Brexit: Now What? Part II

[ceptimus]

All UK referendums have been (AFAIK) of the same non-binding type.

Just imagine the wrath of the SNP if Scotland were to vote 52:48 in favour of independence next time but parliament then said, "We don't think we can deliver Scottish independence without wrecking the economy, so we've decided it's for the good of the country to not implement independence."

 

[Aepervius]

Does that mean that we should have a referendum a month to keep track of the change? When do we stop doing a referendum and pick the last result, since people's opinions can change all the time? What if they vote for Brexit again, and the separation is done by the government, and in five years they change their minds again? New referendum and request for EU membership? Until they change their minds again?

That is why nobody bloody do referendum except maybe Swiss and a few one. For one it is highly complicated to present and explain an issue like EU membership to lay people. They hear "less immigrant" from one side and something 350 million a day from another and most will never see the complete picture. And when later they get more clarity on what happens they regret.

There was far too many misinformation, and far too many people which were misled. That alone should tell you why such referendum are bloody stupid.

But if you want to do a referendum like brexit, then you have to do one on HOW to do brexit. That is the least. Note that I did not say re-do the original one, only that if you asked the people to make a leave, then they should also take the responsibility for their own stupidity and choose hard brexit, or wise up and choose keep in EU without having the power to decide anything e.g. keep freedom of movement , keep economical area, but lose all power to decide, lose MEP. That way they can REALLY chose the future policy, whether they just lose face, or if they want to cut their nose and spit in addition.

To make a referendum (a non binding one !) and then go away with it and say you can't regret now whatever we go for cutting our nose, is not democracy. It is stupidity. If you start to make a referendum go all the way, track the change of the populace attitude or DO NOT ask the plebe.

 

[Craig B]

All UK referendums have been (AFAIK) of the same non-binding type.

Just imagine the wrath of the SNP if Scotland were to vote 52:48 in favour of independence next time but parliament then said, "We don't think we can deliver Scottish independence without wrecking the economy, so we've decided it's for the good of the country to not implement independence."

I can imagine that wrath. I can also imagine the wrath if Scotland were to vote not 52:48, but 62:38 in favour of remaining in the EU, but instead gets dragged out against her wishes, to become a marginal part of some economic dystopia cooked up by May and BoJo.

Anyway, we will see what the feelings of Scottish voters are in the local government elections in May 2017.

 

[Aepervius]

One more detail :

If you were so sure of the populace choice , then asking again before formally giving the article 50 should be a formality. But that you and Ceptimus seem to be square against asking again, seem to me that you in reality guess that the referendum if done again today would go the other way around. Now who is the anti democratic one again ?

 

[Tolls]

Wait... which one is "leave"?

I knew I should have proof-read that one before hitting submit!


'yes' is, um, pro-EU...

God knows what I was thinking of.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

All UK referendums have been (AFAIK) of the same non-binding type.

Just imagine the wrath of the SNP if Scotland were to vote 52:48 in favour of independence next time but parliament then said, "We don't think we can deliver Scottish independence without wrecking the economy, so we've decided it's for the good of the country to not implement independence."

I can imagine that wrath. I can also imagine the wrath if Scotland were to vote not 52:48, but 62:38 in favour of remaining in the EU, but instead gets dragged out against her wishes, to become a marginal part of some economic dystopia cooked up by May and BoJo.

Anyway, we will see what the feelings of Scottish voters are in the local government elections in May 2017.

I'm not Scottish, but am generally in favour of Scottish independence and I would certainly hope that should Nichola win a second referendum, but, after prolonged negotiations with Westminster and the EU realise that the best independence terms she could get would be severely damaging to the Scottish economy then she would offer the Scottish people a chance to vote again, now they could see exactly what they would get.

 

[ceptimus]

I can imagine that wrath. I can also imagine the wrath if Scotland were to vote not 52:48, but 62:38 in favour of remaining in the EU

That's irrelevant. The EU referendum was a UK-wide referendum, not a regional one.

If the result had been that we had to remain in the EU despite England voting to leave, I think the English would have accepted that result with much better grace than Scots seem able to.

 

[Craig B]

One more detail :

If you were so sure of the populace choice , then asking again before formally giving the article 50 should be a formality. But that you and Ceptimus seem to be square against asking again, seem to me that you in reality guess that the referendum if done again today would go the other way around. Now who is the anti democratic one again ?

Sooner or later, the EU and the UK are going to have to agree the final terms for post exit relations between them. At that point it might be appropriate to conduct another referendum. By that time the voters will be more precisely informed about exactly what they're voting for or against.

 

[ceptimus]

By the time that the Brexit negotiations are complete, there will be zero chance of returning to the conditions that were in place before the referendum. Even in the unlikely event that the UK wanted to do that does anyone seriously believe that the EU would be prepared to offer it?

So what exactly, is anyone proposing that this putative second referendum would decide? What might the question be?

 

[3point14]

By the time that the Brexit negotiations are complete, there will be zero chance of returning to the conditions that were in place before the referendum. Even in the unlikely event that the UK wanted to do that does anyone seriously believe that the EU would be prepared to offer it?

What makes you think that?

In terms of legislation, nothing's changed and won't until Article 50's invoked.

If it hasn't been invoked, what do you think will have changed?

 

[Craig B]

By the time that the Brexit negotiations are complete, there will be zero chance of returning to the conditions that were in place before the referendum. Even in the unlikely event that the UK wanted to do that does anyone seriously believe that the EU would be prepared to offer it?

So what exactly, is anyone proposing that this putative second referendum would decide? What might the question be?

If voters decided that the conditions presented to them by the government as those which would result from proceeding with secession from the EU were acceptable, they would vote in favour of proceeding to withdraw, under these conditions.

If not, they would vote to abandon the project of withdrawing from the EU, and in that case no withdrawal would ever have taken place, and the UK would remain a member, with all the rights and responsibilities pertaining to that status, just as exist at the present time, prior to the initiation of the withdrawal process.

 

[ceptimus]

Article 50 HAS to be invoked before the negotiations can begin. That's what the rules say and that's what the EU is insisting on. EU leaders have repeatedly asserted that they will not engage in substantive negotiation prior to Article 50 being invoked.

Once Article 50 has been invoked then, regardless of what the UK may want, the EU can eject the UK (if they want to) two years later.

Of course the EU may decide to offer other terms to allow the UK to remain in the EU - but those terms will certainly be worse than the ones that exist currently. Most likely as a minimum we would lose our rebate and would be required to integrate more closely than before.

 

[Craig B]

Article 50 HAS to be invoked before the negotiations can begin. That's what the rules say and that's what the EU is insisting on. EU leaders have repeatedly asserted that they will not engage in substantive negotiation prior to Article 50 being invoked.

Once Article 50 has been invoked then, regardless of what the UK may want, the EU can eject the UK (if they want to) two years later.

Of course the EU may decide to offer other terms to allow the UK to remain in the EU - but those terms will certainly be worse than the ones that exist currently. Most likely as a minimum we would lose our rebate and would be required to integrate more closely than before.

I wonder if the Leave voters were aware of that when they cast their votes at the referendum. The EU can remove advantages we enjoy as a member, regardless of whether we accept the available terms or don't. That makes the original referendum an even more chancy operation than it at first appeared, if it necessarily results in rebate loss and even closer relations with Johnnie Foreigner!

 

[ceptimus]

Well no - because a winning vote for leave means that we will leave - not try to creep back in.

 

[Belz...]

But if you want to do a referendum like brexit, then you have to do one on HOW to do brexit.

How in the blue hell do you expect the general voter to have any clue of how to do this?

 

[Craig B]

Well no - because a winning vote for leave means that we will leave - not try to creep back in.

But the terms on which we may be required to leave are too trivial a question even to be mentioned as an object for popular consultation? Even though the very outcome of the referendum, as you say, necessarily worsens the conditions in which we would retain membership?

The referendum voters were, in that case, cynically beguiled by xenophobes and swindled by reactionaries who simply want to wreck employment and environmental legislation and financial regulation for their own short term material advantage. Once the voters waken up to this, I think we'll see some of the "wrath" you've been talking about.

 

[3point14]

Well no - because a winning vote for leave means that we will leave - not try to creep back in.

Is there no, as yet unrevealed, consequence of leaving that would cause you to change your mind? No arising, unforeseen circumstance which would make you think a rethink might be warranted?

 

[Pixel42]

So what exactly, is anyone proposing that this putative second referendum would decide? What might the question be?

Once the government have negotiated the best possible deal they can the question would be: Do you want to accept this deal and go ahead, or abandon the idea of leaving and remain in the EU?

 

[Craig B]

Once the government have negotiated the best possible deal they can the question would be: Do you want to accept this deal and go ahead, or abandon the idea of leaving and remain in the EU?

That was, and is, my view. But look at ceptimus' post #1812. Has there ever in U.K. constitutional history been a more inextricable and intractable mess than this Brexit affair?

What future historians will make of it will be worth reading, if we live long enough to see the outcome of it, I mean.

 

[MCel58]

I think there is a bit of confusion about atucle 50 there is nowhere in the treaty that allows the U.K. to withdraw it once it has been put down only the other 27 can allow it to be extended. That was a fundamental finding of the high court judgement. So the Parliament needs to be very clear about the outcomes here and why they need to vote on it.