, then remain will win it in a landslide. And British politicians as well as its print media will have to find a new scapegoat as it becomes clear to even the most dimwitted of British society - working class Sun readers and little Englander Daily Mail readers - that the EU was never the problem.

Well done there in shown us your own form of bigotry.

micosoft

micosoft wrote: »

Looks like the Scottish Government are going to Veto Brexit... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244

This is turning into a massive constitutional crisis for the UK. The Queen must be rueing her alleged support of leave... it must be dawning on a lot of leave voters that it's not the EU in danger of collapsing, it's the UK.

They both are. Big time.

This result has absolutely poisoned the water in both camps.

ancapailldorcha

What do people think about the idea that there should be a referendum on a post Brexit-EU trade deal? It's likely to be the EEA option with free movement, access to the single market and contributing to the EU budget.

Lt Dan

GekkePrutser wrote: »

I wish the EU itself would learn from this and go back to the drawing board. They've gone too far too fast. It was not ready for the Euro, rushed it through anyway and the current crisis is a direct result. Unfortunately it's too costly to turn that back now. But what we need is chosen European Commissioners, it's frankly ridiculous that the most powerful faction is not directly chosen by the people.

And it needs to reduce its mandate. Regulating trade stuff and free movement fine. Telling us what hoovers and lightbulbs to use NO. And they have to stop the industry lobbyists in Brussels. Europe belongs to the people not business. And lastly stop kowtowing to the French, this monthly move to Strasbourg really needs to go.

If that would happen then the UK would have a good reason for a new vote. And it would be a better and fairer EU for all of us.

Unfortunately this will never happen. They'll just harden their stance as they always have and continue on the path of even more Brussels rule.

Most people, all over Europe, except maybe, people of Belgium and Luxembourg would agree with that .

But , as you noted yourself,

The the EU have no intention of reforming. To return to a smaller scale Union would be conceding defeat. In fact, they are now looking for closer connections and pulling together of the other Member States. This will, soon mean bullying Ireland over it's corporation tax rate.

If the people of Europe Voted for Commissioners then that legitimatizes a Federal Europe. It is the hallmarks of Federalism when you consider, unlike the Parliament which was originally just a powerless talking shop to give the impression of democracy, the Commission is the Guardians of the EU. Not really sure how electing our own Commissioner really helps though. The Commissioner must be above ALL the "parish pump" politics of their own country and may have to take their own country before the European Courts for breaches of EU law. Their interests are in the EU. It is not like a Commissioner Candidate can promise a single thing when they go before their people bar vague stuff like giving a energetic voice to the College of Commissions and to do his best.

Lt Dan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What do people think about the idea that there should be a referendum on a post Brexit-EU trade deal? It's likely to be the EEA option with free movement, access to the single market and contributing to the EU budget.

For Ireland's sake that would seriously ease our worries. Ireland would hardly oppose it. Would be surprise that Germany and even France would oppose it. The hard nose newbies might have a problem with it. At the same time, granting the UK such access would certainly not hurt them. Far from it. It would probably end Scottish quest for Independence. It could be a success for them. Since Britain are now competitors with the EU for International Trade, and bearing in mind Britain made enemies over the 40 or so years, I would not be surprised that EU Member States, in spite of themselves would seek to punish Britain

Ironic For Brexiters, however, with access to the common market , must come with ALL of the 4 Principal Freedoms. Freedom of movement, goods & services, Capital and Right of Establishment. Ergo, Britain would still be bound by much of the Immigration rules of the EU.

Akrasia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What do people think about the idea that there should be a referendum on a post Brexit-EU trade deal? It's likely to be the EEA option with free movement, access to the single market and contributing to the EU budget.

I don't think there would be a referendum on this in the U.K. because the consequences of the anti immigration side winning would be total economic collapse.

If such a deal is on the table, it will be accepted by Parliament without putting it to the people in a referendum

No good could come from such a referendum. Only a tiny fringe would be against the free trade aspect, it would hinge entirely on the immigration element, and it could totally divide the population

jem

There is a huge opportunity for the British labour party.
Firstly they need to ditch cobourn asap.
They need to put in someone like Benn- ( i know he said he wouldn't stand but..)
with his father having been Tony Benn and he being a moderate I think he could unite the two factions of the labour party.
Immediately enter into discussions about a new treaty with the EU for it to in effect go back to being the EEC- having none of the dictating to countries about water charges, financial services tax etc etc which no-one wants the EU to decide on.
Fight the next election on the promise of having a referendum on a new treaty with the EU( not a rerun).
This will rob the SNP of its major advantage in looking for a new independence referendum and thereby gaining votes and seats in Scotland( they cant go into government without a load of seats in Scotland.

micosoft

Lt Dan wrote: »

Most people, all over Europe, except maybe, people of Belgium and Luxembourg would agree with that .

But , as you noted yourself,

The the EU have no intention of reforming. To return to a smaller scale Union would be conceding defeat. In fact, they are now looking for closer connections and pulling together of the other Member States. This will, soon mean bullying Ireland over it's corporation tax rate.

If the people of Europe Voted for Commissioners then that legitimatizes a Federal Europe. It is the hallmarks of Federalism when you consider, unlike the Parliament which was originally just a powerless talking shop to give the impression of democracy, the Commission is the Guardians of the EU. Not really sure how electing our own Commissioner really helps though. The Commissioner must be above ALL the "parish pump" politics of their own country and may have to take their own country before the European Courts for breaches of EU law. Their interests are in the EU. It is not like a Commissioner Candidate can promise a single thing when they go before their people bar vague stuff like giving a energetic voice to the College of Commissions and to do his best.

Have a look at this picture.



It's the US cabinet. Note that not one of them was voted in by election. They are all appointed by the US president and expected to be above partisan politics. As commissioners are. Even Obama and Biden were elected by a College of Electors.

The constant spouting of "because democracy" with relation to the EU shows that people have a very crude understanding of representative democracy that exists in every modern democracy. Voting for commissioners doesn't legitimise any Federal system. It just creates a dumb corrupt system as you manage to point out yourself.

fly_agaric

micosoft wrote: »

Why should the EU take back a country whose media has relentlessly told lies about the rest of the EU for decades.

Yes, and why should rest of EU be left to twist on a hook for god knows how long waiting for the UK (or maybe the English?) to make up their mind about what they want or to divine from the entrails what the voters really meant or decide if the winning margin is big enough etc? The question was pretty plain after all.

Whatever the ancilliary reasons for this exit vote/e.g. factors of public anger with politicians and too much immigration over past 15-20 years etc, large parts of the "elite"/politicians+media have also been very doubtful of and half hearted about the whole idea of the EC and EU and the UKs place in it.

It's good that there is a sort of closure now after this referendum; they should acknowledge the decision is made for good and for ill and get on with setting up their new relationships with the rest of the EU.

Akrasia

fly_agaric wrote: »

Yes, and why should rest of EU be left to twist on a hook for god knows how long waiting for the UK (or maybe the English?) to make up their mind about what they want or to divine from the entrails what the voters really meant or decide if the winning margin is big enough etc? The question was pretty plain after all.

Whatever the ancilliary reasons for this exit vote/e.g. factors of public anger with politicians and too much immigration over past 15-20 years etc, large parts of the "elite"/politicians+media have also been very doubtful of and half hearted about the whole idea of the EC and EU and the UKs place in it.

It's good that there is a sort of closure now after this referendum; they should acknowledge the decision is made for good and for ill and get on with setting up their new relationships with the rest of the EU.

Yeah. The Turkeys voted for christmas, now there's no point trying to get an extension until Easter.

They're trying to play hard ball with the EU before negotiations have even started. This is one way to severely irritate the small nations of Europe (like Ireland) who are going to be more badly affected by the uncertainty and instability caused by an extended and drawn out process.

The same people who wanted the UK to leave, think that they can outsmart the EU and somehow negotiate a deal that is better than the one they had as part of the Union. Not a hope will they get unanimous agreement from every EU member for them to have their cake and also eat it.

Lt Dan

micosoft wrote: »

Have a look at this picture.



It's the US cabinet. Note that not one of them was voted in by election. They are all appointed by the US president and expected to be above partisan politics. As commissioners are. Even Obama and Biden were elected by a College of Electors.

The constant spouting of "because democracy" with relation to the EU shows that people have a very crude understanding of representative democracy that exists in every modern democracy. Voting for commissioners doesn't legitimise any Federal system. It just creates a dumb corrupt system as you manage to point out yourself.

First off, USA! USA! USA! USA!


Secondly, just to clarify, I have no issue with the Commission not being directly elected by the people. Besides, we struggle to get decent turn out for the MEP elections and SFA people are that bothered about EU matters despite dominating domestic laws. Also, Commissioners are nominated by their countries Prime Minister /Parliament and then approved as a College by the European Parliament, so it is still democratic, in a way.

When I was referring to "Federalism" I wasn't suggesting Federalism in the same light as the US , even though that is exactly what EU would become.

You saw the anger of the people during previous Treaty Referendums on the name of the title of a proposed individual President of the EU (yes each country get to be President in turns) and EU Foreign Minister, even if that was just a honorary role it was irrelevant. Some of those titles along with the symbols referred to in the proposed Constitution of the EU were scrapped because of concerns about the EU.

Your comparison to the US is fair. My reference to people actually voting for their countries Commissioner, the Guardian of the EU, is that it would give Brussels more encouragement that Federalism would be accepted. At least the moaney anti EU people can still stay behind the fence and complain about lack of accountability and democracy, as you noted is a flawed argument. But it works for them