Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

kowtow

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Raab says he was not sidelined on the job because May sidelined him Day One:

Mr Raab, who was a leading figure in the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum, insisted he had not been sidelined, telling MPs it had always been the case that Mrs May was in overall charge of the talks and the announcement amounted to some "shifting of the Whitehall deckchairs".

He said the prime minister had suggested the changes to him on the day he was offered David Davis's job and he had agreed to them.

Yup, that is my recollection more or less.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

If I remember correctly the day he was appointed it was stressed that his role would be primarily to stay at home and prepare for no deal... perhaps that was lost on him with the excitement of the appointment.

Raab's role was not to stay at home and prepare for no-deal. In fact he went to Brussels much more often, and for much longer periods, than Davis had ever done. It's true that overall direction of the negotiations lay in Downing Street, but Raab was fully involved and fully aware of progress and positions at all time. This kept him so busy that he had little time for no-deal planning - so little, in fact, that it was only about a fortnight ago that he first considered the question in enough detail to become aware of the importance of the Calais-Dover link to the UK economy. Which can only mean that he had given the matter literally no thought at all up to that point.

kowtow wrote: »

For what it's worth I think a second referendum would carry (a) a risk of an even stronger vote to leave and (b) a more significant risk of a close remain result with an even more serious breakdown in trust in democracy. The same goes for any unilateral withdrawal of A50.

There certainly is a risk associated with a second referendum although, to be honest, I think the risk of an "even stronger vote to leave" has to be a pretty remote one. I think a greater risk is a vote to remain, but on a smaller overall turnout than in 2016, leading to lasting and basically irreconcilable division over which referendum conferred the stronger or more valid mandate.

And there are other problems. I think people on all sides would have to agree that the 2016 referendum discloses problems about the integrity of the system that need to be addressed - the breaches of spending rules, the abuse of data, the lack of any mechanisim for adressing such issues in an "advisory" refendum - and the UK needs a bit of a rethink and rebuild of its referendum rules and mechanisms before conducting any more referendums. But there won't be time for that between now and March 2019 so, again, any outcome produced by a system now known to be substandard is going to be tainted.

This is definitely one of those situation where the answer to the question "how do we get to where we want to go?" has to be "well, I wouldn't start from here". But history cannot be unwritten; the UK is where it is; and as I see it:

- There isn't going to be a second referendum between now and Brexit day

- Politically, the UK pretty well has to leave the EU. Constitutionally, Parliament can call off brexit and there are arguments for doing so but, even if you're persuaded by the arguments, it would require an act of extraordinary political leadership actually to commit to and carry through such a course, and leadership of that capacity is not to be found in the current Parliament.

- But it has to be recognised that there are questions over the decision to leave, both over the integrity and adequacy of the process by which it was arrived at, and over whether it represents the majority opinion in the UK today.

- And therefore leaving should be done in a way that keeps as many future options as possible open. I think the decision does need further consideration and either reaffirmation or reversal, as the people decide, and in the meantime Brexit needs to be soft, so as to command the widest possible assent, and structure in a way that allows for both possible reversal or possible hardening, depending on what the people choose.

- Which means May's deal, or something softer, basically.

- Which happily aligns with what is politically feasible. There is limited scope for modifying the draft Withdrawal Agreement already arrived at, but none at all for modifying it in a harder direction - only a softer. This is not just, and not even mainly, a question of time. It's a question of the EU's priorities and objectives, which haven't changed since this process began and aren't going to change, and the EU's overwhelming strategic advantage in the talks, which equally isn't going to change. Brexiters who talk of going back to Brussels to negotiate, e.g., a unilateral exit from the backstop are pissing into the wind, basically. That was never on offer, and it's not on offer now.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

Primarily because the weapons available to the campaigns have evolved since 2016, and they have evolved in favour of Leave.

I have stressed repeatedly here that the Brexit vote was primarily an issue of Sovereignty - and whilst we can argue back and forth for ever here about the concept of sovereignty and pooling and sharing and globalization for the average voter the issue translates very quickly to one of National pride - and in this case it is easy to portray national pride as having been damaged.

The very fact that the UK is "being made to vote again" is a perfect background to the campaign. Few could doubt that the EU really does seem to be an impossible-to-leave construct - the hotel California of popular parlance. Add in the treatment of Theresa May in Brussels (which genuinely offended people), a few EU political speeches advocating EU Empire, EU armies etc. etc. and the scene is set for a vote to defend the Nation and Democracy.

On the other hand the original Brexit warnings - project fear - have largely not come true, the economy is booming (on the ground at least). It will be easy to portray the remainers as bad losers (which offends the British sense of fair play) and the struggle against Europe as a David vs Goliath match - all in all lots for Leave to work with and not a lot more for Remain than they had back in 2016.

I'm not making a case here - just pointing out how easy it will be to run an emotive campaign without ever going near the distasteful immigration issues etc.

Most of that is not based on reality.

When you state "Primarily because the weapons available to the campaigns have evolved since 2016", do you mean that now people are more aware of what Brexit actually means in reality?

Sovereignty is a legitimate and normal point, we in Ireland had our own issues with the EU over it. However, there is a disconnect between the wishes to being completely sovereign and having a mutual relationship with another. Do people really think that are no longer individuals when they marry?

Of course any country can leave at any time. Nothing over the last two years as said otherwise. Want the EU is saying is that you cannot simply walk away from your, sovereign, agreements without consequence and you cannot expect to retain all the benefits. The issue is that the UK has no come to terms as to whether they value future increased sovereignty over the benefits of EU integration. Make that choice and the UK have full control.

kowtow

Peregrinus wrote: »

- Which happily aligns with what is politically feasible. There is limited scope for modifying the draft Withdrawal Agreement already arrived at, but none at all for modifying it in a harder direction - only a softer. This is not just, and not even mainly, a question of time. It's a question of the EU's priorities and objectives, which haven't changed since this process began and aren't going to change, and the EU's overwhelming strategic advantage in the talks, which equally isn't going to change. Brexiters who talk of going back to Brussels to negotiate, e.g., a unilateral exit from the backstop are pissing into the wind, basically. That was never on offer, and it's not on offer now.

Agreed - and for what it is worth I think that the Brexiteers talking about going back to Brussels (Gove et. al.) are more concerned with claiming the credit for whatever generosity appears in the final text than with any real change to the deal on offer.

Hence my central case that May will actually get this through somehow.

MrMusician18

Can we please stop with this nonsense of the referendum being "advisory". It was politically binding and only legally "advisory" because parliament is sovereign.

It is not politically feasible to ignore the result.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

Yup, that is my recollection more or less.

But that's different from what you said earlier was your recollection, which was that Raab's role was to stay at home and prepare for no deal. In fact he was to be closely involved in negotiating the withdrawal agreement, even if he wasn't be be in overall charge of the negotiations.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Most of that is not based on reality.

When you state "Primarily because the weapons available to the campaigns have evolved since 2016", do you mean that now people are more aware of what Brexit actually means in reality?

Sovereignty is a legitimate and normal point, we in Ireland had our own issues with the EU over it. However, there is a disconnect between the wishes to being completely sovereign and having a mutual relationship with another. Do people really think that are no longer individuals when they marry?

Of course any country can leave at any time. Nothing over the last two years as said otherwise. Want the EU is saying is that you cannot simply walk away from your, sovereign, agreements without consequence and you cannot expect to retain all the benefits. The issue is that the UK has no come to terms as to whether they value future increased sovereignty over the benefits of EU integration. Make that choice and the UK have full control.

Your points on sovereignty are well made, but they are not the stuff of referendum campaigns. It is emotion which drives a ballot, and dented National pride is an emotive issue.

Are people more aware of what Brexit means in reality? For the most part, posters in this thread share an identical view of the implications of Brexit to that of the Remain campaign in 2016. For all the funding shenanigans the Remain campaign had by far the biggest financial resources at it's disposal, not to mention the overwhelming support of Parliament, Government, Industry and the like... it's just that the only thing which has really changed in the public eye since 2016 is that the UK has failed to get a good deal from Europe.

It's difficult to make a positive case for the EU in those circumstances (not impossible, but difficult) and easy to make a negative, pro-democracy, anti EU bully case which will resonate with the British voter.

Tell me how

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Can we please stop with this nonsense of the referendum being "advisory". It was politically binding and only legally "advisory" because parliament is sovereign.

It is not politically feasible to ignore the result.

Absolutely.
Some form of Brexit has to happen I feel. Even if this was just the version on the WA at the moment for a transition period which was extended or a decision made during that that another referendum was to be held with more facts available.

It is a dangerous practice to just say "nah, it couldn't work" even with the evidence that is out there because of the impact that could have in faith in the political/governmental system.

Democracy has a lot of problems. But it's still better than any of the alternatives in my view.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

Your points on sovereignty ..

I should have said in my first line that being reality doesn't take away from the fact that many people voted on the reasons that you alluded to.

Peregrinus

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Can we please stop with this nonsense of the referendum being "advisory". It was politically binding and only legally "advisory" because parliament is sovereign.

It is not politically feasible to ignore the result.

It's not nonsense. Let me make three points:

First, it wasn't advisory "because Parliament is sovereign". Precisely because Parliament is sovereign, Parliament can enact not only that a referfendum should be held, but that the outcome of the referendum will be legally effective, and it has done this on occasion (e.g. the referendum on whether to introduce proportional representation). It chose not to do that with the Brexit referendum.

Secondly, this make a significant difference. If the vote had had a legal effect, then anyone concerned about abuses or corruption in the voting process could have challenged that in the courts, seeking to have the effect reversed on the grounds that the referendum had not been lawfully conducted. But, since the referendum had no legal effect that could be reversed, there was no recourse to the courts. Since its for Parliament to decide what to do in response to the referendum result it's for Parliament, not the courts, to decide whether the problems with the process weaken or invalidate the political mandate conferred by the referendum result.

This, incidentally, is also the reason why the referendum did not have a qualified majority requirement, as was suggested when the referendum legislation was passed. It was argued that this was unecessary, since Parliament could evaluate the referendum result, and decide not to act on it if it felt the decision was not sufficiently decisive, or if it reflected opinion only in some parts of the country.

Finally, it matters that the referendum was advisory because the referendum didn't tell Parliament how to leave the EU. Hard brexit? Soft Brexit? Something in between? As we know, every possibie kind of brexit was promised during the election, but the referendum outcome doesn't mandate any one of them, and indeed strongly suggests that no one of them enjoys majority support. That leaves Parliament with both the power and the responsiblity of deciding what kind of Brexit is in the public interest. That wouldn't be the case with a legally effective referendum, which would have to have sought approval of specific Brexit legislation, which parliament would have to consider and enact before referendum.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

it's just that the only thing which has really changed in the public eye since 2016 is that the UK has failed to get a good deal from Europe.

I'm going to pull you up on this point. The only thing that has changed is that the reality on what was ever going to be available in terms of a deal has become apparent.

No longer can Davis et al claim that the German car companies will lead the demand for a great deal for the UK. No longer can it be claimed that the EU will sell out all and sundry to avoid losing trade.

The claims on the leave side prior to the ref, and in honesty still, have been shown to be totally ungrounded fantasies. They still have no answer to the NI issue, save for 'technology'. Untested, undetailed, no scope, no plan. Just technology.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

Your points on sovereignty are well made, but they are not the stuff of referendum campaigns. It is emotion which drives a ballot, and dented National pride is an emotive issue.

Are people more aware of what Brexit means in reality? For the most part, posters in this thread share an identical view of the implications of Brexit to that of the Remain campaign in 2016. For all the funding shenanigans the Remain campaign had by far the biggest financial resources at it's disposal, not to mention the overwhelming support of Parliament, Government, Industry and the like... it's just that the only thing which has really changed in the public eye since 2016 is that the UK has failed to get a good deal from Europe.

It's difficult to make a positive case for the EU in those circumstances (not impossible, but difficult) and easy to make a negative, pro-democracy, anti EU bully case which will resonate with the British voter.

Well, no, there's another way to look at this. The UK has failed to get a "good deal" from the EU because it was never going to get one. it was wildly unreasonable to expect tht they would, and those who misled the public into voting for Brexit on the basis of a "good deal", well, misled the public, which is in no way the fault of the EU. The people were sold a pig in a poke, with the UK's situation and prospects being radically misrepresented to them, and in a second referendum, with a more grounded-in-reality appreciation of what can and cannot be acheived by brexiting, they might well make a different choice.

Tell me how

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not nonsense. Let me make three points:

First, it wasn't advisory "because Parliament is sovereign". Precisely because Parliament is sovereign, Parliament can enact not only that a referfendum should be held, but that the outcome of the referendum will be legally effective, and it has done this on occasion (e.g. the referendum on whether to introduce proportional representation). It chose not to do that with the Brexit referendum.

Secondly, this make a significant difference. If the vote had had a legal effect, then anyone concerned about abuses or corruption in the voting process could have challenged that in the courts, seeking to have the effect reversed on the grounds that the referendum had not been lawfully conducted. But, since the referendum had no legal effect that could be reversed, there was no recourse to the courts. Since its for Parliament to decide what to do in response to the referendum result it's for Parliament, not the courts, to decide whether the problems with the process weaken or invalidate the political mandate conferred by the referendum result.

This, incidentally, is also the reason why the referendum did not have a qualified majority requirement, as was suggested when the referendum legislation was passed. It was argued that this was unecessary, since Parliament could evaluate the referendum result, and decide not to act on it if it felt the decision was not sufficiently decisive, or if it reflected opinion only in some parts of the country.

Finally, it matters that the referendum was advisory because the referendum didn't tell Parliament how to leave the EU. Hard brexit? Soft Brexit? Something in between? As we know, every possibie kind of brexit was promised during the election, but the referendum outcome doesn't mandate any one of them, and indeed strongly suggests that no one of them enjoys majority support. That leaves Parliament with both the power and the responsiblity of deciding what kind of Brexit is in the public interest. That wouldn't be the case with a legally effective referendum, which would have to have sought approval of specific Brexit legislation, which parliament would have to consider and enact before referendum.

You may be right technically speaking but the vast majority of people would likely not see it as such if parliament decided to unilaterally decide to scrap Brexit.

Euro-sceptics of which there are many, would scream blue murder that the will of the people was being undermined and that the EU were now pulling the strings entirely in West Minister.

the Parliament has been attempting to develop a workable Brexit but until it is delivered or the pain of a bad brexit is felt, there is no definitive argument to override the referendum.

It would be political suicide for many.

MrMusician18

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not nonsense. Let me make three points:

First, it wasn't advisory "because Parliament is sovereign". Precisely because Parliament is sovereign, Parliament can enact not only that a referfendum should be held, but that the outcome of the referendum will be legally effective, and it has done this on occasion (e.g. the referendum on whether to introduce proportional representation). It chose not to do that with the Brexit referendum.

Secondly, this make a significant difference. If the vote had had a legal effect, then anyone concerned about abuses or corruption in the voting process could have challenged that in the courts, seeking to have the effect reversed on the grounds that the referendum had not been lawfully conducted. But, since the referendum had no legal effect that could be reversed, there was no recourse to the courts. Since its for Parliament to decide what to do in response to the referendum result it's for Parliament, not the courts, to decide whether the problems with the process weaken or invalidate the political mandate conferred by the referendum result.

This, incidentally, is also the reason why the referendum did not have a qualified majority requirement, as was suggested when the referendum legislation was passed. It was argued that this was unecessary, since Parliament could evaluate the referendum result, and decide not to act on it if it felt the decision was not sufficiently decisive, or if it reflected opinion only in some parts of the country.

Finally, it matters that the referendum was advisory because the referendum didn't tell Parliament how to leave the EU. Hard brexit? Soft Brexit? Something in between? As we know, every possibie kind of brexit was promised during the election, but the referendum outcome doesn't mandate any one of them, and indeed strongly suggests that no one of them enjoys majority support. That leaves Parliament with both the power and the responsiblity of deciding what kind of Brexit is in the public interest. That wouldn't be the case with a legally effective referendum, which would have to have sought approval of specific Brexit legislation, which parliament would have to consider and enact before referendum.

Every referendum in the UK is advisory in the real sense since even if it stated that it were binding in the act that enabled the referendum, it could be reversed by a subsequent act of parliament.

The only reason there were not more hurdles, such as minimum turnout or super majority or all nations voting the same way was because Cameron felt he could win a straight question. Adding conditions would have empowered his critics by stacking the odds against them and not killing off the European question in the conservative party for good (which was his goal). If the simple majority voted for Brexit but the rules of the referendum meant they still lost, Cameron would have lost politically anyway.

The key thing to remind yourself of is the politically binding nature of the referendum. MPs would be signing the end of their careers if they ignored the result, only to be substituted by those that wouldn't at the next election. Ignoring the result buys time at best, the result needs to be acted on.

The only way to stop the train now is another referendum. It's telling that even the opponents of Brexit in parliament recognise this and there is no one serious calling for the result to be ignored.

listermint

Tell me how wrote: »

You may be right technically speaking but the vast majority of people would likely not see it as such if parliament decided to unilaterally decide to scrap Brexit.

Euro-sceptics of which there are many, would scream blue murder that the will of the people was being undermined and that the EU were now pulling the strings entirely in West Minister.

the Parliament has been attempting to develop a workable Brexit but until it is delivered or the pain of a bad brexit is felt, there is no definitive argument to override the referendum.

It would be political suicide for many.

I disagree,

That is in the same realm of will of the people. An obvious and exploitable tagline.


Evidently it would be quite easy to reverse article 50 with a serious discussion of what has occurred to get them to this point.

Including criminal investigations. And the massive damage to the economy and their political validity on the world stage.

Its very very very easy to pick apart the reasons if any for brexit.

There is very little to stop this from being politically expedient to do so.

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

It would be political suicide for many.

It would be a walk in the park compared to the mass political harakiri of a No Deal crashout in march.

RandomName2

Peregrinus wrote: »

Precisely because Parliament is sovereign, Parliament can enact not only that a referfendum should be held, but that the outcome of the referendum will be legally effective, and it has done this on occasion (e.g. the referendum on whether to introduce proportional representation). It chose not to do that with the Brexit referendum.

Just a point: the only occasion. The government neither wanted to have a referendum on EU membership nor wanted to carry it out if approved by the public, so were presumably giving themselves some maneuverability in the event that there was a very close vote, or low turnout.

Cameron had promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which he subsequently backed out of. He also promised a referendum on EU membership if the public gave them a majority in the general election (they did) and then promised during the campaign that although the government hoped for a remain vote, that they would carry out the will of the people either way.

Naturally none of us doubt the moral fortitude of the Commons in relation to this, but if we did, we could look at the way in which UKIP was biting on the heels of the Conservative Party and were gaining rapidly in strength. The referendum actually torpedoed their support, as witnessed in the subsequent general election, as their purpose is largely spent if Brexit occurs.

So if the MPs had decided not to legislate for a process of withdrawal, the Conservatives, and to a lesser extent Labor, would have seen their support hemorrhage to UKIP. So, it was a promise which helped Cameron win an election, but one he probably ultimately regrets.

I'm not sure if the Scottish independence referendum was legally binding (the Scottish referendum being another of Cameron's promises). Certainly all EU referenda in the UK have been non-binding (including joining in the first place).

breatheme

If there were a Second Referendum, and Leave with no deal were on the ballot, I would be extremely concerned. Everyone was so sure that the UK would vote Remain and look at what happened.

That is not to say I don't support it, I'm just... Extremely worried about the whole thing, that's all.

MrMusician18

breatheme wrote: »

If there were a Second Referendum, and Leave with no deal were on the ballot, I would be extremely concerned. Everyone was so sure that the UK would vote Remain and look at what happened.

That is not to say I don't support it, I'm just... Extremely worried about the whole thing, that's all.

They won't be that stupid again. It will be leave with the deal or remain if they vote a second time. 50%+1 and you won't see the referendum used as a tool in British politics for a long long time.

breatheme

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They won't be that stupid again. It will be leave with the deal or remain if they vote a second time. 50%+1 and you won't see the referendum used as a tool in British politics for a long long time.

I would hope so. The Brexiteers however, would say that it does undermine the result of the first one. I would counter, however, that many Brexiteers had the opportunity to steer the Brexit ship and they all refused. (Most notably, BoJo not rising to the task of being PM.) Farage would be furious. Personally, I wouldn't care, and I also think that maybe... Remain would comfortably win. If those were the two choices.

Now. What would a possible timeline be?

- House of Common votes down the Deal
- May calls the 2nd Referendum
- ??? Remain wins ???
- ??? Article 50 is revoked ???

Is there time for all of this? The 2nd Referendum would have to be run in January at the latest, no?

Thoughts?

Infini

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Can we please stop with this nonsense of the referendum being "advisory". It was politically binding and only legally "advisory" because parliament is sovereign.

It is not politically feasible to ignore the result.

It wasnt legally binding only advisory. Politically binding is meaningless since theres nothing LEGALLY BINDING them. Also they havent ignored the result they have gone and tried delivering Brexit but whats happened is all the BS from the referendum has been shown to be lies and desceit. All their talk about easiest trade deal in history has been crushed by the hard legal truth of reality.

Truth is the HoC has been presented with an unpalatable deal but the only other viable option is remain. Thats the hard reality. Crashing out is not an option the MPs in the HoC arent all stupid only the Brexiteers and they know that if push comes to shove most know it would be better to put country before party politics than see a crashout Brexit ultimately break up the UK.

I honestly think May will cancel Brexit if she cant get the agreement through for all her faults she knows that she is only in this mess ultimately because of the Brexiteers and those who could not agree to a viable plan and the European Troll Group cant get enough to oust her. If she wants to stick the knife into them as a last kick should parliment fail to pass the WA she could ditch the brexiteers put a vote to parliment to cancel Brexit and should that pass can resign or call a GE knowing she wont be the one to go down for this.

seamus

breatheme wrote: »

If there were a Second Referendum, and Leave with no deal were on the ballot, I would be extremely concerned. Everyone was so sure that the UK would vote Remain and look at what happened.

People weren't that sure, tbh. The polls were tight towards the end and most people expected Remain to win with a tight margin, because it was obviously the sane choice.

Brexit and Trump in the same year, woke a lot of people up in the west to how easily a vote can swing if you are apathetic about it. Subsequent votes where there was a big concern about further right-wing shifts, didn't materialise because the majority mobilised themselves to get out and vote.

This was illustrated in the perfectly-timed French presidential election, where Le Pen was polling as the front-runner around the time that Brexit happened and Trump got elected.

By the time the actual election swung around 6 months later, all the talk was wondering whether she could finally do it, would the "Trump effect" put her in charge?

No. She got flattened. Because people came out in large numbers to cast their vote, after seeing just how easy it was for a single vote to change the course of a country.

That's not to say I don't think Leave will have a large contingent behind it. But I also think British people have realised the long-term importance of this and just how much trouble they'll be in, if it's allowed to continue.

briany

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They won't be that stupid again. It will be leave with the deal or remain if they vote a second time. 50%+1 and you won't see the referendum used as a tool in British politics for a long long time.

If it gets to deal or remain, I shudder to think about the festering anger that the both the fact of a 2nd referendum and the choice on offer would engender in the remaining Brexiteers among the British public. It could get pretty ugly over there.
That said, remaining would still be preferable for them, overall, despite the potential trouble. Nigel Farage will love it, though. The established parties will have given UKIP every reason to keep on existing and basically have written their whole campaign platform for the next GE.

But the British would be wise to remember that their situation is fairly unique among European countries with Northern Ireland and that being tied to a remaining EU member through agreements all parties are (ostensibly) committed to maintaining. So it wouldn't be quite that 'democracy is over', as Farage will no doubt claim, but the British being stuck in a classic 'here's 3 - pick two' situation.

An Ciarraioch

Bloomberg reporting that the summit could be cancelled - still very much an outside possibility, but where would that leave matters:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/eu-raises-doubts-over-brexit-summit-as-may-holds-brussels-talks

MrMusician18

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Bloomberg reporting that the summit could be cancelled - still very much an outside possibility, but where would that leave matters:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/eu-raises-doubts-over-brexit-summit-as-may-holds-brussels-talks

It would probably leave us with a currency crisis.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

If it gets to deal or remain, I shudder to think about the festering anger that the both the fact of a 2nd referendum and the choice on offer would engender in the remaining Brexiteers among the British public. It could get pretty ugly over there.
That said, remaining would still be preferable for them, overall, despite the potential trouble. Nigel Farage will love it, though. The established parties will have given UKIP every reason to keep on existing and basically have written their whole campaign platform for the next GE.

But the British would be wise to remember that their situation is fairly unique among European countries with Northern Ireland and that being tied to a remaining EU member through agreements all parties are (ostensibly) committed to maintaining. So it wouldn't be quite that 'democracy is over', as Farage will no doubt claim, but the British being stuck in a classic 'here's 3 - pick two' situation.

At the end of the day, if a People's Vote is achieved and the electorate votes to Remain in the EU it only serves to restore the status quo which is what lead to Brexit to begin with.

While I am still in favor of remaining with or without a new plebiscite, at best it will be a first step to fixing the problems the UK faces and, in some instances has created for itself; namely appalling economic inequality, deep divisions in society with a widespread and not terribly off the mark feeling that the system is rigged in favor of elites, the impact of austerity cuts which have left some local public services shocking under-resourced (just one example) and an utterly broken democracy where membership of the upper house can be bought and is wholly unelected while the lower house can be won with little over a third of the popular vote and don't even start me on this foodbank business.

Leroy42

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Bloomberg reporting that the summit could be cancelled - still very much an outside possibility, but where would that leave matters:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/eu-raises-doubts-over-brexit-summit-as-may-holds-brussels-talks

It seems that not only does the UK have a massive issue with the deal, some EU countries are having some issues with it as well.

Part of me thinks that it is mainly as a warning to the UK to not even bother trying to reopen the negotiation as that will result in many EU countries looking to increase the terms for the EU.

Firblog

Forgive me if this has been asked previously; if a 2nd referendum were to take place and the result was 'remain', can that actually happen? Is it not the case that - having triggered the exit process - Britain HAS to exit the EU? Legally can they unring the Brexit bell?

An Ciarraioch

Firblog wrote: »

Forgive me if this has been asked previously; if a 2nd referendum were to take place and the result was 'remain', can that actually happen? Is it not the case that - having triggered the exit process - Britain HAS to exit the EU? Legally can they unring the Brexit bell?

They can do whatever they wish before March 29th, but if the process is likely to take some time, they would probably need an extension to Article 50.

ancapailldorcha

Firblog wrote: »

Forgive me if this has been asked previously; if a 2nd referendum were to take place and the result was 'remain', can that actually happen? Is it not the case that - having triggered the exit process - Britain HAS to exit the EU? Legally can they unring the Brexit bell?

The EU, along with the leaders of multiple member states have said on numerous occasions that Brexit can be reversed. Brexit isn't good for anyone save for Putin and the moneymen behind Farage & co. I believe that member states would only be too happy for this fell project to be binned for good. It's bad for Europeans, bad for the British and bad for EU members though the UK most of all and Ireland second.

Lord Kerr, the British architect of Article 50 thinks that not only can its triggering be withdrawn but that it can be done so unilaterally. A European Court will be deciding this on the 27th November.