Brexit discussion thread II

The EU are responding to the exit of one of the biggest counter balances to the integration policies which they have maintained since day one.

Were the UK members, their veto could have been exercised to prevent the integration that Juncker has proposed (though of course, he has proposed very little new, other than moves to assist those already in the queue to move closer to accession).

This pretence that the EU is a simple trading bloc, and so the additional rules, structures and legislation that it owns are in any way comparable to an actual trading bloc needs to end. It is intellectualy dishonest to say the least.

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not sure how anyone can with any degree certainty suggest there was 'clarity' regarding the single market.

Surely, surely, the counter factual - that there are countries within the single market but not within the EU - means that it was at the very least ambiguous.

Oh, and of course there were also plenty of useful quotes from the Leave side for remaining within the single market.

http://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

The ahistoricism is not on the part of those that suggest the referendum-determined exit route is unknown I don't think.

Good morning!

Does Norway have control over it's borders or does it have to accept free movement? (the Leave side argued for border controls. Most leave voters agree with this from polling data. Even a lot of remainers do).

Does Norway pay contributions to the EU? (The Leave campaign argued for taking control of money)

Is Norway subject to the rulings of the ECJ (Yes, it is albeit through the EFTA court. The Leave campaign argued for taking control of law)

Norway is only slightly better than present because it is outside of the customs union and able to arrange trade deals.

The Leave campaign and what it was won on wasn't a Norwegian model.

Edit: your last post makes good progress. The reason the UK is leaving is because the EU isn't a trading bloc. It's a political union with harmful aspirations to become a superstate.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again if Boris Johnson was arguing that the UK could have access to the single market after Brexit, this isn't the same as arguing for single market membership.

Nor is it the same as arguing for leaving the single market.

solodeogloria wrote: »

On the remain side they clearly argued that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market.

Some people on the "leave" side did. Others did not. Neither the government nor the governing party - you know, the people who would actually implement Brexit if the people voted for it - ever said, either way.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Taking back control was the overriding message of the leave side of the campaign.

"Taking back control" is a slogan, solo, not a policy. A country with control of its destiny could exercise that control by choosing to participate in the single market, or by choosing not to participate in the single market (and there are actual real-world examples of both choices being made). So a vote for "taking back control" is neither a vote to participate in the single market nor a vote to leave it. Will you please stop trying to rewrite history on this question?

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

The leave side were right about this. I thought a vote to stay in the EU was a vote for the status quo. It isn't.

Wrong, and I would suggest that you look up the particulars of the deal negotiated by Cameron in February 2016, which would have achieved exactly that at the next TEU/TFEU revision.

You might have missed them, within the mass of misrepresentative reporting about it by the Brexit-stoking press, which was very busy ramping up the anti EU immigration rethoric at the time.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are looking for more power after Brexit than before.

Wrong again. The EU is not looking for anything, beyond progressing according to its decades-old mission statement. The EU Member States are looking to cooperate still more closely: they are the union. Not Brussels, or Juncker.

That's because of (really, thanks to-) Brexit, not 'notwithstanding' Brexit.

You should see a message in that common political momentum, about the prospects of Davis in his negotiations with Barnier.

solodeogloria wrote: »

After the State of the Union address and seeing how little Juncker has actually learned.

What you really mean is, Juncker's words don't resonate with the UK position/your bias and at all, so he's wrong/"has not learned"/is a dictator/<insert further usual Leaver tripe trope here>.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Taking back control" is a slogan, solo, not a policy. A country with control of its destiny could exercise that control by choosing to participate in the single market, or by choosing not to participate in the single market (and there are actual real-world examples of both choices being made). So a vote for "taking back control" is neither a vote to participate in the single market nor a vote to leave it. Will you please stop trying to rewrite history on this question?

Good morning!

The only one who is trying to rewrite history is you.

The leave campaign were crystal clear about taking back control in a number of specific areas. You don't get to claim that it was just a slogan when they were very clear about which areas they wanted control over.

I was in the UK in 2016. I was living in a pro-Remain borough but nonetheless met a lot of Vote Leave campaigners on the street. They were very clear that the UK would campaign for access to the single market without being a member.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them free movement from the EU would end.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that contributions to the EU would end.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that free trade deals would be possible with other countries (this requires leaving the customs union).

To claim otherwise is rewriting history.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Both sides were clear that leaving the EU means leaving the single market.

Not only did the Leave side say the UK could leave and stay in the Single Market, they said it was a total lie by Project Fear that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single market.

The Toygraph came out and said openly that the Leave campaign should promise a Norwegian model to take the wind out of Project Fears campaign.

Farage is on video on many occasions praisng the Swiss and Norwegian models.

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not sure how anyone can with any degree certainty suggest there was 'clarity' regarding the single market.

Surely, surely, the counter factual - that there are countries within the single market but not within the EU - means that it was at the very least ambiguous.

Oh, and of course there were also plenty of useful quotes from the Leave side for remaining within the single market.

http://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

The ahistoricism is not on the part of those that suggest the referendum-determined exit route is unknown I don't think.

Good morning!

Does Norway have control over it's borders or does it have to accept free movement? (the Leave side argued for border controls. Most leave voters agree with this from polling data. Even a lot of remainers do).

Does Norway pay contributions to the EU? (The Leave campaign argued for taking control of money)

Is Norway subject to the rulings of the ECJ (Yes, it is albeit through the EFTA court. The Leave campaign argued for taking control of law)

Norway is only slightly better than present because it is outside of the customs union and able to arrange trade deals.

The Leave campaign and what it was won on wasn't a Norwegian model.

Edit: your last post makes good progress. The reason the UK is leaving is because the EU isn't a trading bloc. It's a political union with harmful aspirations to become a superstate.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Article 112 of EEA agreement

Taking control trope

The leave campaigns were (important from a legal and spending perspective!) not a single campaign, nor a single vision, nor a single manifesto, nor can be viewed as a mandate for any of these even if it were!

They were also mutually exclusive upon many issues.

People need to go to great lenghts to find any certainty in all of that.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

The last post for today I think! (it really is very very tempting to post)

ambro25 wrote: »

Wrong again. The EU is not looking for anything, beyond progressing according to its decades-old mission statement. The EU Member States are looking to cooperate still more closely: they are the union. Not Brussels, or Juncker.

"Cooperating more closely" is key word for handing more control to European institutions.

It's language that veils what's actually happening. It's like that term "pooling sovereignty". No that's just a key word for handing over control.

The mission statement is dangerous vague nonsense. "Ever closer union" doesn't define the end state. This is why at some point something like Brexit was inevitable. If you don't articulate the end goal then you will reach a point where integration becomes too much.

They should have learned the dangers of too much integration from the Euro crisis. But the response of the EU to everything is to ask member states to hand over even more control.

ambro25 wrote: »

That's because of (really, thanks to-) Brexit, not 'notwithstanding' Brexit.
What you really mean is, Juncker's words don't resonate with the UK position/your bias and at all, so he's wrong/"has not learned"/is a dictator/<insert further usual Leaver tripe trope here>.

What I mean is that Juncker is clearly arguing for a United States of Europe.

If it reaches that point I would be arguing that Ireland should leave too. The impact of corporate tax changes on Ireland in particular would be far worse than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

"Cooperating more closely" is key word for handing more control to European institutions.

It's language that veils what's actually happening. It's like that term "pooling sovereignty". No that's just a key word for handing over control.

The mission statement is dangerous vague nonsense. "Ever closer union" doesn't define the end state. This is why at some point something like Brexit was inevitable. If you don't articulate the end goal then you will reach a point where integration becomes too much.

Did you ignore, or accidentally miss, the first part of my post #2955 then? Is that why you didn't include it in your quote?

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the relevant aspect of the deal agreed between the the EU and Cameron in February 2016, which formally exempted the UK from the aspiration to “ever closer union”, that was to be confirmed by treaty change:

“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I mean is that Juncker is clearly arguing for a United States of Europe.

So did Leavers' favourite Churchill: "We must build a kind of United States of Europe" (Zurich University, 19 September 1946).

Have a nice day, and I look forward to your eventual reply later on.

Enzokk

Rjd2 wrote: »

Spot on. The vast majority of the elderly vote which ensured leave won was to take back control mantra. I don't agree with that viewpoint but its lazy to say it was just immigration and it gives to much credit to a guy like Farage who was kept away from the main campaign due to how toxic he was viewed.

A lot of other factors at play, people wanting to stick it to the likes of Cameron and the government and a strong anti EU POV which was not entirely exclusive to the right.

Dennis Skinner one of the most left wing MPS was a vocal leave supporter, heck Corbyn took a holiday in the run up to the vote and has shown little interest in challenging or over turning Brexit.

Without going to each and every leave voter and getting a truthful answer from them, which may be difficult as well if their reasons for voting leave will be seen as idiotic, we have to guess at the main reasons why people voted leave.

I would guess there are three main argument why people wanted to leave the EU. These may or may not be connected to the EU, but the different factions that supported to leave the EU exploited this as each one argued for a specific point but not the other.

The main argument would be immigration. You heard it from people's mouths in interviews and Nigel had his poster as well. It was to keep the Romanians and Bulgarians, and whoever else, out of the UK as they are taking our jobs.

The second argument that was used is to take back control. The fact that the UK parliament had control all along and the UK could have controlled EU migration more is neither here nor there now. People wanted control back of the borders and their fishing waters and they wanted to negotiate their own trade deals. This argument is a hard brexit argument, but can anyone say for certainty this is what all leave voters wanted?

The third argument is that they wanted to protect the NHS and there was that bus as well. They preyed on peoples fear for the NHS for their own selfish reasons. This is a real low for me. Now if only 3% of leave voters confirm they believed the bus and will vote differently had they known the truth about it the result is different.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nor is it the same as arguing for leaving the single market.


Some people on the "leave" side did. Others did not. Neither the government nor the governing party - you know, the people who would actually implement Brexit if the people voted for it - ever said, either way.


"Taking back control" is a slogan, solo, not a policy. A country with control of its destiny could exercise that control by choosing to participate in the single market, or by choosing not to participate in the single market (and there are actual real-world examples of both choices being made). So a vote for "taking back control" is neither a vote to participate in the single market nor a vote to leave it. Will you please stop trying to rewrite history on this question?

It was a attack on the EU from different sides where each side just attacked what they wanted to, even if it actually meant they are against other the other Leave campaigns. Take the official vote Leave with their bus, they still said you can have EU benefits and not be in the EU. That was against Nigel Farage who wants to close the borders. But they didn't attack Nigel and his point of view, even if it directly contradicts their own. You didn't see Daniel Hannan attacking those that wanted to leave the single market, he only reaffirmed that the UK would not be leaving the single market. Owen Patterson said only a madman would leave the single market, yet this is exactly what is happening now.

But apparently you have to respect the wishes of the electorate. I do wonder if a country voted to bring back slavery and persecution of minorities if the message would be, well they voted for it so we have to respect it? We know there would be condemnation from almost all nations and pressure on the ruler to reverse such a terrible decision, why this is now being portrayed as such a terrible evil I don't know.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

You didn't see Daniel Hannan attacking those that wanted to leave the single market, he only reaffirmed that the UK would not be leaving the single market. Owen Patterson said only a madman would leave the single market, yet this is exactly what is happening now.

Even Farage is on record many times praising the Norwegian and Swiss models.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

. . . But apparently you have to respect the wishes of the electorate.

I think you do have to respect the wishes of the electorate. But, if you take that principle seriously, you have to find out what the wishes of the electorate are. The only thing the electorate were asked is whether they wanted the UK to leave the EU. They were not asked about the single market, the customs union, immigration, the jurisdiction of the ECJ or a host of other issues. Perhaps they ought to have been asked, and they almost certainly would have been asked if the referendum had been conducted in a country with a basic clue about how to conduct referenda, but we can't rewrite history at this point. The people were asked what they were asked. And you rightly point to the confused and unsatisfactory nature of the campaign to underline why we can't interpret their answer as meaning anything more than what it says.

Those who claim a mandate for their own particular preferences, and who try to bridge the yawning chasm between what the people voted for and what they themselves now want done by pointing to three-word campaign slogans, do their cause no favours. The argument they advance is patent nonsense, and the fact that they choose to advance patent nonsense suggests that they have no stronger arguments to advance.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

What I mean is that Juncker is clearly arguing for a United States of Europe.

If it reaches that point I would be arguing that Ireland should leave too. The impact of corporate tax changes on Ireland in particular would be far worse than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Tbqh solo if you have thrown in your hat with Brexit Britain, I would take the view that you have no right to be campaigning from outside the EU to get Ireland to leave too.

You have already abdicated your care for Ireland in discussions on the Irish border and in arguing for Brexit which is deeply damaging to a) the border area and b) food producers in Ireland as a whole. You have not demonstrated interest in the well being of Ireland at all in arguing for Brexit despite claiming to have voted in favour of remain.

Brexit is damaging to Ireland. Leaving the EU would also be damaging for Ireland which punches far above its weight diplomatically and economically as witnessed by being able to making the border a redline issue in the Brexit negotiations.

Supporting Brexit and arguing that you would campaign for Ireland to leave too is...well it definitely is not in Irish interests. You live in the U.K. You are even privileged enough to have a vote there which most EU citizens do not. You have bolted your interests to the UK. You won't be living in the EU and you will have no right to be telling people in the EU - i.e. Ireland - what policies they should be following particularly as they have the right to self determination, you know, like you keep shouting about Britain's democratic vote.

It seems to me lots of British based and British Brexit supporters, even the ones who voted remain, like you, do not understand that leaving the EU means leaving the EU and losing the right to influence what happens in the EU. It ceases to be your business. You voted to leave. This does not give you the right to interfere.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you do have to respect the wishes of the electorate. But, if you take that principle seriously, you have to find out what the wishes of the electorate are. The only thing the electorate were asked is whether they wanted the UK to leave the EU. They were not asked about the single market, the customs union, immigration, the jurisdiction of the ECJ or a host of other issues. Perhaps they ought to have been asked, and they almost certainly would have been asked if the referendum had been conducted in a country with a basic clue about how to conduct referenda, but we can't rewrite history at this point. The people were asked what they were asked. And you rightly point to the confused and unsatisfactory nature of the campaign to underline why we can't interpret their answer as meaning anything more than what it says.

Those who claim a mandate for their own particular preferences, and who try to bridge the yawning chasm between what the people voted for and what they themselves now want done by pointing to three-word campaign slogans, do their cause no favours. The argument they advance is patent nonsense, and the fact that they choose to advance patent nonsense suggests that they have no stronger arguments to advance.

This^

ambro25

Calina wrote: »

<...>

It seems to me lots of British based and British Brexit supporters, even the ones who voted remain, like you, do not understand that leaving the EU means leaving the EU and losing the right to influence what happens in the EU. It ceases to be your business. You voted to leave. This does not give you the right to interfere.

Implementing the leave vote effectively strips the UK of their TEU-given right to interfere in anything EU and SM.

As you correctly noted, too few Leavers understand that nuance. Still fewer understood it before the vote. They'd have to have an understanding of international (and communal) relationships bereft of any nativist bias to do so.

I seem to recall you're based in LU? By the sounds still coming from my flavour-of-the-month headhunter, I might be joining you before long

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

.....If it reaches that point I would be arguing that Ireland should leave too. The impact of corporate tax changes on Ireland in particular would be far worse than Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First of all if there is a Brexit with no deal or no transition the above statement will prove to be nonsense even before Brexit. There would need to be a massive border infrastructure in place to handle just the tariffs never mind the non trade barriers arising from no agreement with the EU (us). Delays importing and exporting from the UK will cripple our economy.

At some stage we will most likely have to align our tax regime. The key is a smooth transition to this situation while building on the other facets that make Ireland attractive and while diversifying our economy. KInd of like what should be happening next door.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you do have to respect the wishes of the electorate.

Good post but don't agree with this ^^ . There was a high court case and a supreme court case won by Gina Miller which stated that the wishes of the UK parliament must be respected not the executive (obviously not the results of the advisory referendum).
If the UK parliament decides to Brexit, then those wishes should be respected, if they decide not to, the same. It is an MP's job to represent his constituents. That means acting in their best interests. If she/he feels that leaving the EU is decidely not in their best interest taking into account advice from referendum result (52/48), then she/he must reject Brexit.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!


On the remain side they clearly argued that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Morning!

So your logic is that the leave side won but they were planning to take on the recommendations of the remain side?

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The only one who is trying to rewrite history is you.

No, it's you. Why? Read on ...

The leave campaign were crystal clear about taking back control in a number of specific areas. You don't get to claim that it was just a slogan when they were very clear about which areas they wanted control over.

• Which leave campaign? There were two.
• Which specific areas were "they" (see above) clear about? I saw none of that on the ballot paper on which I was asked to answer a question of childlike simplicity.

I was in the UK in 2016. I was living in a pro-Remain borough but nonetheless met a lot of Vote Leave campaigners on the street. They were very clear that the UK would campaign for access to the single market without being a member.

You were in the UK in 2016? OOOOOOoo Congratulations to you sir! Whoppty do. Would you like a medal for that accolade? Guess what?!!!!!1111111 I was in the UK in 2016 too! And for several years before that for good measure. Can I have a medal too?

On a less caustic note; so a load of random campaigners told you what the leave campaign (which campaign?) policies were. I suppose you remember the names and positions of said campaigners as to the authority on which they spoke to you?

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them free movement from the EU would end.

Some people. But that's not what we were asked to vote on.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that contributions to the EU would end.

Some people. But that's not what we were asked to vote on.

People voted leave on the basis of a campaign that told them that free trade deals would be possible with other countries (this requires leaving the customs union).

Some people. But that's not what we were asked to vote on.

To claim otherwise is rewriting history.

Says the man (?) trying to rewrite history.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

Good post but don't agree with this ^^ . There was a high court case and a supreme court case won by Gina Miller which stated that the wishes of the UK parliament must be respected not the executive (obviously not the results of the advisory referendum).
If the UK parliament decides to Brexit, then those wishes should be respected, if they decide not to, the same. It is an MP's job to represent his constituents. That means acting in their best interests. If she/he feels that leaving the EU is decidely not in their best interest taking into account advice from referendum result (52/48), then she/he must reject Brexit.

that's an interesting issue. Do they represent their constituents, or do they do what they think best?

This is an interview with Harriet Harman where she explains why Labour chose to support the referendum in the first place.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32863749

if you choose to take the unusual step of consulting the general population by way of a referendum, surely you are then pretty much obligated to act on the result of that referendum, regardless of whether or not you think it is a wise decision?

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if you choose to take the unusual step of consulting the general population by way of a referendum, surely you are then pretty much obligated to act on the result of that referendum, regardless of whether or not you think it is a wise decision?

An advisory referendum is a very expensive opinion poll by the government.

A binding referendum is a legally enforceable mandate.

The problem with the #Wrexsh1t vote Fred, is that the advisory nature of the vote was not made clear to the population at large. Thus making a rod for politicians backs.

Nate--IRL--

Really? The Binding / non-binding discussion AGAIN?

Nate

demfad

This piece from author of Article 50 Lord Kerr well worth a read particularly the bolded section.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-09-12/debates/71AF5C51-1AE5-4421-BA27-1F3ADFABDF3F/UKAndEURelations#contribution-F54CDC22-C54F-4B92-BE3A-1FD6C03C42A7

My Lords, I want to make three points. First, there was a document on citizens’ rights that we put forward in the negotiations in June. That was a genuine negotiating document. None of the documents since is a negotiating document. None of the documents we are talking about today gives the negotiators anything to get their teeth into. They are lists, options, essays—some are rather interesting little essays—but clearly they are aimed mainly at a domestic audience and the aim is to avoid any new outburst of disagreement in the party. So they do not say anything.

My second point is that this is counterproductive. The papers have gone down rather badly in Brussels. On 31 August, Mr Barnier said:

“The UK wants to take back control, it wants to adopt its own standards and regulations. But it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. That is what UK papers ask for. This is simply impossible”.

A further cause of doubt in Brussels is the confusion between what we say and what we do. If it is the case that, as the CBI and the TUC want, the Government now think that the right course—at least for an interim period—is to stay inside the single market and possibly the customs union, there is a real negotiation to be had. Why do the Government publish a withdrawal Bill that eliminates completely the umpire of the single market—the European Court of Justice—on Brexit day? You cannot say, “I want to play in your game, but I don’t respect the umpire”. If we want to stay in the customs unions, why does somebody not switch off Dr Fox? There is an inconsistency inside the Government. We need them to come forward with a clear, achievable objective and then with precise negotiating proposals which would get us towards that objective. They need to avoid actions and speeches that are inconsistent with it.

Thirdly, the worst feature of the papers we are talking about is that there is not one on money. I agree that the bill that the European Union—the 27—has presented is grossly inflated. Of course it is. It is far higher than the first draft which Mr Barnier produced. Do not attack Mr Barnier: it is the member states that inflated the bill. I agree that the decision on sequencing that the European Council took was the wrong one. It is a pity that their position is, “Agree on the money before we talk about anything else”. I understand why they reached that decision. It is because they had heard too many people in this country saying that we were just going to do a runner and they could whistle for the money. That is why they said, “You’ve got to show us sufficient progress on money before we move on”. That was a mistake, but we are where we are. Unless we have put forward counterproposals on money and a real negotiation has started, it is not conceivable that next month’s European Council could conclude that sufficient progress has been made.

I have one final point to add. All these papers describe—in rather optimistic, aspirational terms—a special relationship or special partnership with the European Union, which we will have left. The European Union runs on law. If there is no agreement on money—if we go to a court of arbitration to settle a dispute over real or alleged legal commitments—there will be no ​agreements on anything. The European Union will be unable to conclude agreements on anything. The special partnership will not exist and all these little papers will be so much waste paper. We need to put some money on the table and start a real negotiation. If we do not, we are risking the cliff edge—no relationship at all—and that would be very bad indeed.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's an interesting issue. Do they represent their constituents, or do they do what they think best?

It has long been known that the British public would vote to bring back hanging if they were allowed.

So nobody ever asks them to vote on that question.

steddyeddy

An interesting article from the Washington Post. Basically telling the leave voters what we already know. They were lied to and all of their lies will be exposed as Brexit unfolds. I think the real crime is the people who campaigned for Brexit (Boris) knowing the leave campaign was all a lie.

LONDON

It is a rare opportunity. Seldom does the voting public have the chance to watch their elected politicians confront very specific false promises in real time. Usually campaign promises are either too vague to be contrasted with reality (“Make America Great Again”) or too long term. By the time that “guaranteed growth” either arrives or doesn’t, the person who said it would happen is long out of office.

But in Britain right now, something different is unfolding. During the referendum last year, politicians advocating their country’s departure from the European Union gave some specific assurances. Some derived from ignorance; as it turned out, few of them really understood how the E.U. works. Others were lies, which they knew to be lies at the time.

Because they didn’t expect to win that campaign, they didn’t expect either their ignorance or their dishonesty to be revealed. But then they won — and now it’s happening.

The most egregious lie was about money. During the campaign, leading Brexiteers drove around the country in large red buses, emblazoned with a slogan: “We send the EU 350 million pounds a week, let’s fund our NHS [National Health Service] instead.” This was a very influential argument, as the Brexit campaign managers have admitted. It was also an invented number — Britain does not send the E.U. 350 million pounds a week, as fact-checkers showed over and over. Some of those on the winning side admitted as much after the campaign.

ut now, instead of receiving “350 million pounds a week,” negotiators are trapped in an argument about how much money Britain owes Europe — for budgetary promises not kept, for agreements signed and not honored. More ominously, the British government is just now realizing that leaving the European single market, which is far more than an ordinary free-trade zone, will cost it in other ways, too. Jointly designed European agencies and arrangements may now have to be re-created, at vast expense, from scratch: pharmaceutical and nuclear regulators, for example. It is possible that a vast new customs service, complete with parking lots at the border, computer systems and customs agents, will be needed to cope with new tariff regimes once Britain is outside the European customs union. In the long term, Britain will have more bureaucracy, and less money to spend on the NHS.

The second falsehood, frequently repeated during the campaign, was that leaving the single market would be fast, simple and easy. Liam Fox, now Britain’s top trade negotiator, said a new trade deal with Europe would be “the easiest in human history.” David Davis, now the minister in charge of the whole process, declared that “we can do deals . . . and we can do them quickly.” With breathtaking insouciance and eye-watering obliviousness, others implied that all sorts of trading arrangements with countries all over the world could be ready in a matter of months.

In practice, more than a year has passed since the referendum and nearly six months have passed since Britain invoked Article 50, the “exiting the E.U.” procedure. During that time, almost no progress has been made. The British government itself is divided about its own position, which makes it difficult to talk to Brussels. This Last week, Davis told the House of Commons — to howls of derisory laughter — that “nobody pretended [Brexit] would be easy.” It’s as if he has actually forgotten that he himself repeatedly pretended exactly that.


What happens next is unclear. We know that the Brexiteers’ promises were hollow. Their assessments were wrong. Whatever remaining credibility this government still has should have vanished. Still, elections are complicated things, party loyalties are strong and there are other issues in play. During the referendum campaign, voters weren’t bothered by facts. During the recent snap elections, they seemed uneasier about the ruling party and refused to give it an absolute majority. Will the Brexiteers now be further punished at the ballot box? We’ll see.

The answer matters, because a parallel moment is about to arrive in the United States. As a candidate, Donald Trump also made some very specific electoral promises, including, for example, the construction of a wall along the Mexican border, to be paid for with Mexican money. It didn’t matter how many Mexican politicians denied that this would happen; Trump kept repeating the promise. Now the budget battles are looming and, unsurprisingly, Mexico seems no more likely to pay for a border wall than Brexit is to free up 350 million pounds a week for Britain. Will Trump’s voters punish him for failing to do what he said he would do? We’ll see about that too.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

that's an interesting issue. Do they represent their constituents, or do they do what they think best?

Glibly (but moderated by years and years of observing British politics), I'd answer that -bar a few exceptions (e.g. Angela Smith (Lab), staunch anti-brexiter in a strongly pro-Brexit constituency, and yet reelected at the GE2017)- they represent themselves first and foremost, and it's a happy coincidence when what is best for their constituents coincides with their self-interest.

Fratton Fred

Lemming wrote: »

An advisory referendum is a very expensive opinion poll by the government.

A binding referendum is a legally enforceable mandate.

The problem with the #Wrexsh1t vote Fred, is that the advisory nature of the vote was not made clear to the population at large. Thus making a rod for politicians backs.

There is no other option under uk law for anything other than ( as you describe it) an advisory referendum. If parliament vote overwhelmingly to hold one, then the reasonable expectation is that the result is honoured. Why else hold one?

If Northern Ireland voted to join the Republic but parliament voted against it because they thought it in the best interests of the people of NI, would you still consider it ok?

Of course not.

breatheme

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Lemming wrote: »

An advisory referendum is a very expensive opinion poll by the government.

A binding referendum is a legally enforceable mandate.

The problem with the #Wrexsh1t vote Fred, is that the advisory nature of the vote was not made clear to the population at large. Thus making a rod for politicians backs.

There is no other option under uk law for anything other than ( as you describe it) an advisory referendum. If parliament vote overwhelmingly to hold one, then the reasonable expectation is that the result is honoured. Why else hold one?

If Northern Ireland voted to join the Republic but parliament voted against it because they thought it in the best interests of the people of NI, would you still consider it ok?

Of course not.

Or what if the rest of the UK voted to kick out NI? Would that be ok?

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no other option under uk law for anything other than ( as you describe it) an advisory referendum. If parliament vote overwhelmingly to hold one, then the reasonable expectation is that the result is honoured. Why else hold one?

If Northern Ireland voted to join the Republic but parliament voted against it because they thought it in the best interests of the people of NI, would you still consider it ok?

Of course not.

You picked the wrong one there. If NI were voting for unification with Ireland, it would be conducted under the Good Friday Agreement, and it would not be advisory. A parallel referendum would be conducted here as well and the result would be binding.

By the way, parliament votes Aye or Nay, with the Ayes to the right, and the Noes to the left, and a majority is all that is required. It matters not whether it is overwhelming or not.

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no other option under uk law for anything other than ( as you describe it) an advisory referendum. If parliament vote overwhelmingly to hold one, then the reasonable expectation is that the result is honoured. Why else hold one?

Remember this phrase: "Parliament is sovereign".

But to follow your argument, just because there would be no such thing as anything other than an advisory status does not imply that all must be legally binding by default. That is patent nonsense.

Fratton Fred

breatheme wrote: »

Or what if the rest of the UK voted to kick out NI? Would that be ok?

fine by me. It would still be up to Parliament to decide though

Sam Russell wrote: »

You picked the wrong one there. If NI were voting for unification with Ireland, it would be conducted under the Good Friday Agreement, and it would not be advisory. A parallel referendum would be conducted here as well and the result would be binding.

By the way, parliament votes Aye or Nay, with the Ayes to the right, and the Noes to the left, and a majority is all that is required. It matters not whether it is overwhelming or not.

No, the result would not be binding. It would still require the approval of Parliament.

Lemming wrote: »

Remember this phrase: "Parliament is sovereign".

But to follow your argument, just because there would be no such thing as anything other than an advisory status does not imply that all must be legally binding by default. That is patent nonsense.

I didn't say it was.

Referendum's can't be legally binding, because that would mean Parliament is not sovereign. It would also mean that one Parliament is binding a future Parliament to legislation, which again it can not do. This is why Parliament would have to vote on Northern Ireland leaving the Union, because even though an agreement has been made, the British government of the time is legally prohibited from telling a future parliament what it can and can't do. All it can commit to (as per the wording of the GFA) is to submit legislation for parliamentary approval.

As far as I am concerned, if the people of Northern Ireland vote to leave the Union, then Parliament is pretty much obliged to honour that, regardless of what they may think because they represent the people and they need to listen to the people.

As far as I am concerned, for a parliament to vote to hold a referendum and then not honour the result of that referendum is totally reprehensible.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, the result would not be binding. It would still require the approval of Parliament.

Isn't the wording in the GFA that should the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland both agree that they want to be part of a united Ireland that,

affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

Right of Self-Determination: Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement

So what do you think binding obligation means?

murphaph

Which is why if (won't happen now) Brexit was to be stopped there would need to be another referendum to nullify the other one. I agree that it won't fly to simply ignore the current referendum result.

But the British are way too proud to admit that Brexit is a terrible mistake.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Isn't the wording in the GFA that should the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland both agree that they want to be part of a united Ireland that,



Right of Self-Determination: Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement

So what do you think binding obligation means?

you've answered your own question there.

The binding obligation is to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

What Parliament does with that legislation is entirely up to them.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you've answered your own question there.

The binding obligation is to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

What Parliament does with that legislation is entirely up to them.

I know this is a little off topic, but you read that as all the UK government has to do if NI votes for a united Ireland is propose a vote in parliament? Their binding obligation is not to enact the wishes of the referendum but to only put it to parliament and if parliament votes against it at least they have done their obligation?

I think most would read it rather differently, that if NI votes to join Ireland that they would be obliged to support the wishes of the people of NI. So against what you posted, a future government would actually be obliged to follow through on the actions of a previous government. Seems to me that parliament is still sovereign and will technically make the decision but they will have to follow through whether they agree or not. Sort of like a binding referendum.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

I know this is a little off topic, but you read that as all the UK government has to do if NI votes for a united Ireland is propose a vote in parliament? Their binding obligation is not to enact the wishes of the referendum but to only put it to parliament and if parliament votes against it at least they have done their obligation?

I'm not reading it like that, that is exactly how it is. The Government is not Parliament.

Enzokk wrote: »

I think most would read it rather differently, that if NI votes to join Ireland that they would be obliged to support the wishes of the people of NI. So against what you posted, a future government would actually be obliged to follow through on the actions of a previous government. Seems to me that parliament is still sovereign and will technically make the decision but they will have to follow through whether they agree or not. Sort of like a binding referendum.

Except there is no such thing as a binding referendum in the UK. There is pre legislative and post legislative, but neither are actually binding.

But yes, you get my point. For Parliament not to act on the outcome of a referendum is reprehensible.

blanch152

Enzokk wrote: »

I know this is a little off topic, but you read that as all the UK government has to do if NI votes for a united Ireland is propose a vote in parliament? Their binding obligation is not to enact the wishes of the referendum but to only put it to parliament and if parliament votes against it at least they have done their obligation?

I think most would read it rather differently, that if NI votes to join Ireland that they would be obliged to support the wishes of the people of NI. So against what you posted, a future government would actually be obliged to follow through on the actions of a previous government. Seems to me that parliament is still sovereign and will technically make the decision but they will have to follow through whether they agree or not. Sort of like a binding referendum.

Yes, a government would be obliged to bring the legislation before parliament and support it.

However, I am sure you are aware of situations where governments have lost votes in Parliament. Imagine a future SNP/Labour government holds a referendum in Northern Ireland, that amid widespread claims of personation, and a very low turn-out narrowly passes a unity vote by 50.2% to 49.8%, and then attempts to put a law through parliament which the Tories oppose and a number of Labour MPs defect causing the legislation to fail, the Government to collapse and the Tories to win the election......what happens then? That new Tory government isn't bound by the previous referendum, especially if they campaigned on the basis that they would reject it.

The Labour Government will have met its obligation under the GFA, however Parliament, as it is entitled to do, rejects the result. So, even where there appears to be a legal obligation in the UK to accept the result of a referendum, there are circumstances where Parliament might reject it. In the case of Brexit, there isn't even such a legal requirement to accept the result of the referendum, meaning Parliament can change its mind at any time.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, a government would be obliged to bring the legislation before parliament and support it.

However, I am sure you are aware of situations where governments have lost votes in Parliament. Imagine a future SNP/Labour government holds a referendum in Northern Ireland, that amid widespread claims of personation, and a very low turn-out narrowly passes a unity vote by 50.2% to 49.8%, and then attempts to put a law through parliament which the Tories oppose and a number of Labour MPs defect causing the legislation to fail, the Government to collapse and the Tories to win the election......what happens then? That new Tory government isn't bound by the previous referendum, especially if they campaigned on the basis that they would reject it.

The Labour Government will have met its obligation under the GFA, however Parliament, as it is entitled to do, rejects the result. So, even where there appears to be a legal obligation in the UK to accept the result of a referendum, there are circumstances where Parliament might reject it. In the case of Brexit, there isn't even such a legal requirement to accept the result of the referendum, meaning Parliament can change its mind at any time.

In this event....widespread return to violence is surly justified??


As they are essentially blocking democratic decision's and there's no further peaceful avenues


Where's the value in having a democracy when you just ignore election/referendum results?

Lemming

tomwaterford wrote: »

Where's the value in having a democracy when you just ignore election/referendum results?

This is the thing with advisory referenda, and almost ALL #wrexsh1tters seem to have forgotten this little nugget: the government is as legally entitled to ignore a 'no' vote and do it anyway as they are to ignore a 'yes' vote and sit on their hands (or do something else entirely again).

As I've said before, they [advisory referenda] are nothing more than very expensive opinion polls. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter how many ways anyone tries to spin them.

Fratton Fred

tomwaterford wrote: »

In this event....widespread return to violence is surly justified??

No

tomwaterford wrote: »

Where's the value in having a democracy when you just ignore election/referendum results?

Yes.

As much as I would like the UK to remain in the eu, the decision has been made and must be respected.

There's no use crying about it, just get on and do the ****ing job.

Zubeneschamali

I'm torn between hoping for a Swiss Brexit doing minimal damage for my own sake and that of the brits my age and younger who will be dragged out of the EU against their will, and a hard Brexit with rains of frogs, locusts the works to teach the UKippers a harsh lesson.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No



Yes.

As much as I would like the UK to remain in the eu, the decision has been made and must be respected.

There's no use crying about it, just get on and do the ****ing job.

Much as I liked the UK public picking Boaty McBoatFace for a boat name, I think the owners were correct to ignore it.

It was a ridiculously simple question and the answer could have been ignored if the will was there.
Party politics trumped common sense and the shtstorm beckons.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No



Yes.

As much as I would like the UK to remain in the eu, the decision has been made and must be respected.

There's no use crying about it, just get on and do the ****ing job.

But Fred would you argue that the Brexit result wasn't a blueprint for how we leave the EU? Maybe there's scope to stay in the single market?

Capt'n Midnight

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm torn between hoping for a Swiss Brexit doing minimal damage for my own sake and that of the brits my age and younger who will be dragged out of the EU against their will, and a hard Brexit with rains of frogs, locusts the works to teach the UKippers a harsh lesson.

The UK will not get a Swiss deal.

Switzerland got a lot of temporary concessions because at the time they were on the fast track to join the EFTA.

There is also the little point that almost everything and everyone that enters Switzerland must go through the EU. It simplifies customs and borders somewhat.


UK could need '5,000 more customs officials after Brexit'

HMRC boss John Thompson also said a new customs arrangement with the EU could cost as much as £800m and take seven years to implement.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But yes, you get my point. For Parliament not to act on the outcome of a referendum is reprehensible.

Parliament made a choice NOT to act on the majority view in the 1979 referendum on devolution for Scotland.

As such it is clear that Parliament is perfectly willing to ignore majority opinion in an advisory referendum when it suits itself.

tomwaterford

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No



Yes.

.

In relation to election/referendum results being ignored and political process been exhausted (as was suggested would be by blanch)


What other options are available?

tomwaterford

Lemming wrote: »

This is the thing with advisory referenda, and almost ALL #wrexsh1tters seem to have forgotten this little nugget: the government is as legally entitled to ignore a 'no' vote and do it anyway as they are to ignore a 'yes' vote and sit on their hands (or do something else entirely again).

As I've said before, they [advisory referenda] are nothing more than very expensive opinion polls. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter how many ways anyone tries to spin them.

I cannot see how they can ignore a referendum result and keep a straight face, espially after a somewhat ruinous wars to bring democracy to the middle east??

View

tomwaterford wrote: »

Lemming wrote: »

This is the thing with advisory referenda, and almost ALL #wrexsh1tters seem to have forgotten this little nugget: the government is as legally entitled to ignore a 'no' vote and do it anyway as they are to ignore a 'yes' vote and sit on their hands (or do something else entirely again).

As I've said before, they [advisory referenda] are nothing more than very expensive opinion polls. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter how many ways anyone tries to spin them.

I cannot see how they can ignore a referendum result and keep a straight face, espially after a somewhat ruinous wars to bring democracy to the middle east??

So, if you asked someone for advice and they advised you to give them all your money and to do so for the rest of your life, you'd regard their advice as being a binding instruction that you must follow, right? :-)

Lemming

tomwaterford wrote: »

I cannot see how they can ignore a referendum result and keep a straight face, espially after a somewhat ruinous wars to bring democracy to the middle east??

What does anything relating to the Middle East have to do with the price of pidgeons?

As for your inability to see how an advisory referendum result can be ignored, I raise you "£350m per week for the NHS". Very easily ignored. With a straight face apparently. Or if you'd prefer something more recent, David Davis and his "nobody claimed it would be easy" comments in the commons last week.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Lemming wrote: »

This is the thing with advisory referenda, and almost ALL #wrexsh1tters seem to have forgotten this little nugget: the government is as legally entitled to ignore a 'no' vote and do it anyway as they are to ignore a 'yes' vote and sit on their hands (or do something else entirely again).

As I've said before, they [advisory referenda] are nothing more than very expensive opinion polls. Nothing more, nothing less, no matter how many ways anyone tries to spin them.

Again, parliament promised in 2013 to implement the result of the referendum.

Saying it should be ignored is just whinging because you lost.

Also, if you want to find out why people voted leave, there are a number of good places near where you're living in South Yorkshire. If you live in Sheffield you could start there, but I'd recommend having a chat with people in Doncaster or in Wakefield (or watch the BBC Question Time episode from there before the summer recess). You could also try nearby Rotherham.

Calina wrote: »

Tbqh solo if you have thrown in your hat with Brexit Britain, I would take the view that you have no right to be campaigning from outside the EU to get Ireland to leave too.

I have a right to an opinion. You seem to have misunderstood my point though.

I said if the EU becomes a superstate with common tax policy amongst other things then I would believe that Ireland should come out.

At present, I don't think Ireland should come out.

Calina wrote: »

Supporting Brexit and arguing that you would campaign for Ireland to leave too is...well it definitely is not in Irish interests. You live in the U.K. You are even privileged enough to have a vote there which most EU citizens do not. You have bolted your interests to the UK. You won't be living in the EU and you will have no right to be telling people in the EU - i.e. Ireland - what policies they should be following particularly as they have the right to self determination, you know, like you keep shouting about Britain's democratic vote.

So let me get this straight. So people living in Ireland can have an opinion about what Britain should do in respect to Brexit, but people living in Britain can't have an opinion about Ireland?

Oh, get a grip!

Calina wrote: »

It seems to me lots of British based and British Brexit supporters, even the ones who voted remain, like you, do not understand that leaving the EU means leaving the EU and losing the right to influence what happens in the EU. It ceases to be your business. You voted to leave. This does not give you the right to interfere.

So, why is the UK your business? Why do you have a right to "interfere" with Brexit?

Of course the EU and Ireland are my business. After all I'm a "citizen" of the EU, and more crucially I'm an Irish citizen. I may not get a vote, but I'm entitled to my opinion.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria