** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[661-Pete]

For anyone who seriously wants to raise the grim spectre of capital punishment once more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbEjy3Y1_I
The scene is from the film Let Him Have It, concerning the wrongful execution of Derek Bentley.

[slowster]

Well in that case the supporters of brexit should have just accepted the result of the 1972 referendum.

Many of those supporters believe they were misled. My whole point is that for a referendum on an issue like this, even though in many respects it is complex, nuanced and far from black and white, there needs to be a broad consensus that the electorate was given reasonably accurate information by both sides of the campaign, otherwise it fails to resolve the issue and just paves the way for continuing damaging division. This is far more critical for a referendum than for a General Election, because a party that grossly misleads the electorate in a GE knows that it will probably be punished severely at the next and subsequent GEs. The one-off nature of a referendum to leave the EU makes it highly prone to misleading campaigning (on both sides, albeit to very differing degrees) because there is no likelihood of it being reversed and less likelihood of the campaigners being punished in future at the ballot box for misleading the electorate.

Oh and Mr. Farage himself said “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”.

It doesn't matter what Farage says unless it has traction with a large enough percentage of the electorate. If as a collective whole the electorate believes it has made a decision for better or worse based on a clear choice, and there is no appetite to revisit the issue, then that is all that matters. UKIP has already seen its share of the vote in elections collapse, which suggests that many no longer see it as politically necessary or relevant.

What you describe isn't fundamental to democracy.

Collective decision making by means of a popular vote, and the outcome of that vote being respected by the losing side are the definition of democracy.

Using your definition if one political party wins a general election then those opposed to it should just shut up, never criticise and accept all it's decisions until the next election.

Which I said never: a hyperbolic straw man argument. Our system of representative democracy includes the means for the losing side to hold the winning party to account in Parliamentary debates and questions, to object to/amend proposed new laws in votes in Parliament, and to scrutinise the workings of government in Parliamentary committees.

As I said democracy is something more than the tyranny of the 51% you appear to think it is. You seem to be saying that even if Brexit is a complete cockup and causes great damage to Britain's economy and standards of living people opposed to it should just accept it and say It's the will of the majority and we can't do anything about it until the next generation - which generation could well be having their life chances and education affected by the poor economic conditions in the country.

If there was a further referendum now, and the majority voted to accept the deal, or even voted for a no deal hard Brexit, given the extent to which the potential consequences of both are now much clearer to the electorate, then I would say that that decision would have to be respected. The Treasury's forecasts state that the UK will experience lower growth outside the EU, so if the electorate votes for that, then Parliament is mandated to implement it. If the consequences of Brexit proved to be so disastrous that there was a massive swing in public opinion to reverse it, then of course I am not suggesting that they would have to wait a generation.

However, if the support for remaining and leaving continued to be finely balanced after a Brexit, then I don't think it would be good to revisit the issue when the opinion polls finally showed, say, 51% in favour of re-joining. Whether we stay in or out, that needs to be a decision taken for the medium to long term, and once taken the UK needs to focus on making that decision a success. Moreover, once we have left the EU, I expect that there would be no willingness on the part of the 27 members to re-admit the UK any time soon, if at all. Brexit has been a time consuming distraction for them, and will reportedly hurt their economies as well. The UK has already shown that it was far less committed to the EU than the other members, so it would probably find it quite hard to re-join, despite its financial contribution.

In any case if you believe what you say there's already been a vote which should be respected by the "losers" so no need for another referendum.

That's exactly the opposite of what I've said, which is that the process of the 2016 referendum was flawed by misleading claims and a vote on something where people were asked to choose between a sort of status quo vs. alternative (fantasy) futures outside the EU which varied between campaigners and contained some highly contentious claims/promises, and that a further referendum should be held now that the choices are much clearer (as clear as they will ever be), and that consequently the validity of a further referendum would not be open to the level of criticism of the 2016 referendum.

It's simplistic though to portray something as complex as leaving the EU as merely being about a winning and losing a side as if it were a game rounders.

Indeed it is complex, but it has to be a simple choice: in/out, deal or no deal. A decision has to be taken, and it then needs to be seen through. My point is that in many respects how that decision is taken, i.e. its validity in the general view of the electorate, is in some ways as important as whatever choice is made. I suspect that in the longer term Britain can probably make a success of it whatever the choice, but I also suspect that I will be one of the many individuals who will lose out by Brexit.

[Psamathe]

For me the question of a 3rd referendum arrises because it looks like the Government will completely fail to deliver what the referendum campaigners promised and there is increasing questions about Banks and his funding and it's legality (courts deciding on voiding the referendum in Dec (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-void-high-court-ruling-arron-banks-investigation-when-december-christmas-a8649001.html - and May is wasting more taxpayers money fighting it again).

It is only now becoming apparent how much damage the Brexit the Government are pursuing is likely to do to the UK economy. I think Ms Wollaston expresses it best when she talks about "informed consent" - if you are not given true information you cannot make informed consent.

Ian

[pete75]

Oh and Mr. Farage himself said “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”.

It doesn't matter what Farage says unless it has traction with a large enough percentage of the electorate. If as a collective whole the electorate believes it has made a decision for better or worse based on a clear choice, and there is no appetite to revisit the issue, then that is all that matters. UKIP has already seen its share of the vote in elections collapse, which suggests that many no longer see it as politically necessary or relevant.

Of course it matters. Your view is that us remainers should just shut up and accept the results of EU leaving referenda regardless of how close the vote is. Farage indicates that were the vote to go the other way leavers certainly wouldn't do the same. If that happened UKIP support would pick up though one of the reasons UKIP support has fallen is that May's Tory party has , to a large extent, turned into UKIP.

I still don't accept your simplistic view that there's no more to democracy than the tyranny of the 51%. What would you say to the Scots who voted 62% - 38% for their country to remain in the EU after they were told during the independence referendum they would no longer be in the EU if they voted for independence.

Second(third) referendum or not this will continue to be a discussed and divisive issue for many years to come and much as you appear to want the voices of remainers to be silenced they will not be.

[slowster]

Your view is that us remainers should just shut up and accept the results of EU leaving referenda regardless of how close the vote is.

I never said that. You keep criticising me for views which you ascribe to me, and for words which you are trying to put in my mouth. I think I have been quite clear in my posts, which you seem determined to continue to misconstrue. At no point have I said that remainers should shut up. For the last time (and I will not bother replying again to your posts), I am saying that the process by which the UK leaves or stays in the EU needs to be one which the losing side recognises as being democratic, reasonably fair, and one where the choice is as clear as it can be, without the vote being swayed by false and unrealistic promises, and hence I think a third referendum is the best way to achieve that.

Farage indicates that were the vote to go the other way leavers certainly wouldn't do the same. If that happened UKIP support would pick up though one of the reasons UKIP support has fallen is that May's Tory party has , to a large extent, turned into UKIP.

Maybe, and then again maybe not. If there were another referendum and the vote were to remain, even if it were close I think it would have two important consequences. Firstly, now that we know what sort of deal is on offer (rather than the false promises of Davis, Johnson and Fox et al.) and now the potential disastrous consequences of no deal are better understood by MPs and the electorate, UKIP and the supporters of brexit would find it much harder to win support from those who don't necessarily like the EU but will neverthless vote in whatever they consider is their financial interest. Secondly, having seen what a damaging process the 2016 referendum and its outcome was and continues to be, I think there would be much stronger resistance amongst most MPs against holding any more referenda once the current mess is resolved one way or another. The Conservative Party committed to hold the referendum in its manifesto because it was losing votes to UKIP (and Cameron possibly thought that there would be another coalition with the Liberals who would vote against holding a referendum and so give him an excuse for failing to deliver on the manifesto commitment). I suspect many MPs now consider that the referendum and its outcome have been more harmful for the Conservative Party than if they had not made it a manifesto commitment.

What would you say to the Scots who voted 62% - 38% for their country to remain in the EU after they were told during the independence referendum they would no longer be in the EU if they voted for independence.

Well I think that it was factually correct that Scotland would no longer have been in the EU if it became independent. As for the changes that have occurred since the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, including the 2016 Leave Referendum, as Harold MacMillan said, "Events, my dear boy, events".

I still don't accept your simplistic view that there's no more to democracy than the tyranny of the 51%....Second(third) referendum or not this will continue to be a discussed and divisive issue for many years to come and much as you appear to want the voices of remainers to be silenced they will not be.

As I have said, I am not suggesting that people should be silenced, and I have no illusions that everyone would be happy with the outcome of a third referendum whatever the result.

Instead of castigating me for views which I do not hold, please tell us what you consider the right course of action would be. To copy your habit of ascribing views to me which I don't hold and trying to put words into my mouth, I'll suggest that your posts indicate that you want to remain in the EU by any means, including undemocratic ones, and that your rejection of tyranny by the majority means that the minority should be able to stop Brexit. In short, you don't believe in democracy.

[Canuk]

Most of the above is moot - there's not going to be another referendum. It suits never labour nor the tory agendas to have one. It's seems likely May's deal will be voted down mid December. In which case she has 21 days to come back to Parliament with a better one. There probably isn't any wiggle room left in Brussels, so the second vote is likely to fail too. After that you're in snap General Election territory - the chaos will be incredible. The pound will fall like a stone and industry will panic, especially foreign owned industry. As soon as one of the big names announces its departure, the rest are dominoes. Financial services will put their worst case scenario plans in place and get off this sinking skip for Paris/Berlin/Brussels. The cry will be 'ABB': Anywhere but Britain. If all the Tories have to offer is a hard Brexit and an old guard fool like Davis/BoJo/ReesMoggery they can't win. Even if its close enough the DUP won't support them. Once bitten..

I'm making these simple predictions now, November 26th. Forget about 'another referendum' dreams. A GE is waiting in the wings, what a labour government might do in power vis a vis Brexit is anybodys guess - but we're not leaving Europe anytime soon. I reckon whoever puts a soft exit or 'let's forget about the whole thing' deal on the table is a shoe in for government. Watch the Tories back peddling like crazy. A GE has been a long time coming IMO.

Like I've said previously, Canada /EU trade deal = 8 years to its conclusion. Brexit = xx years, if ever.

[bovlomov]

Most of the above is moot - there's not going to be another referendum.

I wouldn't be so definite. We have a media tide that can turn in a moment, a volatile public opinion swayed this way and that by a few slogans, an unprincipled government, an unprincipled parliament, and a civil service working with crumbling constitutional etiquette.

While it's hard to see where another referendum will come from, I wouldn't rule it out. There may come a time when it will suit just about everyone - including the EU.

Give it a week or so, and I wouldn't be surprised if Boris Johnson was the leading proponent of a second referendum.

[reohn2]

Most of the above is moot - there's not going to be another referendum.

I wouldn't be so definite. We have a media tide that can turn in a moment, a volatile public opinion swayed this way and that by a few slogans, an unprincipled government, an unprincipled parliament, and a civil service working with crumbling constitutional etiquette.

While it's hard to see where another referendum will come from, I wouldn't rule it out. There may come a time when it will suit just about everyone - including the EU.

Give it a week or so, and I wouldn't be surprised if Boris Johnson was the leading proponent of a second referendum.

Yer not wrong Bov,anything,but anything can happen,in a moment.
And the UK has shown itself up for what it is,as bent as a nine bob note.
It's sickening to wittness.

[Psamathe]

Most of the above is moot - there's not going to be another referendum. It suits never labour .....

I'm unsure about that. Certainly it does not suit the Corbyn/McDonnell team but the membership (incl Momentum & unions) seem to be taking a very different view and it is now at the point where Corbyn/McDonnell have to decide if they are going to push the party their way or the way of the membership.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Most of the above is moot - there's not going to be another referendum.

I wouldn't be so definite. We have a media tide that can turn in a moment, a volatile public opinion swayed this way and that by a few slogans, an unprincipled government, an unprincipled parliament, and a civil service working with crumbling constitutional etiquette.

While it's hard to see where another referendum will come from, I wouldn't rule it out. There may come a time when it will suit just about everyone - including the EU.

Give it a week or so, and I wouldn't be surprised if Boris Johnson was the leading proponent of a second referendum.

Plus May is very good at strongly insisting something wont happen until the instant she announces it is going to happen. At this point proponents of May's arrangement have to strongly insist there will be no 3rd referendum as to do otherwise would make MPs feel more comfortable about voting against the offered deal.

May, deal supporters & EU have to insist it's this deal or nothing - where reality is this is not the only deal on offer. They are saying that to discourage opposition to the deal. It might be the only offer given the vas number of red lines May imposted before anything started but red lines can be moved and that can open up other options (e.g. "Norway" - which would be quick, meet the result of the referendum as we would leave the EU, etc.).

Ian

[mjr]

I understand that some legal opinion ( reported some time ago ) reckoned we owe them nowt, so maybe not black and white

One problem is that if we leave paying nothing then the EU would obviously pay nothing towards incomplete started projects in the UK and UK euro MP pensions, so there would be a welter of court cases in various directions as Farage and others asked for legal rulings on who pays their pensions and companies working on EU-funded projects try to recover what they've paid out (as EU projects tend to pay in arrears - sometimes long in arrears).

I expect there's been some estimation that £39bn is cheaper than the court case costs + probable liabilities from court rulings + bad publicity from the UK government being seen as shafting UK businesses and euro MPs.

[mjr]

[...] but red lines can be moved and that can open up other options (e.g. "Norway" - which would be quick, meet the result of the referendum as we would leave the EU, etc.).

How would "Norway" be quick? Negotiating rejoining EFTA would take a while - how long did it take the first time? Would Leavers really accept joining the Schengen Area, single market and swapping the ECJ for the EFTA Court?

[Psamathe]

[...] but red lines can be moved and that can open up other options (e.g. "Norway" - which would be quick, meet the result of the referendum as we would leave the EU, etc.).

How would "Norway" be quick? Negotiating rejoining EFTA would take a while - how long did it take the first time? Would Leavers really accept joining the Schengen Area, single market and swapping the ECJ for the EFTA Court?

Norway quick: Quick in terms of we would not have to negotiate what we will and wont do. We would be joining a club with existing rules we would have to comply with. I agree it's not a "say yes" and next day you're in but it would be a lot quicker than starting from scratch again trying to find some mythical "special arrangement". I suspect that were the UK Parliament to decide "Norway" the EU would likely grant an extension of Article 50 to allow those negotiations to take place - they might need some convincing about the intent being stable but my own opinion is that they would grant Art 50 extensions only for EFTA or remain in EU.

Leavers Accepting EFTA: Maybe not but we would be meeting the decision of the referendum and they are not accepting May's offering anyway. You raise a number of interesting considerations e.g. I wonder how much the Leave voting electorate were really anti-ECJ.

Ian

[mjr]

For the last 40 years British politics and political leadership has been damaged by the constant warring between EU supporters and the Eurosceptics, who - with good justification - argued that the British electorate was misled in the first referendum into believing that the EEC as it was then was purely a trading bloc, rather than a project seeking ever greater political union. If MPs take it on their own authority to vote either for the current deal or a 'no deal' hard Brexit, we shall likely have another generation of division and bitterness both in Parliament and in the wider public: those who wanted to remain will argue that the 2016 referendum was won by a campaign which was based on lies and whose promises have been broken, and those who did want to leave, but not under the deal that is currently offered or not in a hard no deal Brexit, will feel betrayed.

The "ever greater political union" is a key lie of the Leave campaign. The EU treaty doesn't say that, it doesn't mean that and the Commission President is currently lead by an anti-federalist! The line in the treaty is about working for ever closer union of the peoples of Europe - what's the Leave alternative? Staying divided and having country played off against country by the larger ones like Russia, the USA and China? Hoping that one day we might get lucky and be the pawn that reaches the far end and becomes the queen to China's king?

A 67-32 Remain vote in the 1975 referendum led to the losing side carping on for 40 years until they got another. The recent 52-48 Leave vote probably means at least 40 years of pressure, especially with all the blatant headline lies (£350m/NHS/Turkey) and illegal funding used to get that 52%.

[roubaixtuesday]

Would Leavers really accept joining the Schengen Area, single market and swapping the ECJ for the EFTA Court?

1. Schengen

Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements and they all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis.

http://www.efta.int/faq

2. EFTA Court and ECJ.

From the political declaration

133. Unless otherwise provided, the Joint Committee may agree to refer the dispute to an
independent arbitration panel at any time, and either Party should be able to do so where
the Joint Committee has not arrived at a mutually satisfactory resolution within a defined
period of time. The decisions of the independent arbitration panel will be binding on the
Parties.
134. Should a dispute raise a question of interpretation of Union law, which may also be
indicated by either Party, the arbitration panel should refer the question to the CJEU as the
sole arbiter of Union law, for a binding ruling. The arbitration panel should decide the
dispute in accordance with the ruling given by the CJEU. Where a Party considers that the
arbitration panel should have referred a question of interpretation of Union law to the
CJEU, it may ask the panel to review and provide reasons for its assessment

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... eclaration

In other words, there is an independent arbitration panel (roughly equivalent to EFTA court) but if the EU decides the matter under dispute is an interpretation of EU law, they have the right to refer to the ECJ. So we wil be under the direct juristiction of something similar to EFA court, and that will be subservient to ECJ on EU law interpretation.

3. "Would Leavers accept..."?

The leading lights of the leave campaign, it is very obvious, will accept nothing other than unicorns and ambrosia. Predicating anything on what is "acceptable" to "Leavers" is, frankly, impossible in the real world.