Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit referendum and negotiations 2016-18

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post
    Brexiteers will insist that they did, despite the fact that that is still self evidently factually untrue two years later.

    The Government still doesn't know what sort of Brexit it's intending to negotiate, so how could voters know what they're getting?

    I believe a lot of them had a clear idea of what they hoped it would mean. But that's really not the same thing, and precisely why there should never have been a referendum in the first place. There was no binary decision to put to the public.

    I saw a Tory minister on Question Time saying "You can't start second guessing now, and saying "well, what people were really voting for was...". I thought that was breathtakingly dishonest in a situation where just that sort of ambiguity has been baked into the process.

    The Brexit campaign set out a false prospectus. Hannan saying that no one was questioning single market status. Farage saying "what's so terrible about being like Norway or Switzerland". The insistence that German car manufacturers would shape the EUs position. The "they need us more than we need them" lies. The 350m a week for the NHS.....all lies. Anyone who believed them didn't know what they were voting for.

    And anyone who didn't believe them, but decided to vote for people they knew were lying anyway, still can't tell anyone what it means.

    I don't think there's any question at all. No one knows what Brexit is until there's a deal on the table. And the referendum did not mandate whatever deal comes back.
    I think Cowboy's point is that even with a new Treaty between the EU27 and UK on the table in October (unlikely as that is) the UK electorate would simply not understand what it means specifically and would not be able to assess its long term implications. The inability to have a well informed public debate in the current political climate would render a 2nd referendum to be every bit as much of a sham as the first one.

    I would agree with that to be honest, though it is a very slippery slope because ultimately most people know very little about very little and that can't be an argument against democracy.

    Comment


      Originally posted by AwayFromHome View Post
      I think Cowboy's point is that even with a new Treaty between the EU27 and UK on the table in October (unlikely as that is) the UK electorate would simply not understand what it means specifically and would not be able to assess its long term implications. The inability to have a well informed public debate in the current political climate would render a 2nd referendum to be every bit as much of a sham as the first one.

      I would agree with that to be honest, though it is a very slippery slope because ultimately most people know very little about very little and that can't be an argument against democracy.

      Certain principles would be clear though - freedom of movement, tariff levels, supposed cost savings etc.

      If an ill informed public debate can take the UK out in the first place, then I think it's difficult to argue that a 2nd referendum on the actual deal would be invalid on that basis.

      At least it would be a binary vote on a take it or leave it offer. "This is Brexit. Stay or go?"
      "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

      "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


      "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

      Comment


        Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post
        Certain principles would be clear though - freedom of movement, tariff levels, supposed cost savings etc.

        If an ill informed public debate can take the UK out in the first place, then I think it's difficult to argue that a 2nd referendum on the actual deal would be invalid on that basis.

        At least it would be a binary vote on a take it or leave it offer. "This is Brexit. Stay or go?"
        What does stay mean? What does go mean? Far from binary unless you have a proper referendum commission with a budget and rules against fake news by the public broadcasters.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        Comment


          I would side with AfH on this, even with the deal on the table you'll have auld BoJo and Scrotum Farage wandering in front of every tv camera they can find invoking the spirit of 'Thyee Empyyyyrre and Glorious Albion' and continuing to hoodwink the ill informed and ill educated.

          Fitzys newspaper front pages made me giggle, do the 16 odd million who voted remain count for nothing in the offices of The Daily Express?


          Even with a deal on the table the populace cannot be trusted to figure it out for themselves en masse

          Give out about them all you like, but the Euroweenies told us keep voting on the Lisbon treaty until we got it right
          I am the million man.

          Comment


            Originally posted by The Last Stand View Post
            What does stay mean? What does go mean? Far from binary unless you have a proper referendum commission with a budget and rules against fake news by the public broadcasters.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
            Stay means the status quo that existed before A50, with the obvious possibilities of future reforms within the EUs existing structures.

            Leave means accepting the negotiated position that the UK team brings back from Brussels, with definite positions on the CU, the SM, FoM, access and tariffs, the NI border etc etc.

            Some Brexiteers would still just bang on about global trade blah blah. And some people might not understand the choice they were being asked to make.

            But at least it would be an actual choice between two actual things.
            "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

            "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


            "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

            Comment


              Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post
              Stay means the status quo that existed before A50, with the obvious possibilities of future reforms within the EUs existing structures.

              Leave means accepting the negotiated position that the UK team brings back from Brussels, with definite positions on the CU, the SM, FoM, access and tariffs, the NI border etc etc.

              Some Brexiteers would still just bang on about global trade blah blah. And some people might not understand the choice they were being asked to make.

              But at least it would be an actual choice between two actual things.
              I'm not so versed on the matter but is it even possible for the UK to stay under the existing conditions? I was under the impression that after A50, any attempt to stay would mean accepting the conditions that all new members are bound to (e.g. Eurozone)

              Comment


                Originally posted by CP09 View Post
                I'm not so versed on the matter but is it even possible for the UK to stay under the existing conditions? I was under the impression that after A50, any attempt to stay would mean accepting the conditions that all new members are bound to (e.g. Eurozone)
                There has been some discussions about this.

                - the U.K. can (probably) send a new letter which withdraws the previous article 50 notification before 29 March 2019 and the status quo remains.

                - if they leave and want to rejoin then it is likely they will have to accept the Euro. All countries except Denmark and UK(I think) have the obligation to join the Euro but there are economic criteria to meet and there has to be a willingness. They will also lose their considerable opt outs/opt ins they currently have (Ireland and Denmark have some also but there are different procedures).

                Comment


                  Originally posted by CP09 View Post
                  I'm not so versed on the matter but is it even possible for the UK to stay under the existing conditions? I was under the impression that after A50, any attempt to stay would mean accepting the conditions that all new members are bound to (e.g. Eurozone)
                  Legal opinion I've seen is that the declaration of A50 is revokable.

                  Re-entry would require the changes you mention, and Tory ministers are already obfuscating in public about the conditions imposed on new entrants.

                  The UK hasn't left the EU. It would simply revoke its stated intention to leave.
                  "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

                  "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


                  "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

                  Comment


                    And it's that that I'd base my view of Ref2 on - a straight choice between the exit package that has been negotiated, and revoking A50 and staying put.
                    Last edited by Balla Boy; 12th-June-2018, 13:13.
                    "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

                    "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


                    "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

                    Comment


                      Cheers for the clarifications!

                      Comment


                        I don't think there is any likelihood of a second referendum between here and next March. By the time they hammer out a deal, it'll be too late.

                        To be fair, at this stage anything is possible I suppose..
                        Please support Milford Hospice. Click here to donate.

                        Comment


                          Brexit referendum and negotiations 2016-18

                          Below is the full text of a statement issued by British justice minister Phillip Lee on Tuesday announcing his resignation over the government’s Brexit strategy.

                          Resigning as a minister from the Government is a very difficult decision because it goes against every grain in my soul. The very word resign conveys a sense of giving up, but that is the last thing I will do. I take public service seriously and responsibly. That is the spirit that has always guided me as a doctor and continues to guide me as a politician.

                          For me, resigning is a last resort - not something that I want to do but something I feel I must do because, for me, such a serious principle is being breached that I would find it hard to live with myself afterwards if I let it pass. I come to this decision after a great deal of personal reflection and discussion with family, friends and trusted colleagues.

                          The main reason for my taking this decision now is the Brexit process and the Government’s wish to limit Parliament’s role in contributing to the final outcome in a vote that takes place today.

                          If, in the future, I am to look my children in the eye and honestly say that I did my best for them I cannot, in all good conscience, support how our country’s exit from the EU looks set to be delivered.

                          As a Member of Parliament, I also have a major responsibility to my constituency of Bracknell. In extensive consultations with local employers, both large and small, I have been warned that they expect Brexit as it is currently being pursued, whatever the negotiated settlement, will damage their business.

                          I have spoken to people, many of whom have lived, worked and raised their family here, whose fears for their futures I am not always able to allay. Regrettably, it seems inevitable that the people, economy and culture of my constituency will be affected negatively, and I cannot ignore that it is to them that I owe my first responsibility.

                          Sadly, from within government I have found it virtually impossible to help bring sufficient change to the course on which we are bound.

                          I voted to remain in the European Union and have not changed my view that continued membership would have been the better strategic course. Even so, I believe that it would be impossible and wrong to seek to go back to how things were before the referendum. We cannot and should not turn back the clock.

                          However, as the negotiations are unfolding, two things are becoming clear.

                          o The practicalities, logistics and implications of leaving the EU are far more complex than was ever envisaged and certainly more complex than the people were told in 2016. The UK is not going to be ready in time, neither is the EU, and both would suffer from a rushed or fudged agreement.

                          o The outcome that is emerging will be neither fully to leave the EU, nor fully to stay. This is not an outcome for which anyone knowingly voted. In my view, this raises the important principle of legitimacy: I do not believe it would be right for the Government to pursue such a course without a plan to seek a confirmatory mandate for the outcome. And I believe that Parliament should have the power to ask the Government to adjust its course in the best interests of the people whom its Members represent.

                          In my medical experience, if a course of treatment is not working, then I review it. I also have a duty to get my patient’s informed consent for that action.

                          If Brexit is worth doing, then it is certainly worth doing well; regardless of how long that takes. It is, however, irresponsible to proceed as we are, so we should:

                          o recognise that the UK and EU are not ready for Brexit and pause, extend or revoke Article 50 so that we do not leave before we are ready.

                          o re-engage with our European and international friends to talk about how to achieve the aims that we share for the future in ways that respect individual countries’ interests and sovereignty. Since 2016, electorates in many countries across Europe have expressed similar concerns to those that we expressed in the referendum and so much is changing, and will continue to change, across the whole of our continent.

                          o empower our Parliament so that its role is not limited to making fake choices - such as between a ‘bad deal’ and a cliff-edge ‘no deal’. Our Parliament should be able to direct our Government to change course in our interests.

                          In all conscience, I cannot support the Government’s decision to oppose this amendment because doing so breaches such fundamental principles of human rights and Parliamentary sovereignty. A vote between bad and worse is not a meaningful vote. And I cannot bring myself to vote for it in the bastion of liberty, freedom and human rights that is our Parliament.

                          When the Government is able to set out an achievable, clearly defined path - one that has been properly considered, whose implications have been foreseen, and that is rooted in reality and evidence, not dreams and dogma - it should go to the people, once again, to seek their confirmation.

                          I will miss the Ministry of Justice and the enormous privilege of guiding our Government’s work to turn around the lives of vulnerable young offenders and female offenders; to mobilise the remarkable power of sport to transform lives and cut crime; and to improve how we deal with offenders’ health and mental health which drives so much human behaviour.

                          I have had the privilege to work with inspiring, dedicated people; to be touched by the appalling stories that some of those caught up in our criminal justice system have shared with me - both victims and offenders; and in a small way to bring some influence to bear to help make our society more just and more secure.

                          The experience has been deeply humbling. For the last two years, I have been completely committed to enabling our criminal justice system to serve our society better. There is so much more to do and I wish the department and its excellent ministerial team all the strength that they need to drive through the necessary reforms. I regret that I feel forced to leave and will remain a strong supporter.

                          I strongly supported Theresa May’s bid to lead the Conservative Party in 2016. I have great respect for her and still believe that she is the best person to lead the country at this exceptionally difficult time. But the fact is that we have to make many big changes for our country to have a positive future. There is a great deal of work to be done to lead with more strength, vision and integrity. We must be honest and open at all times with each other and with the public. We must renew our effort to bring the nation back together and proceed in our collective national interest, drawing on the best talent our country has to offer.

                          We must also have an eye beyond our shores, sustaining our European friendships through a difficult time because what is very clear is that, in our interconnected age, it is nations with allies that will thrive.

                          It is important that individual ministers and Parliamentarians should be able to influence and speak up on these issues. But effective Government in our country also relies on the important principle of collective responsibility. Resigning my post in this Government will allow me to work towards what I believe can be a better future, inside or outside the EU, for my children, my constituents and my country.

                          That will start today when MPs vote on the House of Lords’ amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill and I will support the amendment which - if it is adopted - will empower Parliament to reject a bad deal and direct the Government to re-enter discussions, extending or pausing negotiations which are being badly rushed because of the deadline that Article 50 imposes.

                          We will not change our country overnight - but we can and must hand our children a better legacy.




                          Sent from my iPhone by carrier pigeons

                          Comment





                            It's getting tasty. Take that Davis!


                            Governement whips currently running around the commons chamber physically trying to keep the govt vote together.
                            "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

                            "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


                            "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

                            Comment


                              "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men" Edward R Murrow

                              "Little by little, we have been brought into the present condition in which we are able neither to tolerate the evils from which we suffer, nor the remedies we need to cure them." - Livy


                              "I think that progress has been made by two flames that have always been burning in the human heart. The flame of anger against injustice and the flame of hope that you can build a better world" - Tony Benn

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post
                                Stay means the status quo that existed before A50, with the obvious possibilities of future reforms within the EUs existing structures.

                                Leave means accepting the negotiated position that the UK team brings back from Brussels, with definite positions on the CU, the SM, FoM, access and tariffs, the NI border etc etc.

                                Some Brexiteers would still just bang on about global trade blah blah. And some people might not understand the choice they were being asked to make.

                                But at least it would be an actual choice between two actual things.
                                Stay would mean nothing of the sort, and I say that as an ardent Europhile. That is precisely the thinking that has led to Brexit - selling the otion of the EU as a fixed entity that you like or don't like.

                                It is a partnership with 2 important features:
                                1. it has a stated aim of ever closer union and
                                2. It pursues that aim on an understanding that that the "union" being pursued is not a form that has ever previously existed and therefore cannot be defined ex-ante.

                                There is a mountain of jurisprudence and international law built on these two features. The UK has just never accepted any of it and it never will until it has a rationale debate about whether or not it is joining a partnership towards ever closer union or not. The remain side refused to have that debate in 2016 and so the leave side won because the average punter is not so stupid that they don't understand what is really being asked.

                                The outcome of a second referendum would probably also be to leave unless remain properly learn that lesson and win hearts and minds. The leavers are still clear that they don't like that ever closer union and they are entitled to that view no matter how hard it will hit them economically. (We kept voting for Dev after he engaged in a sovereignty based economic war with our largest trading partner, why is it that we would expect the good people of Norfolk to be any more reasonable?)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X