Brexit discussion thread III

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

Schorpio wrote: »

I'll put it out there - I don't think there is any point in a second referendum. At least, not now. I think the result would be more of less the same.

The fact it, a lot of poorer and older members of society voted to Leave. Whilst the effects of Brexit are being felt (losing the EMA, EBA, etc.), they aren't directly being felt by any of the key demographics who voted Leave. And I don't think any such effects will be felt until the UK actually leaves. By which point a referendum would be have to start the process of joining the Union, rather than remaining inside.

Added to that - the older Leave generation hasn't 'died off' significantly, and the Tories are STILL maintaining their anti-EU stance (everything good that happens was us, anything bad was the EU).

Completely agree, and even if remain did win it wouldn't be accepted by leave as it is so close to the original (unless it was like 80% or something, which it won't be close to).

There really is little option but to let Brexit happen, that is what democracy is after all. And that is where I agree with the Labour stance (although that seems too grand a phrase for what seems, at best, a muddle).

But taking Corbyn latest announcement at face value, the only real argument now is what sort of Brexit. What does Brexit mean (apart from Brexit!).

You are right in saying that the effects (either positive or negative) haven't been really felt at this stage and it will require more than a few years so that to come about. IMO, when the tories start to take away workers rights, when the jobs start to be noticed that have leaked away (I think some leavers think that because 1m jobs are not lost on day 1 then all is good), when the issues with the NHS continue to get worse, when even after immigration reduces the services are still cack, only then will people start to realise that many of the issues that they blamed the EU for were actually the fault of their own government.

If you put the abolition if income tax to a public vote you could guess the "democratic" result.

Representative democracy is about electing people to make decisions. The UK utterly screwed up by handing such a decision to people unqualified to make it. Let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity and move on.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

If you put the abolition if income tax to a public vote you could guess the "democratic" result.

Representative democracy is about electing people to make decisions. The UK utterly screwed up by handing such a decision to people unqualified to make it. Let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity and move on.

Well, you could argue that that is exactly what has happened. The people have voted that they no longer want to be part of the EU, nothing more.

The elected representatives have taken that and made decisions about how that will happen and what the outcome will be.

In terms of the abolition of income tax, there is no evidence to back up your claim. Fringe parties, which tend to argue for those sort of ideas, rarely do well in democracies. The majority of voters understand that taxes need to be collected to operate a society, the argument is around the level and how it is spent.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

If you put the abolition if income tax to a public vote you could guess the "democratic" result.

My whole life, polls have shown strong support in the UK for bringing back hanging, which is why no Government ever lets them vote on that.

Democracy!

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My whole life, polls have shown strong support in the UK for bringing back hanging, which is why no Government ever lets them vote on that.

Democracy!

Maybe that was because the EU rules wouldn't allow it. With Brexit you never know there might be a call for it again!

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

If you put the abolition if income tax to a public vote you could guess the "democratic" result.

Representative democracy is about electing people to make decisions. The UK utterly screwed up by handing such a decision to people unqualified to make it. Let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity and move on.

What about the 16 million-odd people like myself who voted to Remain?

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What about the 16 million-odd people like myself who voted to Remain?

What about the 450 million-odd people in the EU27 who didn't vote?

The 65m, inclusive of the 16m, live in a representative democracy, not an (EU membership supporting-) benevolent dictatorship.

Avail of the freedom of expression, use the system, and help the majority vote 'better' next time?

Schorpio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What about the 16 million-odd people like myself who voted to Remain?

Unfortunately we made up just under half of all who voted, so have to lump it apparently.

I maintain that, for a referendum where the result has the capacity to bring about such a significant change to society, the result needs to be passed by a clear majority (ie min 60%). However, could you imagine what the Leave campaign would be saying now if that had been the case? it depresses me to even think about it.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What about the 16 million-odd people like myself who voted to Remain?

It's a democracy, and sometimes you lose.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

What about the 450 million-odd people in the EU27 who didn't vote?

It was a British referendum.

ambro25 wrote: »

The 65m, inclusive of the 16m, live in a representative democracy, not an (EU membership supporting-) benevolent dictatorship.

Democracy sure but FPTP prevents it from being very representative.

ambro25 wrote: »

Avail of the freedom of expression, use the system, and help the majority vote 'better' next time?

I don't really know what this means. I was living in Brighton at the time which returned a 71.28% Remain vote IIRC.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a democracy, and sometimes you lose.

I'm not denying this but the "They deserve it because they voted for it" line is a tad unfair.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not denying this but the "They deserve it because they voted for it" line is a tad unfair.

But true. A vote was held and the result was Brexit. That's it.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

But true. A vote was held and the result was Brexit. That's it.

I live here. I know what happened. I'm just making a point that tarring the entire nation as Brexiteers is somewhat unrepresentative of the whole picture.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It was a British referendum. <...>

I was somewhat facetious in my earlier reply, meant to highlight that the effects of the UK's Leave vote and eventual exit from the EU are not restricted to the UK at all, but have the potential to severely impact anyone and everyone in the EU27 (with Ireland ahead of the lot, as all regular posters in here are well aware); rather than debate- or argument-suppression.

Schorpio wrote: »

Unfortunately we made up just under half of all who voted, so have to lump it apparently.

As with any and every other consultative democratic process, "Vae Victis" until the next vote.

Schorpio wrote: »

I maintain that, for a referendum where the result has the capacity to bring about such a significant change to society, the result needs to be passed by a clear majority (ie min 60%). However, could you imagine what the Leave campaign would be saying now if that had been the case? it depresses me to even think about it.

As commonsensical and laudable as that wish is, regrettably the EU Referendum Act 2015 made no provisions for a supermajority (nor did it make any provisions for the management of the vote outcome, for the avoidance of doubt), so there's little point crying over spilt milk.

I fully agree with you that a second referendum in the short-term, wouldn't return any greater majority for one camp or the other (and I have a sneaky suspicion that Leave would still win, presently, albeit with a still-narrower margin).

There was a time, until not so long ago (term and outcome of phase 1 negotiations), wherein it was realistic to pin hopes on a collective sense-taking within enough of the UK political class, supported by ramped-up lobbying from relevant business circles, and so on a consequential timely overturning of Brexit.

But after phase 1 came to pass, and in view of both May's recent Cabinet changes and Labour's taking roots on the fence, the almost-fact of the matter is that, pragmatically (when the UK political landscape and horizons are weighed, and the Article 50 clock factored in), Brexit is going to happen no matter what in 2019 (notwithstanding the life support option to 2021, which will not be membership, btw).

The sooner and the more amongst the 16m accept this reality, the sooner people amongst the 16m can (re)consider their situation and life choice(s), rather than merely endure.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I live here. I know what happened. I'm just making a point that tarring the entire nation as Brexiteers is somewhat unrepresentative of the whole picture.

I don't think anyone tarred the 16m/48% as Brexiteers?

More that the 16m are part of the 65m and as, the 65m are governed by democratic (majority) rule, so are the 16m.

But the fact of the matter is that the UK constitutional rules and regs were followed, and your side (including me, but then I didn't even get a vote, since I'm not Irish nor Brit) lost. That is what I meant in my earlier post: if, as a 16m/48%-er, you feel so aggrieved by the matter, either activate politically within UK constitutional rules and regs to bring a different outcome 'next time' (e.g. 2nd vote cancelling Brexit this or next year, 2nd referendum to rejoin in <however> many years, etc.); or vote (again ) with your feet.

Or do nothing, which is also a decision in and of itself (-but carry on posting, please )

Sam Russell

Schorpio wrote: »

Unfortunately we made up just under half of all who voted, so have to lump it apparently.

I maintain that, for a referendum where the result has the capacity to bring about such a significant change to society, the result needs to be passed by a clear majority (ie min 60%). However, could you imagine what the Leave campaign would be saying now if that had been the case? it depresses me to even think about it.

The rules could have been that each of Wales England Scotland and NI had to vote in favour and that if one voted to remain, the remain vote carried.

When the four County Councils that make up Dublin County had to vote in favour of an elected Mayor, Fingal alone voted it down and so it did not happen.

Given that a major plank in keeping Scotland in the UK was their retention of EU membership, it is a bit rich that two years later they are dumped out even though they voted heavily to remain.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I live here. I know what happened. I'm just making a point that tarring the entire nation as Brexiteers is somewhat unrepresentative of the whole picture.

Fine, but what is the alternative? Should the EU allow 16m or so of the UK to remain? It is not only about the BRexit vote either. After the Vote the UK had a GE, one in which they could have changed course. Instead they gave Tory's, you were very clearly going for a possible No Deal the most seats.

So two votes, similar outcomes. There really isn't any argument that the UK, as a nation, want Brexit. Those that voted remain now have a decision. Either accept the will of the majority, work to change to course, or move.

Its not a nice situation for you or the millions of others but just like in every democracy thems the rules.

Schorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, but what is the alternative? Should the EU allow 16m or so of the UK to remain? It is not only about the BRexit vote either. After the Vote the UK had a GE, one in which they could have changed course. Instead they gave Tory's, you were very clearly going for a possible No Deal the most seats.

So two votes, similar outcomes. There really isn't any argument that the UK, as a nation, want Brexit. Those that voted remain now have a decision. Either accept the will of the majority, work to change to course, or move.

Its not a nice situation for you or the millions of others but just like in every democracy thems the rules.

I agree with your point, but I think to merely say that the Tories got the most seats in the last GE isn't really representative of what actually happened. The fact that they bled so many seats to others does indicate a shift in the general mood towards the Tories, certainly when compared to the previous GE. Added to that fact is the FPTP system, which is hilariously unrepresentitive.

I also agree with the point regarding the Scots. I've previously lived in Edinburgh before I moved to England, and I commented before the referendum to some of my English friends about how the English tone was wildly different when comparing the referenda - the 'better together' sentiment was not extended to the EU.

But yeah, I don't think another referendum will really change anything.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I was somewhat facetious in my earlier reply, meant to highlight that the effects of the UK's Leave vote and eventual exit from the EU are not restricted to the UK at all, but have the potential to severely impact anyone and everyone in the EU27 (with Ireland ahead of the lot, as all regular posters in here are well aware); rather than debate- or argument-suppression.....

I don't think anyone tarred the 16m/48% as Brexiteers?

More that the 16m are part of the 65m and as, the 65m are governed by democratic (majority) rule, so are the 16m.

But the fact of the matter is that the UK constitutional rules and regs were followed, and your side (including me, but then I didn't even get a vote, since I'm not Irish nor Brit) lost. That is what I meant in my earlier post: if, as a 16m/48%-er, you feel so aggrieved by the matter, either activate politically within UK constitutional rules and regs to bring a different outcome 'next time' (e.g. 2nd vote cancelling Brexit this or next year, 2nd referendum to rejoin in <however> many years, etc.); or vote (again ) with your feet.

Or do nothing, which is also a decision in and of itself (-but carry on posting, please )

I'm not saying that the referendum isn't valid or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that the idea that "People voted for it" is a tad off the mark because this thing passed by nearly the slimmest majority possible and the implication now is that the current course is one which the majority voted for which may not be true (NHS pledge, end to free movement, etc...).

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, but what is the alternative? Should the EU allow 16m or so of the UK to remain? It is not only about the BRexit vote either. After the Vote the UK had a GE, one in which they could have changed course. Instead they gave Tory's, you were very clearly going for a possible No Deal the most seats.

So two votes, similar outcomes. There really isn't any argument that the UK, as a nation, want Brexit. Those that voted remain now have a decision. Either accept the will of the majority, work to change to course, or move.

Its not a nice situation for you or the millions of others but just like in every democracy thems the rules.

We now have a serious divide as a result of the referendum. What would be so wrong with allowing the 16 million or so to remain as EU citizens?

The Conservatives lost quite a bit of their vote share so it's not like they received a ringing endorsement from the electorate or anything like that though FPTP results in a poor relationship between number of ballots cast and number of seats won.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Conservatives lost quite a bit of their vote share so it's not like they received a ringing endorsement from the electorate or anything like that though FPTP results in a poor relationship between number of ballots cast and number of seats won.

Actually the Conservatives increased their share of the vote to 42.5% of the vote, up 5.5%. It was their highest share of the vote since Major, but no British Gov since 1931 has had over 50% of the popular vote (55% in 1931). What did it for the Conservatives was their turnaround in Scotland, going from one seat to thirteen.

The FPTP has always favoured the two major parties and so there is no way they will ever change it.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Actually the Conservatives increased their share of the vote to 42.5% of the vote, up 5.5%. It was their highest share of the vote since Major, but no British Gov since 1931 has had over 50% of the popular vote (55% in 1931). What did it for the Conservatives was their turnaround in Scotland, going from one seat to thirteen.

The FPTP has always favoured the two major parties and so there is no way they will ever change it.

Interestingly, membership of the Tory party, at 100,000 and falling, has been overtaken by the Lib Dems at 108,000 and falling. Labour is at 570,000 and rising. In the 1980's, membership of the Tory party was over a 1,000,000.

It doesn't take into account the Shy Tory effect nor does it represent the vote share but, given the demographics of the parties, these membership numbers should be setting off alarms at Tory HQ.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not saying that the referendum isn't valid or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that the idea that "People voted for it" is a tad off the mark because this thing passed by nearly the slimmest majority possible and the implication now is that the current course is one which the majority voted for which may not be true (NHS pledge, end to free movement, etc...).

That is a fair and well understood point, and as may be.

But, as pointed out int he past few posts [and if you can picture in your mind the fat bank worker in the adverts of not so many years ago]..."what are you going to about it?"

I'm not saying the 16m should make their peace and accept the result. I'm saying that, all broken as UK politics may be currently (and all sub-optimal as the FPTP voting system may also be), the democratic system in the UK is there for their use to change the course of governance, the same as it has been for centuries.

I'm also saying that, pragmatically, whether part of the 16m or not, for anyone in the UK with a vested interest in the UK's membership, the reality is that only political activism is likely to yield pro-EU results, and that it's unlikely to result in reversing Brexit within the timescale available.

It might not be what the 16m wants to hear, and displease you greatly as an answer to your earlier question, but short of flamethrowing the UK political class and the constitutional apparatus within the next year (preferably before October viz. ratification process), that is the stark reality. No amount of pro- or anti-debating on here, or personal procrastination, is going to change that state of affairs.

That's not meant as debate suppression, defeatism (from the Remain POV) or treason (from the Leave POV). Just straightforward, eyeballs-wide-open realism.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We now have a serious divide as a result of the referendum. What would be so wrong with allowing the 16 million or so to remain as EU citizens?

Irrespective of how realistic an option that may or may not be, it would cement that divide, rather than contribute to remove it. Particularly if it would end up creating yet another avenue of division between the haves (-EU protection) and have nots (who probably would be those who voted for Brexit, but will end-up worst affected by Brexit, so just compounding/entrenching their views still further).

listermint

Schorpio wrote: »

I'll put it out there - I don't think there is any point in a second referendum. At least, not now. I think the result would be more of less the same.

The fact it, a lot of poorer and older members of society voted to Leave. Whilst the effects of Brexit are being felt (losing the EMA, EBA, etc.), they aren't directly being felt by any of the key demographics who voted Leave. And I don't think any such effects will be felt until the UK actually leaves. By which point a referendum would be have to start the process of joining the Union, rather than remaining inside.

Added to that - the older Leave generation hasn't 'died off' significantly, and the Tories are STILL maintaining their anti-EU stance (everything good that happens was us, anything bad was the EU).

Also, I can't believe May didn't get more backlash over claiming that the Tories abolished the card transaction fees.

Im going out on a limb here and say you are wrong. I think the youth would come out in force this time, just like they did against May with her call for election. I dont believe they were bothered first time out the gate but the universitys are far more vocal now. Especially with the advent of the removal of European funding for research.

I dont see the same again i see the opposite entirely. There is an energy there now rather than the apathy that was before i.e 'it will never happen so why bother'

Alot of people seem duped by the mantra that a vote again would mean nothing, they simply are not looking at whats going on in the previous apathetic voters

Skedaddle

There's a hardcore pro Brexit voter who will be utterly furious if there's a rerun and will turn out in force but I think a lot of softer Brexit votes may switch to remain as people realise that this isn't such a wonderful idea. There were a lot of lies told and a lot of the UK electorate is very pragmatic in reality.

People who didn't vote last time will likely turn up this time too and I'd say that will he your formerly apathetic youth vote which could flip it.

I could see it flipping around but I don't think it'll be particularly pleasant and I see it resulting in a very angry English nationalist vote. I think it might even turn violent. I'm not convinced that the UK isn't going to turn into chaos. It's hard to underestimate just how extreme am element of that vote is and it's about raw nationalism in a lot of cases.

The polling doesn't look like a win for leave in a rerun bit it's also not going to be an absolute landslide for remain, that's where you'll have major political fallout.

My prediction is that the referendum would be overturned but the Tories would be hung out to dry by English nationalist voters who would probably switch to UKIP or more extreme parties.

So I think you're going to end up with a significant rump of voters shifting to the far right as they'll feel betrayed by the Tories. How long that will last for is another question.

Water John

I wouldn't shy away from a referendum in any country, because it might be unpleasant. So are the consequences if its got wrong.
The hard core Brexiteers can come out in force or stay at home, I wouldn't care. their numbers will not grow. The young may see that by abstaining they left the old fogies decide their lives future.
A good long run in to the vote and let the issue, grip the nation. And lets have some people with gumption, like Millar, leading a clever, well funded campaign.
Both Juncker and Tusk have put out feelers over the last few days.

If it means putting together a wide coalition of remain voices, who agree on this one issue alone, so be it.

Skedaddle

The reality is that there's no constitutional or legal prerogative for a referendum anyway in the UK. It was entirely optional and advisory. It's nothing like constitutional referenda here, which are only ever done to change the constitution, not to shift government policy - that's what elections are for.

My sense is a general election would be a better solution but they the Tories would rather hold on for dear life putting party before the stability of the country and that's why you'll end up returning to another referendum, to try and put the issue to bed and change policy.

I do think though that even if this policy shifts, Brexit won't go away. Until you start communicating what the EU really is as opposed to some kind of feeding some kind of tabloid-fueled English nationalist fantasy that sees it as a Machiavellian plot against poor old England, nothing’s going to change.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

But, as pointed out int he past few posts [and if you can picture in your mind the fat bank worker in the adverts of not so many years ago]..."what are you going to about it?"

I'm not saying the 16m should make their peace and accept the result. I'm saying that, all broken as UK politics may be currently (and all sub-optimal as the FPTP voting system may also be), the democratic system in the UK is there for their use to change the course of governance, the same as it has been for centuries.

I'm also saying that, pragmatically, whether part of the 16m or not, for anyone in the UK with a vested interest in the UK's membership, the reality is that only political activism is likely to yield pro-EU results, and that it's unlikely to result in reversing Brexit within the timescale available.

It might not be what the 16m wants to hear, and displease you greatly as an answer to your earlier question, but short of flamethrowing the UK political class and the constitutional apparatus within the next year (preferably before October viz. ratification process), that is the stark reality. No amount of pro- or anti-debating on here, or personal procrastination, is going to change that state of affairs.

That's not meant as debate suppression, defeatism (from the Remain POV) or treason (from the Leave POV). Just straightforward, eyeballs-wide-open realism.
Irrespective of how realistic an option that may or may not be, it would cement that divide, rather than contribute to remove it. Particularly if it would end up creating yet another avenue of division between the haves (-EU protection) and have nots (who probably would be those who voted for Brexit, but will end-up worst affected by Brexit, so just compounding/entrenching their views still further).

It's a fair response. I typed out my previous post a tad hastily.

I've gotten involved with the local Lib Dems is the best answer to your quesiton though that'll make sod all difference in that I live in Barry Gardiner's backyard. I tried making a positive case for voting Remain pre-referendum online, picking up a death threat in the process. There's also groups like More United which I've contributed to which is trying to do what you've outlined above. They produced a list of MP's people should vote for if people wanted to cast a remain ballot last June as I did.

Hopefully, this is a better answer to your question.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

If you put the abolition if income tax to a public vote you could guess the "democratic" result.

Representative democracy is about electing people to make decisions. The UK utterly screwed up by handing such a decision to people unqualified to make it. Let them suffer the consequences of their own stupidity and move on.

Well, you could argue that that is exactly what has happened. The people have voted that they no longer want to be part of the EU, nothing more.

The elected representatives have taken that and made decisions about how that will happen and what the outcome will be.

In terms of the abolition of income tax, there is no evidence to back up your claim. Fringe parties, which tend to argue for those sort of ideas, rarely do well in democracies. The majority of voters understand that taxes need to be collected to operate a society, the argument is around the level and how it is spent.

It is exactly what happened - no argument required. The elected representatives asked a simplistic question and are implementing the simplistic answer.

The question about income tax has never been asked of the electorate but it is another example of how a single question taken in isolation is vulnerable to populism, without regard to the consequences.

murphaph

A second referendum requiring a super majority of 60% would be hard to argue with. The shy remainers would be compelled to get out and vote, otherwise Brexit happens as planned.

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

A second referendum requiring a super majority of 60% would be hard to argue with. The shy remainers would be compelled to get out and vote, otherwise Brexit happens as planned.

It's a legitimate argument but I think there's also a fair point to be made that insisting on 60% favours one side disproportionally. I'm not sure that referenda are the best way to settle such complicated matters.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a legitimate argument but I think there's also a fair point to be made that insisting on 60% favours one side disproportionally. I'm not sure that referenda are the best way to settle such complicated matters.

I agree completely but the cat is out of the bag on this one. There'll be war if Brexit is reversed by any means other than a referendum to nullify the first one and imo if it's not through super majority then it'll just be a ping pong match.

The gauntlet has to be laid down and remainers need to take it up and send a clear message that the majority want to remain. If they can't, then Brexit needs to happen.

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

I agree completely but the cat is out of the bag on this one. There'll be war if Brexit is reversed by any means other than a referendum to nullify the first one and imo if it's not through super majority then it'll just be a ping pong match.

The gauntlet has to be laid down and remainers need to take it up and send a clear message that the majority want to remain. If they can't, then Brexit needs to happen.

Ah yeah, completely agree. I just wanted to highlight the counter argument.

Leroy42

It's all academic anyway (enjoyable nonetheless). There is no way that there will be a 2nd Ref for the foreseeable future. Neither of the main parties are arguing for one.

Certainly not in time to stop Brexit day and at that stage it will be too late and they might as well see how it goes.

If after Brexit day, at whatever point, the UK wants to think about joining, the problem they face is that EU is likely to use the opportunity to get back the deals they had when originally in the EU. So Schengen, Euro etc. And that will not be acceptable to the UK so rejoining won't be an option.

Just the mere fact that May wants a transition period tells you all you need to know. Even she knows that UK are not ready and don't fully understand the likely outcomes yet they are determined to follow this path no matter what.

The anti EU press in the UK is far more vocal than the pro. The Express, for example, has headlines like "Thornberry interrupts May during PMQs and is BRUTALLY shut down with dazzling reply" and "Piers Morgan tears into 'fierce Remoaner' Chuka Umunna over second Brexit referendum hopes" its all shouting and nationalism and gotcha's.

The UK has fully boarded this train and will not be getting off.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

It's all academic anyway (enjoyable nonetheless). There is no way that there will be a 2nd Ref for the foreseeable future. Neither of the main parties are arguing for one.

Certainly not in time to stop Brexit day and at that stage it will be too late and they might as well see how it goes.

Depends. Labour can't criticise Brexit too harshly given how many of their voters voted for both it and UKIP. I can't see another referendum being announced to take place before the Article 50 deadline though, that's for sure unless a transition agreement is arranged.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If after Brexit day, at whatever point, the UK wants to think about joining, the problem they face is that EU is likely to use the opportunity to get back the deals they had when originally in the EU. So Schengen, Euro etc. And that will not be acceptable to the UK so rejoining won't be an option.

I don't know. I think that if the UK goes for hard Brexit then going back in will be off the table for a very, very long time. The effects of decades of Eurosceptic propaganda won't wear off overnight and this is if they stop blaming the EU for everything once the UK leaves.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just the mere fact that May wants a transition period tells you all you need to know. Even she knows that UK are not ready and don't fully understand the likely outcomes yet they are determined to follow this path no matter what.

Of course but she must have known this before running for leader of her party. The incompetence of the Conservative party on this has well passed satirical levels at this stage. I mean you now have Andrea Leadsom moaning about a lack of pro-Brexit stamps.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The anti EU press in the UK is far more vocal than the pro. The Express, for example, has headlines like "Thornberry interrupts May during PMQs and is BRUTALLY shut down with dazzling reply" and "Piers Morgan tears into 'fierce Remoaner' Chuka Umunna over second Brexit referendum hopes" its all shouting and nationalism and gotcha's.

I'd actually noticed a slight wavering in the Express' pro-Brexit stance as of late but it seems like they've gone back to full Brexit mode.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK has fully boarded this train and will not be getting off.

Unless the 48% and the liberals get their acts together. There have been signs of life but not nearly enough.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Depends. Labour can't criticise Brexit too harshly given how many of their voters voted for both it and UKIP. I can't see another referendum being announced to take place before the Article 50 deadline though, that's for sure unless a transition agreement is arranged.

The transition agreement negotiated within the Article 50 timescale is only concerned about the UK-EU relationship continuum, in the interval starting post-Brexit day on 01 April 2019 and ending in December 2020 (-subject to ongoing negotiations), for the UK to avoid the proverbial cliff edge that day.

The WTO/FTA/EEA/EFTA <etc.> 'permanent' UK-EU relationship that shall follow the transition period from January 2021, will only start to be negotiated from 1 April 2019 (it may well be 'explored' before, but nothing formal). Logically those negotiations should preferably be completed prior to January 2021.

The transition agreement does not prorogate the UK's EU membership beyond Brexit day on 29 March 2019, technically the UK will be outside the EU (but still under its umbrella, so to speak) from that time.

If the UK happened to change its mind after Brexit day but before the end of the transition period in 2020, then as the UK is technically already out, so the UK would have to apply to (re)join the EU anew under Article 49 TEU.

In that context, that notional post-Brexit day second referendum during the transition, would have to be "for or against (re)joining", rather than "remaining or exiting". The campaign for it would be heavily influenved by the issues raised by Leroy42, since adoption of the €, signing up to Schengen <etc.> have been made compulsory attributes of EU membership applications since the UK originally joined.

Posted for info/context/clarification

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

It is exactly what happened - no argument required. The elected representatives asked a simplistic question and are implementing the simplistic answer.

The question about income tax has never been asked of the electorate but it is another example of how a single question taken in isolation is vulnerable to populism, without regard to the consequences.

If they were implementing the simplistic answer it wouldn't be as bad as it is.

But the Tories decided that leaving the EU meant leaving the SM and CU and look where that got us all.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

The transition agreement does not prorogate the UK's EU membership beyond Brexit day on 29 March 2019, technically the UK will be outside the EU (but still under its umbrella, so to speak) from that time.

If the UK happened to change its mind after Brexit day but before the end of the transition period in 2020, then as the UK is technically already out, so the UK would have to apply to (re)join the EU anew under Article 49 TEU.

In that context, that notional post-Brexit day second referendum during the transition, would have to be "for or against (re)joining", rather than "remaining or exiting". The campaign for it would be heavily influenved by the issues raised by Leroy42, since adoption of the €, signing up to Schengen <etc.> have been made compulsory attributes of EU membership applications since the UK originally joined.

Posted for info/context/clarification

This would almost certainly result in a court case though and that's where that would need to be decided. The UK already meets the criteria for membership and is unlikely to unravel that too much in the time between it leaving and applying for re-entry should that happen.

Public opinion, unfortunately is not a light switch. I still maintain a degree of hope that the idea of a referendum on the final deal including, with the assent of the EU, an option to remain will happen. Even Farage has come round to the idea of another referendum.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This would almost certainly result in a court case though and that's where that would need to be decided. The UK already meets the criteria for membership and is unlikely to unravel that too much in the time between it leaving and applying for re-entry should that happen.

What do you mean court case? Between who?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do you mean court case? Between who?

One that would determine whether or not the triggering of Article 50 can be reversed, especially if in the middle of the transition period.

demfad

ambro25 wrote: »

The transition agreement negotiated within the Article 50 timescale is only concerned about the UK-EU relationship continuum, in the interval starting post-Brexit day on 01 April 2019 and ending in December 2020 (-subject to ongoing negotiations), for the UK to avoid the proverbial cliff edge that day.

The WTO/FTA/EEA/EFTA <etc.> 'permanent' UK-EU relationship that shall follow the transition period from January 2021, will only start to be negotiated from 1 April 2019 (it may well be 'explored' before, but nothing formal). Logically those negotiations should preferably be completed prior to January 2021.

The transition agreement does not prorogate the UK's EU membership beyond Brexit day on 29 March 2019, technically the UK will be outside the EU (but still under its umbrella, so to speak) from that time.

If the UK happened to change its mind after Brexit day but before the end of the transition period in 2020, then as the UK is technically already out, so the UK would have to apply to (re)join the EU anew under Article 49 TEU.

In that context, that notional post-Brexit day second referendum during the transition, would have to be "for or against (re)joining", rather than "remaining or exiting". The campaign for it would be heavily influenved by the issues raised by Leroy42, since adoption of the €, signing up to Schengen <etc.> have been made compulsory attributes of EU membership applications since the UK originally joined.

Posted for info/context/clarification

I see the transition agreement as something that wont be negotiated in time for the exit. The easiest and most likely option is an extension of A50 perhaps with some political guarantees from the UK side.
If they can agree an A50 extension (they can) then the argument for any transition weakens. A50 should be extended until UK ready to leave. This will come at considerable cost to the UK. This is UK's final payment for invoking A50 before the UK was ready.
All of this makes a 2nd referendum more likely. Remainers should but themselves time by highlighting how an A50 extension is the only logical way forward (short of full revocation).

Leroy42

I don't think it would need a court case, the EU is already saying that they would be happy for the UK to reverse course.

It is the UK that don't want to take that option. As was pointed out, Brexit happens on 29/03/2019. During the transition period UK will continue to benefit from and operate under the rules of the EU, but it is technically outside of the EU. This is another reason why the transition period cannot end up open ended as other countries (such as Norway) will not accept that.

But once they leave, then of course the EU would welcome the UK back but at that point they would be in the driving seat (the only reason to go back in is if going out is problematic). EU would, IMO, demand that the UK fully sign-up to the EU, none of this opt-out stuff. So the likes of the Euro. UK would be fast-tracked back in (over night?) but there will be a price to pay. Not to punish UK, as it will undoubtedly be sold by the Express and certain Tories, but as a guarantee against this very damaging episode happening again.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

One that would determine whether or not the triggering of Article 50 can be reversed, especially if in the middle of the transition period.

They are legally out by default in March 2019. If this happens they must rejoin.
Before then it can be revoked, definitely by EU27 multilaterally and most likely by UK unilaterally 'in good faith' (not as negotiating tactic). Tusk/Macron have implied the EU would look 'with kindness' on this scenario.

Harika

Leroy42 wrote: »

But once they leave, then of course the EU would welcome the UK back but at that point they would be in the driving seat (the only reason to go back in is if going out is problematic). EU would, IMO, demand that the UK fully sign-up to the EU, none of this opt-out stuff. So the likes of the Euro. UK would be fast-tracked back in (over night?) but there will be a price to pay. Not to punish UK, as it will undoubtedly be sold by the Express and certain Tories, but as a guarantee against this very damaging episode happening again.

And that is why an exit of Brexit won't happen. EU already stated that the UK will have to pay a price for that scenario, as they spend time and money for the Brexit process.

Skedaddle

Well, it's not really in anyone's interest to have the UK just unilaterally withdraw from such a fundamental set of trade agreements. I just question how it's going to pan out politically should the whole Brexit process suddenly become derailed.

There's a real problem with what's politically desirable and what's realistic and practically possible.
While you can vote against EU membership, the implications of that in raw economic terms are something you simply will have no control over.

murphaph

demfad wrote: »

I see the transition agreement as something that wont be negotiated in time for the exit. The easiest and most likely option is an extension of A50 perhaps with some political guarantees from the UK side.
If they can agree an A50 extension (they can) then the argument for any transition weakens. A50 should be extended until UK ready to leave. This will come at considerable cost to the UK. This is UK's final payment for invoking A50 before the UK was ready.
All of this makes a 2nd referendum more likely. Remainers should but themselves time by highlighting how an A50 extension is the only logical way forward (short of full revocation).

I don't believe the EU has the appetite to extend A50 much at all. The UK would remain a full member with voting rights in that case. The EU wants to move on as well.

Harika

murphaph wrote: »

I don't believe the EU has the appetite to extend A50 much at all. The UK would remain a full member with voting rights in that case. The EU wants to move on as well.

I think this will be the way out, A50 will be extended for five years, then five more years and so on.

BonnieSituation

There's no chance of that. There's a mood becoming very prevalent that just want to be shot of that shower at that stage.

Skedaddle

There's also a question mark over the legality of any interim status as it would effectively be a bilateral trade deal (albeit temporary) without WTO approval.

Just because the UK used to be an EU member, wouldn't really justify why the UK would have zero-tarrif access to the EU or why the EU would have zero-tarrif access to the UK. It would be extremely unfair on other countries who don't get that privilege.

It could be a lot messier than people are realising and this can't be negotiated in a vacuum.

ancapailldorcha

BonnieSituation wrote: »

There's no chance of that. There's a mood becoming very prevalent that just want to be shot of that shower at that stage.

I'd say any chance of a reversal of Brexit would easily take precedence over this though. It's standard EU pragmatism. There's a reason why Tusk said what he said. Britain leaving isn't good for the EU either. It's the EU's biggest security partner and an important export market as well as being a significant net contributor.

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say any chance of a reversal of Brexit would easily take precedence over this though. It's standard EU pragmatism. There's a reason why Tusk said what he said. Britain leaving isn't good for the EU either. It's the EU's biggest security partner and an important export market as well as being a significant net contributor.

Absolutely agree.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say any chance of a reversal of Brexit would easily take precedence over this though. It's standard EU pragmatism. There's a reason why Tusk said what he said. Britain leaving isn't good for the EU either. It's the EU's biggest security partner and an important export market as well as being a significant net contributor.

I think it very much depends on how long the UK drag this out for and how much sh1te they keep trying to throw at the EU.

If things go on like they did up to the end of phase 1 I really can't see the EU doing anything but play hardball. Remember, if the UK want to come back it is an admission that they are better off in the EU, the EU will want something for all the hassle, distruption and negativity that this has caused. Remember that Brexit was imagined as the start of the breakup of the EU itself, and may yet do that. No doubting that it has negatively effected the standing of the EU.

Second, surely the EU can't just let the UK walk back in like nothing happened? You would have every country trying their luck at that rate.

Again if it was in a bubble then I completely agree, but people are watching

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think it very much depends on how long the UK drag this out for and how much sh1te they keep trying to throw at the EU.

If things go on like they did up to the end of phase 1 I really can't see the EU doing anything but play hardball. Remember, if the UK want to come back it is an admission that they are better off in the EU, the EU will want something for all the hassle, distruption and negativity that this has caused. Remember that Brexit was imagined as the start of the breakup of the EU itself, and may yet do that. No doubting that it has negatively effected the standing of the EU.

Second, surely the EU can't just let the UK walk back in like nothing happened? You would have every country trying their luck at that rate.

Again if it was in a bubble then I completely agree, but people are watching

There's a logic on one side to what you;re saying there...

But why on Earth would any member state ever try this lark? It's beyond moronic at every turn.

Brexit has just made a lot of people annoyed at the Brits and glad of the EU.