European Union Referendum

[Ebeneezer Goode]

As a leaver is hard to have an opinion on a second referendum without sounding like you’re biased in your view and therefore you can come across as scared. I actually think the result would be “leave” again and therefore having another referendum would I guess “double lock” it in. But I have three problems with it:

1. We were told this was a once in a lifetime decision. If the result had gone the other way, I doubt there would have been anywhere this much pressure to have another referendum this quickly, we’d be told that’s it for a generation and to suck it up.

2. Assuming we did vote “remain”, I’m not sure the EU would exactly welcome us back with open arms and it certainly wouldn’t be on the same terms that we already had - Article 50 is in motion now, I’m not sure it can just be aborted.

3. If we did vote “remain”, that would make it 1-1 so do we then need a deciding referendum to determine our action? There would be claims/counter claims etc. It would be farcical.

Article 50 can only be aborted with the consent of every EU member state.

 

[Abertawe]

Article 50 can only be aborted with the consent of every EU member state.

Incorrect

 

[Indian Dan]

On 29 March 2017, the EU Commission stated "It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The problem is that the article doesn't provide for much at all because it was dreamt up with the intention of never being used, and only being there to placate people who don't want a European Federation. If not by unanimous consent then at the very least it would be up to the European Courts to decide, because there is no mechanism in the treaty for us to reverse Article 50.

 

[Abertawe]

The problem is that the article doesn't provide for much at all because it was dreamt up with the intention of never being used, and only being there to placate people who don't want a European Federation. If not by unanimous consent then at the very least it would be up to the European Courts to decide, because there is no mechanism in the treaty for us to reverse Article 50.

Inbloodycorrect. We could declare we're staying up until the 2 years has elapsed (or an extension if such gets agreed) and there is nothing anybody could do about it. Article 50 is merely an intention.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Inbloodycorrect. We could declare we're staying up until the 2 years has elapsed (or an extension if such gets agreed) and there is nothing anybody could do about it. Article 50 is merely an intention.

I'm not sure which part of this is supposed to contradict what I just said.

 

[Abertawe]

I'm not sure which part of this is supposed to contradict what I just said.

The following statements are incorrect even allowing for technical victory tactics and ignoring the context in which they were meant

Article 50 can only be aborted with the consent of every EU member state
I notice the post I quoted off yours was in reply to one of Lakers that declared Article 50 is in motion - that is fake news. Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of wording but Article 50 is only in motion two years after the notification or an otherwise agreed date. Completing the process of Article 50 would mean we're no longer part of the EU - it'd be impossible to abort because there would be nothing to abort - we'll have ceased to exist in legal fiction as a part of the EU or under accordance to treaties

there is no mechanism in the treaty for us to reverse Article 50
Err there is - it's called Article 49

If not by unanimous consent then at the very least it would be up to the European Courts to decide
It wouldn't get to that - it couldn't. Up until march 2019 "nothing has changed" and if we were to fuck off the idea there isn't a thing the EU/EC could do about it. The quote from Indian Dan isn't worth a cent because nowhere within Article 50 does it assert you cannot withdraw a notification - the cheek of them to pronounce it doesn't provide for withdrawal of notification is laughable and if it came to the crunch they'd know it was too - the idea they'd take to their own court for a case they cannot win is preposterous - imagine the scenes.

 

[silkyman]

Just UKIP advocating civil war if they don’t get their way...

https://twitter.com/ukip/status/952148963309883393

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that Tweet.

Completing the process of Article 50 would mean we're no longer part of the EU - it'd be impossible to abort because there would be nothing to abort - we'll have ceased to exist in legal fiction as a part of the EU or under accordance to treaties

You're now responding to a completely different post in which I never said anything about "completing" anything.

Err there is - it's called Article 49

Article 49 does not grant us the power to reverse Article 50. We would again need the consent of every member state in the European Union to rejoin it.

It wouldn't get to that - it couldn't. I notice the post I quoted off yours was in reply to one of Lakers that declared Article 50 is in motion - that is fake news. Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of wording but Article 50 is only in motion two years after the notification or an otherwise agreed date. Up until march 2019 "nothing has changed" and if we were to fuck off the idea there isn't a thing the EU/EC could do about it. The quote from Indian Dan isn't worth a cent because nowhere within Article 50 does it assert you cannot withdraw a notification - the cheek of them to pronounce it doesn't provide for withdrawal of notification is laughable and if it came to the crunch they'd know it was too - the idea they'd take to their own court for a case they cannot win is preposterous - imagine the scenes.

Article 50 is the process by which a nation state leaves the European Union. It has been triggered and is ongoing, so I don't see "in motion" as an unfortunate or inaccurate choice of words. Unless an extension is negotiated we will automatically leave the EU in May 2019. There's nothing we can do to change that without EU consent, for which there is no existing mechanism in the treaty. That's why it would either a) go to the European Courts or b) have to be agreed upon by mutual consent of all member states.

 

[silkyman]

There's a law suit about to (or already in) court which argues that Article 50 hasn't ever actually been legally triggered. I've not followed it closely, but the fact the referendum was legally advisory (a status which doesn't change because of one line in a leaflet) means another step was needed to be able to actually trigger article 50. No other nation in the fucking world that holds referendums would hold a binding one of this magnitude without needing a supermajority. The whole thing is a c*** shambles.

I actually think the result would be “leave” again

Can I ask why? The winning margin was incredibly narrow and even if you really, really, really try very hard, it's very difficult to find any argument that any of it is actually going 'well' let alone not a 'complete clusterfuck'

The messages that leave won with were admitted as lies on the morning after the referendum, so what does the Leave2 campaign run with? Blue Passports and innovative jam?

Remain were complacent last time. People didn't bother voting because no one actually thought Leave would win. There would be none of that this time around. Some (admittedly not all, yet) of 'Project Fear' can now be pointed at as Project Reality, and people actually started to understand WHAT the actual vote was about, two years after the fact.

Throw in a genuine change in demographics change (youngsters reaching 18 and being more politically active and, yes, old people shuffling off) and it's hard to be all that bullish for a leave victory.

 

[Abertawe]

go outside mate - take in some air - look at trees - something - just stop whining

 

[Abertawe]

That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of that Tweet.



You're now responding to a completely different post in which I never said anything about "completing" anything.



Article 49 does not grant us the power to reverse Article 50. We would again need the consent of every member state in the European Union to rejoin it.



Article 50 is the process by which a nation state leaves the European Union. It has been triggered and is ongoing, so I don't see "in motion" as an unfortunate or inaccurate choice of words. Unless an extension is negotiated we will automatically leave the EU in May 2019. There's nothing we can do to change that without EU consent, for which there is no existing mechanism in the treaty. That's why it would either a) go to the European Courts or b) have to be agreed upon by mutual consent of all member states.

You've tried creating the impression brexit cannot be reversed - this is incorrect - even Mr Tusky has stated today it' not too late for the UK to change it's mind.

Article 49 is the answer to Article 50 btw - 50 is the instrument to leave - 49 to enter.

 

[silkyman]

go outside mate - take in some air - look at trees - something - just stop whining

Brexit logic summed up in one post. It's been a year and a half and requests for any reason why it's not all going to shit are still met with this away-with-the fairies-nonsense. Stamps and passports. Woop.

 

[Abertawe]

Brexit logic summed up in one post. It's been a year and a half and requests for any reason why it's not all going to shit are still met with this away-with-the fairies-nonsense. Stamps and passports. Woop.

Brexit logic summed up in one post. It's been a year and a half and requests for any reason why it's not all going to shit are still met with this away-with-the fairies-nonsense. Stamps and passports. Woop.

It's been a year and a half of you whining on an issue that as yet is still to play out in order to provide a fair comment on brexit good or bad. the negotiation process as expressed in article 50 takes two years - up until those two years we have the possibility of a second referendum to call it off. so unless the second referendum happens wait until the two years are up for you to resume your whining - as of now just about anything could happen - it could be your idea dear of hang on this ain't half bad or your worst nightmare. whining one way or the other is futile - we have a year and two months to go - use that time you would otherwise waste on whining about brexit to learn something new.

 

[silkyman]

I’m watching a car crash up against the clock. Like you say, there is a time limit and we still have shit like people demanding special treatment for financial services and magic customs crontrols when the other side’s position hasn’t changed from the start. We’ve even got Boris doubling down on the £350m a week bullshit. The people in charge haven’t moved forward one bit. When you have a deadline, there is nothing wrong with worrying that nothing positive is happening.

You say that there is a chance of a second referendum. While the right (and left) constantly chirp on about ‘the will of the people’ then there is no chance of that. The only way to express dissatisfaction is by, as you put it, ‘whining’. No one ever won an argument by shutting up and fucking off as you seem to want remainers to do.

It’s like being 4-0 down at half time and the manager thinking ‘yeah... we’ll win this fucker 5-4’ at some point someone needs to tell him to make a few subs.

A nice addition that we’re now officially NOT planning to adopt fundamental rights. So we’ll have the Tories deciding what they think those should be. Sounds fucking great.

 

[Laker]

There's a law suit about to (or already in) court which argues that Article 50 hasn't ever actually been legally triggered. I've not followed it closely, but the fact the referendum was legally advisory (a status which doesn't change because of one line in a leaflet) means another step was needed to be able to actually trigger article 50. No other nation in the fucking world that holds referendums would hold a binding one of this magnitude without needing a supermajority. The whole thing is a c*** shambles.



Can I ask why? The winning margin was incredibly narrow and even if you really, really, really try very hard, it's very difficult to find any argument that any of it is actually going 'well' let alone not a 'complete clusterfuck'

The messages that leave won with were admitted as lies on the morning after the referendum, so what does the Leave2 campaign run with? Blue Passports and innovative jam?

Remain were complacent last time. People didn't bother voting because no one actually thought Leave would win. There would be none of that this time around. Some (admittedly not all, yet) of 'Project Fear' can now be pointed at as Project Reality, and people actually started to understand WHAT the actual vote was about, two years after the fact.

Throw in a genuine change in demographics change (youngsters reaching 18 and being more politically active and, yes, old people shuffling off) and it's hard to be all that bullish for a leave victory.

I’ve quoted your whole post as it’s a pain deleting out the irrelevant parts on my phone. I’m responding to your “can I ask you why?” question.

I came to this opinion just from speaking to people really. The leavers I’ve met would still vote leave, and are generally more stubborn in their view - I don’t know any leavers who would change their mind at a second vote. The remainders I’ve spoken to generally fall into two groups - those really pissed off and feel that Armageddon is coming, and those disillusioned by the EU’s stance in negotiations (I’d probably split this as 80/20). So given more people I’ve spoken to would vote leave than did in June 2016, that’s how I reach my view.

Granted I accept that this is merely a sample. But the point is the picture painted by the mainstream press and various studies etc of a nation keen to change its mind seem wide of the mark from my own experience.

 

[silkyman]

That’s partly because all talk of brexit not happening in the mainstream media is utterly verboten. The BBC absolutely refuses to acknowledge it.

What arguments would Leave have left if it came to a second go around and all bets were off?

The EU keep saying the same thing. There will be no special deal for the UK (see the recent news on financial services) That leaves us with two options.

Hard. Which is essentially impossible because of the Good Friday agreement, and no one apart from headmangers like Rees Mogg think it would be anything other than financial disaster. Paving over half of Kent for customs waiting areas, losing all of those agencies like open skies, Euratom, medicines (and being pushed down the queue for new treatments being developed) etc etc. You know. ‘Project fear’ becoming ‘Project reality’.

Or Soft, which is Norwayish and includes freedom of movement et al but not having any say at all on the laws. (That will also be the case for Hard of course as we will still have to conform to EU regs to sell anything to thenEU). What would be the point of nothing changing except our influence being massively diminished?

So the options are impossible or pointless.

What precisely could Michael Gove paint on the side of a bus this time?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I don't see Remain as being in a particularly better position, or at least if they are it would largely be down to Tory ineptitude rather than the actual principle of leaving the EU. Sure the sneaky £350m NHS banner was deceptive, but we knew that weeks before the vote. On the other hand immigration is down, so is unemployment, and the economic armageddon that Remain continually prophesized has failed to materialise. I'm not sure what else they have beyond more dampened doom-mongering.

The Ireland border issue is relatively easy to solve*. You have no border control and you grant Irish citizens free movement between the two countries. Will there be some EU nationals that will be willing to cross the border to live as an illegal immigrant in the UK? Sure, but the numbers are going to be negligible compared to the 300,000 a year we had coming in prior to the vote.

*which is why I worry it's only in there as a loophole for the government to betray the vote

 

[Indian Dan]

The free movement of people between Ireland and the UK has nothing to do with the EU. It is enshrined in the Ireland Act of 1923 and will continue whether we are in or out.

 

[Laker]

That’s partly because all talk of brexit not happening in the mainstream media is utterly verboten. The BBC absolutely refuses to acknowledge it.

What arguments would Leave have left if it came to a second go around and all bets were off?

The EU keep saying the same thing. There will be no special deal for the UK (see the recent news on financial services) That leaves us with two options.

Hard. Which is essentially impossible because of the Good Friday agreement, and no one apart from headmangers like Rees Mogg think it would be anything other than financial disaster. Paving over half of Kent for customs waiting areas, losing all of those agencies like open skies, Euratom, medicines (and being pushed down the queue for new treatments being developed) etc etc. You know. ‘Project fear’ becoming ‘Project reality’.

Or Soft, which is Norwayish and includes freedom of movement et al but not having any say at all on the laws. (That will also be the case for Hard of course as we will still have to conform to EU regs to sell anything to thenEU). What would be the point of nothing changing except our influence being massively diminished?

So the options are impossible or pointless.

What precisely could Michael Gove paint on the side of a bus this time?

You seem to think most leavers voted leave due to the vote leave campaign. You could stick a picture of an elephant on the side of that bus if you want, leavers will still vote leave.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

A balanced, cautiously optimistic piece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42769090

 

[.V.]

Why do we have to be stuck with this shower of a government when now more than ever we require at least a competent one.

https://www.ft.com/content/8c74cce8-ff88-11e7-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

 

[Cornish Piskie]

The problem is that the article doesn't provide for much at all because it was dreamt up with the intention of never being used, and only being there to placate people who don't want a European Federation. If not by unanimous consent then at the very least it would be up to the European Courts to decide, because there is no mechanism in the treaty for us to reverse Article 50.

By the same token then, there is no mechanism which specifically prevents UK from applying to have it cancelled before implementation, then.

Phillipe Macron said during his recent visit to London that he would welcome a UK decision to withdraw the Article 50 application... which as we know has not yet been implemented..... and bearing in mind my above paragraph, and the fact that the EU has never been in this situation before, it would be quite feasible for them to gather, meet, debate and vote on an interim arrangement to be ratified at a later date, for UK membership to maintained beyond March 2019.

I think the will is there (within the EU) and all it would take is for the UK government to see sense and notify the EU that we want to step back from the brink of disaster. I think the EU would be quite accommodating towards making it happen.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

You seem to think most leavers voted leave due to the vote leave campaign. You could stick a picture of an elephant on the side of that bus if you want, leavers will still vote leave.

But how many real, hardcore "leavers" were there, and how many of the "undecided" were swayed toward Leave by the Big-Red-Lie-Bus promise of £350 million a week for the NHS..?

That lie.... for lie it was.... had a profound impact on the campaign and it cannot be doubted that that, and other lies peddled by Leave, were a significant factor in the very narrow margin in favour of Leave.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

By the same token then, there is no mechanism which specifically prevents UK from applying to have it cancelled before implementation, then.

Which is why it would take either the European courts or unanimous approval of all member states for it to happen. We've been through this already.

But how many real, hardcore "leavers" were there, and how many of the "undecided" were swayed toward Leave by the Big-Red-Lie-Bus promise of £350 million a week for the NHS..?

That lie.... for lie it was.... had a profound impact on the campaign and it cannot be doubted that that, and other lies peddled by Leave, were a significant factor in the very narrow margin in favour of Leave.

It was no more deceptive than the claims that millions of job were dependent on EU membership or that Britain would inevitably slip inevitably into recession the moment we voted to leave.

 

[Abertawe]

Which is why it would take either the European courts or unanimous approval of all member states for it to happen. We've been through this already.

Will you stop chatting utter shit EG.

 

[Cornish Piskie]

Which is why it would take either the European courts or unanimous approval of all member states for it to happen. We've been through this already.



It was no more deceptive than the claims that millions of job were dependent on EU membership or that Britain would inevitably slip inevitably into recession the moment we voted to leave.

I take your point on the unanimous agreement principle. Which countries do you think would exercise their veto?

I also take your second point that there were claims made about the problems that would come about as a result of leaving, but these were not an outright lie.

Many of the claims being made by Remainers were backed up by people of credibility, such as the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the World Bank and even Barack Obama himself.

It is also undeniable that there has been a financial penalty to the country. The pound has fallen, business has been affected by uncertainty, Britain's growth is the lowest of the G8 nations and hey, we haven't actually left the EU yet. Britain is still benefiting from the Single Market .... until the date we leave. Exports are high only because of the weak pound and are continuing to sell tariff-free to existing customers in EU member states.

The full penalty of leaving the EU has either not taken effect or the potential damage is not yet evident. Perhaps it will become more evident when, as I think will happen, Britain slides out of the G8. Time will tell.

If you add to this other issues such as the drain of trained staff in the NHS which we do not have the qualified people necessary to replace and don't have the capacity to train... and even if we did they wouldn't become qualified for five or six years....., the loss of unskilled labour to the farming industry (being very sharply felt in Cornwall) to do jobs that British people don't want to do..... and the Irish Border question, which is going to be the open door through which illegal migrants will be able to flood from the Republic and thus make a mockery of the claim that we are taking back control of our borders, then it is clear that the whole Brexit process is a complete mess.

Brexiters rejoiced in the "victory" of the blue passport... telling the EU where they can stick their burgundy, but the truth is (and I think you know this) that the burgundy passport was not "forced" on Britain. We could have kept the blue one if we'd wanted to. There was no EU order to change. All that we have now is a blue passport that doesn't entitle us to travel freely to 27 countries that the old burgundy one used to. If that's a "victory", then it's a pretty hollow one.

I appreciate that you truly want to believe in Brexit, but I simply cannot see how it will deliver the benefits promised and make us more prosperous. It certainly won't make us a better people. Insular, isolated and poorer both financially and culturally while deluding ourselves that we're still a great nation.

We're going backwards while Europe goes forwards.

 

[Abertawe]

I

Many of the claims being made by Remainers were backed up by people of credibility, such as the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the World Bank and even Barack Obama himself.

:hesk:

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I appreciate that you truly want to believe in Brexit, but I simply cannot see how it will deliver the benefits promised and make us more prosperous. It certainly won't make us a better people. Insular, isolated and poorer both financially and culturally while deluding ourselves that we're still a great nation.

We're going backwards while Europe goes forwards.

Britain will (or should/can) progress toward becoming more democratic, more in control of our borders and more able to forge trade deals with countries from all over the world. What is the EU progressing toward? A federalist superstate that most of it's population doesn't want? The accession of Turkey and a land border with Iraq, Iran and Syria? Decades more failed trade talks with India, China and the USA? The EU is more likely to fall apart then leave Britain in the dust.

 

[mowgli]

Many of the claims being made by Remainers were backed up by people of credibility, such as the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the World Bank and even Barack Obama himself.

All proved to be wrong,a record number in work,investment by foreign companies up and more companies taking on staff and seeing larger profits.