Merged Now What?

[MikeG]

They've been searching for a purpose and may now have found one.

Let me see if I've got this right. The Lib Dems are planning to stop Brexit some 2 years after it has occurred? And they think that claiming access to a time machine will somehow increase their electoral popularity?

 

[lionking]

One thing I've not seen discussed that much in the newspapers (and hardly at all prior to the result) is that Brexit is an existential threat to the EU - if that is Brexit is seen to be a success for Britain. If it is, then the clamour for other referendums across Europe, against a backdrop of ever increasing immigration, will be deafening. Another large Western European country leaves (eg Holland or France) and the whole EU edifice is going to come tumbling down. As a result, when it comes to renegotiating trade deals with the UK, it will be in the EU's very strong interest to make the UK suffer and be seen to suffer. We will be the junior partner (we need EU trade more than the EU needs our trade) in negotiations which the EU need to make as bad as possible for the UK.

As such I think there will be basically 2 options on the table - option 1, maintain access to the current economic trade treaties by continuing to pay into the EU fund and continuing to accept free movement across the EU (basically what we previously had but without the political influence) or option 2, nothing - i.e no trade deal and the UK forced to conduct bilateral negotiations with any country in the EU it wishes to trade with. If I was an EU mandarin that would be the take it or leave it offer. Sure there may be some economic impact on the EU - but relative to the threat of the break up of the EU I think this will be price that EU leaders are more than happy to pay.

Welcome back stranger. I've missed you (and your avatar). Stick around.

 

[cullennz]

No, it's not far-fetched: it is utterly ludicrous.

It wasn't "hailed" as non-binding. That's just the way our constitution is set up. However, we don't ever ignore the results of referendums. The government has no "data indicating...public opinion" other than the official referendum result.

Just grow up people, and realise that that is that. We are coming out of the EU, and that's all there is to it. There is absolutely nothing whatever on the planet is going to change that, so get used to it.

Indeed.

Mind you if everyone holds hands, looks upon a star and wishes hard enough.
...................

 

[andyandy]

Welcome back stranger. I've missed you (and your avatar). Stick around.

Hello! Good to see you too

 

[GlennB]

One thing I've not seen discussed that much in the newspapers (and hardly at all prior to the result) is that Brexit is an existential threat to the EU - if that is Brexit is seen to be a success for Britain. If it is, then the clamour for other referendums across Europe, against a backdrop of ever increasing immigration, will be deafening. Another large Western European country leaves (eg Holland or France) and the whole EU edifice is going to come tumbling down. As a result, when it comes to renegotiating trade deals with the UK, it will be in the EU's very strong interest to make the UK suffer and be seen to suffer. We will be the junior partner (we need EU trade more than the EU needs our trade) in negotiations which the EU need to make as bad as possible for the UK.

Agreed totally, on top of which the remaining EU powers are positively angry.

We've seen it before, but I won't get on that hobbyhorse here.

 

[cullennz]

On the upside. Milk and meat is going to get cheaper

 

[Craig B]

Indeed.

Mind you if everyone holds hands, looks upon a star and wishes hard enough.
...................

It'll go through, and so it must; but that doesn't mean it's a sensible decision. It was based on lies and xenophobia.

Fortunately for me I live in Scotland where there are other possibilities, based on the very different result in the referendum here.

 

[andyandy]

Agreed totally, on top of which the remaining EU powers are positively angry.

We've seen it before, but I won't get on that hobbyhorse here.

Yes - almost certainly the EU will be looking to be able to point to the UK and say to their electorate, "See, that's what happens if you leave the EU." At best it will be a complete loss of face (the same current deal without any political influence) - and that will probably be us getting off lightly. Of course, the EU could still collapse on its own accord in the next few years...

The easiest and fastest way for the EU to bring a huge economic hit to the UK is through curbing our financial services industry in London. Make it much harder to conduct European trades and watch as a large chunk of the economy relocates to the continent....removing the financial services "European passport" has already been floated.

From the FT:

The big US banks — JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley — have large operations employing tens of thousands of people in the UK. They are now preparing to shift some of this work to cities such as Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt.
The danger to the UK’s financial services sector was highlighted in comments on Saturday morning from France’s central bank governor, who warned that banks would lose “passporting” rights to operate in the EU if Britain leaves the single market.
François Villeroy de Galhau said on Saturday it was “paradoxical” to allow the City of London to operate by the EU’s rules and not be a member of the European Economic Area in the manner of Norway.
The governor of the Banque de France and an ECB governing council member told French radio: “There is a precedent, it is the Norwegian model of the European Economic Area, that would allow Britain to keep access to the single market but by committing to implement all EU rules.”
These first significant comments from a European Central Bank figure make it clear the EU will not give the British financial sector an easy transition.
Lawyers advising US investment banks have warned that the so-called passporting rights they rely on to sell products and services from Britain to EU clients could be partially or entirely abolished depending on the outcome of negotiations over the UK’s exit from the EU.
“We’ll get on with it,” said a senior executive at one large US bank. “We’ve started to think about how we put people in our existing offices and entities in Europe. We are already rebalancing our footprint.”

 

[cullennz]

It'll go through, and so it must; but that doesn't mean it's a sensible decision. It was based on lies and xenophobia.

Fortunately for me I live in Scotland where there are other possibilities, based on the very different result in the referendum here.

Totally understand.

Saw the map of voting.

Think if you have another ref' to split she will be slightly one sided!

 

[Francesca R]

The EU is a body set up to protect the interests of its members. I don't see why they couldn't decide to kick out a member whose actions damages the union. I have no doubt we would be pushing to get rid in similar circumstances.

Sounds like the kind of over reach the EU would naturally recoil from. Merkel is the one being sensible about this. The other leaders are probably blowing off steam. Somewhat understandable of course.

 

[Planigale]

The petition is at 2.7 million signatures in a bit less than three days.

I suppose they are unlikely to get 16 million, but they are certainly making progress. At this point, a good many parliamentarians are probably looking at no downside to debating this.

As you said, it was close. If the events of the last two days have been enough to change the minds of 2% of the electorate, then any hypothetical second referendum held tomorrow would be in favor or "remain".

So here is the question: if the referendum was very close (as it was), and polling data starts to show that the majority of the population no longer supports it, what should the government do? After all, the referendum was hailed as being non-binding. Should the government continue to implement policy based on a non-binding referendum if they have data indicating that public opinion has already swung away from the results of the referendum?

This is not a far fetched scenario. This was a very close vote. Anyone assuming that this is inevitable seems to act as if there were some sort of super-majority victory. There was not, a second poll held today could easily have different results.


ETA: If anything, the public seems to have been misled as to whether or not this actually was "non-binding". In practice, all parties involved seem to be treating the results as set in stone. It seems to now treated as entirely binding.

Although the rest of the EU (RoEU) are currently miffed, it is also in their power to do something about this. They could say as a democratic? body we have failed to be sensitive to the wishes of the people. They could accept this is a failing in the EU system. The EU could shift on migration and free movement enough to justify a new case being put to the people and a repeat referendum.

Do I think this will happen? No.

The EU needs to do some sole searching and ask why this happened, it is the fault of the EU for failing to be inspiring.

I do know that there is a tradition in the continental political system (by which I mean France), that it is the responsibility of the political elite to lead the people, and there has always been a view that UK elites politicians, media, academics, have consistently failed to promote the EU project.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I suppose so; I have rather assumed it would go down to the wire.

It might well but surely at some point someone is going to look at the scale of the task involved, crap their pants and deciding on who it is, either go to the EU begging for all the same terms as now and just tell us what we need to pay (i.e. Brexit in name only) or just tell them 'we're out of it' and walk away completely. Although the latter is going to be just as much work possibly so the more I think about the more I think option A looks simpler. Because let's be honest, while plenty of people want to be out of the EU there won't be many volunteering to do the work of extracting us from it.

The petition is at 2.7 million signatures in a bit less than three days.

I suppose they are unlikely to get 16 million, but they are certainly making progress. At this point, a good many parliamentarians are probably looking at no downside to debating this.

As you said, it was close. If the events of the last two days have been enough to change the minds of 2% of the electorate, then any hypothetical second referendum held tomorrow would be in favor or "remain".

So here is the question: if the referendum was very close (as it was), and polling data starts to show that the majority of the population no longer supports it, what should the government do? After all, the referendum was hailed as being non-binding. Should the government continue to implement policy based on a non-binding referendum if they have data indicating that public opinion has already swung away from the results of the referendum?

This is not a far fetched scenario. This was a very close vote. Anyone assuming that this is inevitable seems to act as if there were some sort of super-majority victory. There was not, a second poll held today could easily have different results.


ETA: If anything, the public seems to have been misled as to whether or not this actually was "non-binding". In practice, all parties involved seem to be treating the results as set in stone. It seems to now treated as entirely binding.

The vote is binding. Just not legally so. The government accepted the result and will act to implement it. Of course the prevailing public opinion may inform them as to whether it becomes the kind of Brexit in name only affair I mentioned above.

And that is why you should be summarily ignored.

Of course it's wrong to say all Leave voters are racist. It's just quite likely that if you voted Leave you are a racist. Some may have merely ticked the wrong box by mistake.

One thing I've not seen discussed that much in the newspapers (and hardly at all prior to the result) is that Brexit is an existential threat to the EU - if that is Brexit is seen to be a success for Britain. If it is, then the clamour for other referendums across Europe, against a backdrop of ever increasing immigration, will be deafening. Another large Western European country leaves (eg Holland or France) and the whole EU edifice is going to come tumbling down. As a result, when it comes to renegotiating trade deals with the UK, it will be in the EU's very strong interest to make the UK suffer and be seen to suffer. We will be the junior partner (we need EU trade more than the EU needs our trade) in negotiations which the EU need to make as bad as possible for the UK.

As such I think there will be basically 2 options on the table - option 1, maintain access to the current economic trade treaties by continuing to pay into the EU fund and continuing to accept free movement across the EU (basically what we previously had but without the political influence) or option 2, nothing - i.e no trade deal and the UK forced to conduct bilateral negotiations with any country in the EU it wishes to trade with. If I was an EU mandarin that would be the take it or leave it offer. Sure there may be some economic impact on the EU - but relative to the threat of the break up of the EU I think this will be price that EU leaders are more than happy to pay.

Yes, however it's also important that the EU doesn't tank its own economy by playing too much hardball. So the best result for them is probably an agreement that looks bad but isn't disastrous.

Let me see if I've got this right. The Lib Dems are planning to stop Brexit some 2 years after it has occurred? And they think that claiming access to a time machine will somehow increase their electoral popularity?

I agree with MikeG on something. World's finally gone mad.

On the upside. Milk and meat is going to get cheaper

If by cheaper you mean more expensive then you are right. Isolationist countries with trade barriers don't get cheaper anything even if its locally produced.

It'll go through, and so it must; but that doesn't mean it's a sensible decision. It was based on lies and xenophobia.

Fortunately for me I live in Scotland where there are other possibilities, based on the very different result in the referendum here.

And even for me that's kind of sad too.

 

[cullennz]

I second the sad comment

 

[andyandy]

Sounds like the kind of over reach the EU would naturally recoil from. Merkel is the one being sensible about this. The other leaders are probably blowing off steam. Somewhat understandable of course.

Francesca, if I remember rightly you're involved in finance? What's your take for the impact on the City of London?

 

[Planigale]

It'll go through, and so it must; but that doesn't mean it's a sensible decision. It was based on lies and xenophobia.

Fortunately for me I live in Scotland where there are other possibilities, based on the very different result in the referendum here.

Unusually Nicola slipped up here. SNP should have waited until post EU referendum to have the independence referendum. As it is there was a once in a life time vote to remain in the UK, and a UK referendum on the future of the UK. The democratic principles are clear. The SNP need to be careful, if the Northern Isles continue to vote to be part of the UK and not part of independent Scotland should they be allowed to do so? Should they have the right to go back to Norway? Because one place has a different opinion from another does not give exemption from democracy.

More interestingly, the Scottish Government might be able to insist on some form of veto as they would probably have to agree to leave the EU. Being intransigent would be a way to make the UK parliament move forward on a repeat independence referendum.

 

[Lothian]

Sounds like the kind of over reach the EU would naturally recoil from. Merkel is the one being sensible about this. The other leaders are probably blowing off steam. Somewhat understandable of course.

Indeed there will be due process. However steam blowing and ordering other countries about with threats is something the Bits have excelled at. Cameron's recent tour demanding UK concessions being an example. It makes hypocrites of those claiming we shouldn't be told what to do by other EU leaders.

 

[cullennz]

I'm going to sound thick. But it's a question I've been wondering for a fair while.

And I don't mean this in a patronising way.

Could Scotland actually run cash wise without London?

 

[Lothian]

Francesca, if I remember rightly you're involved in finance? What's your take for the impact on the City of London?

Don't think so. I follow her on Facebook, fairly sure she is an air stewardess.

 

[megaresp]

On the upside. Milk and meat is going to get cheaper

Heh, I think all ex-pat Kiwis of a certain age will have had that exact same thought.

NZ wine is extortionately expensive over here (grumble grumble bloody french mutter mutter), so I guess my fellow ex-pats can look forward to falling prices.

 

[cullennz]

Sorry mate. Other way round. Vineyards here are already ******** bricks.

You make up half our exports