European Union Referendum

[silkyman]

So after all this are we heading towards a "No deal"

What will that mean for the country?

It means everything stops.

Alternatively, start here and extrapolate out.

If things were going to be fucking brilliant, the Government wouldn't be allocating almost £100m to investigate replacing something that would ultimately cost billions to do, that we are already a key part of had we remained in the EU, and probably wouldn't be allowed to do anyway.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a521884-aac4-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c

Or planning on stockpiling medicines, or planning on portable toilets down the side of the M20 with portaloos so all the drivers stuck waiting for customs in the 20 mile lines can take a shit, or pledging £4bn in investment to retain exactly the same deal we have as a part of the EU with one small corner of Africa that represents 0.7% of our exports.

That sort of shit.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

OK. All of this WAS debated during the debates for the EU Referendum bill and all of these issues, supermajorities, 16/17 year olds, EU Nationals, UK Nationals abroad were raised and all rejected BECAUSE it was advisory.

You keep making these sorts of assertions but to my knowledge have never substantiated them.

 

[ThisTinpotLeague]

Could we potentially hold a referendum to decide on whether there should be a vote on the deal?

 

[Benji]

You keep making these sorts of assertions but to my knowledge have never substantiated them.

Was it not advisory?

 

[Fompous Part]

It was, yes. The point of contention is whether it being advisory was the justification for not allowing certain people (all belonging to typically excluded groups) a vote in the referendum. I have no recollection of this and I followed the proceedings quite attentively; therefore, I’ve asked him to substantiate the claim. So far he has merely reiterated it, which isn’t the same thing.

I often struggle to translate Silky’s anti-Brexit broadsides into Plain English, but as far as I can tell his argument is this:

(1) The government said the referendum was merely advisory

(2) The government justified the exclusion of certain groups (e.g. 16-17 year olds) on the basis that the referendum was only advisory.

(3) Because the government has chosen to pursue Brexit instead of ignore the result (as it was legally permitted to do), this somehow makes the referendum no longer advisory.

(4) Because the claim that the referendum was merely advisory has been invalidated, various groups were excluded from voting on false pretences.

He’s welcome to correct me if I’ve misrepresented, but I think that’s the bare bones of it.

Now, I think (2) is probably wrong, while (3) represents a complete misunderstanding of what ‘advisory’ means in this context, but let’s keep it simple for now and stick with (2). He’s making a straightforward factual claim there. He should be able to substantiate it. No?

 

[silkyman]

It was mentioned in briefing papers and in parliamentary debates that the reason that there is no requirement to amend the franchise is because it is advisory.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/09/28/the-eu-referendum-was-gerrymandered/

So, 1. Yes. It legally was. 2. Yes. The reason that there were no super-majorities, double locks or changes to the franchise was because of that.

3. Simply means that the government has no legally binding reason to continue with brexit and if they decided that it was not in the best interests of the nation, they could stop it. There is no legal mandate that they HAVE to withdraw the UK from the EU, and the main point is that had they introduced even a supermajority and/or minimum turnout numbers, leave wouldn't have actually reached either of those thresholds.

 

[Fompous Part]

 

[Laker]

The government has no legally binding requirement to stop Brexit either, n’est-ce pas? It was advised by a majority to leave and it is doing so.

God forbid a government following its citizens’ wishes....

 

[jacobncfc]

God forbid a government following its citizens’ wishes....

If nothing else, I hope this whole experience has taught us that referendums on significant constitutional change really shouldn’t be based on a straight 50/50 result.

 

[Abertawe]

Yeah we need a second referendum.

 

[Gassy]

Every time you think it couldn't get worse, it gets so much worse. May & her Tory Tots have completely f*cked this up.

This 2nd referendum absolutely has to happen. The only reason she won't go ahead with it is simply because she knows that the nation will come out to vote stay - which just proves that ultimately, she is now holding the country against their wishes.

 

[jacobncfc]

I’m not totally sure that they would, possibly by the same tiny majority that leave won the last one, but that creates as many problems as it solves. I’ve no doubt that there will be a huge majority in a decade or so and we will likely end up rejoining with far more integration than we had before, but i’m not sure that you can stop the process of leaving now.

 

[Laker]

If nothing else, I hope this whole experience has taught us that referendums on significant constitutional change really shouldn’t be based on a straight 50/50 result.

I agree with you and I think I posted a year or two ago in this thread that in hindsight a 60/40 win either way should have been required with the debate remaining open until such a result was achieved and a vote occurring every, say, 5 years or so until it happened. 52/48 was never enough to satisfy the “losers” whichever side they were on.

 

[PuB]

Christ can you imagine this debate reoccurring every 5 years? Fucking bored of it. Get it sorted and let the public vote on the final deal (be it no deal or chequers)

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Every time you think it couldn't get worse, it gets so much worse. May & her Tory Tots have completely f*cked this up.

This 2nd referendum absolutely has to happen. The only reason she won't go ahead with it is simply because she knows that the nation will come out to vote stay - which just proves that ultimately, she is now holding the country against their wishes.

That seems highly unlikely given that she's a staunch Remainer. The reason that we seem to be getting a not-really Brexit is because her heart is not-really in it.

I’m not totally sure that they would, possibly by the same tiny majority that leave won the last one, but that creates as many problems as it solves. I’ve no doubt that there will be a huge majority in a decade or so and we will likely end up rejoining with far more integration than we had before[...]

Why would you think that?

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

That seems highly unlikely given that she's a staunch Remainer. The reason that we seem to be getting a not-really Brexit is because her heart is not-really in it.

it's cos a full red white and blue Brexit is an absolutely turgid option. Bit like the Chequers plan, whaddya mean it's been obvious for ages the EU wouldn't take it? Say whaaaaaaaat?

 

[Gassy]

I’m not totally sure that they would, possibly by the same tiny majority that leave won the last one, but that creates as many problems as it solves. I’ve no doubt that there will be a huge majority in a decade or so and we will likely end up rejoining with far more integration than we had before, but i’m not sure that you can stop the process of leaving now.

I'm pretty sure the country would for a few reasons;
1. People not trusting this government to get a good deal
2. The deal (if any at all) on the table is a bad one
3. People are realising their currency, value of homes & everything else with it is falling/will fall
4. By the time of the new vote, all the people on the fence will come out and vote, I doubt many people have been turned to the leave side.
5. All the what were 16 & 17 year olds will not be 18 and would most likely vote.

That seems highly unlikely given that she's a staunch Remainer. The reason that we seem to be getting a not-really Brexit is because her heart is not-really in it.

Then all the more reason she never should have stepped up to do this role. The woman is a joke, I have absolutely 0 confidence in her at all - probably the first prime minister I haven't trusted to get anything right.

Im surprised she hasn't had the no confidence vote yet tbh. She f*cked up her party strength by calling the snap election, her closest people have resigned, the cocked up Brexit every time (EG wasting the first year on what she calls her first priority 'Citizens rights' & was demanding stupid rules of EU citizens there, in the end only to bend over to what the EU wanted in the first place which was to leave alone the people currently there - 1 year completely wasted!!!), and then finally her Chequer plan - every single person had said prior that it won't work, nor will the EU accept it. But she still pushed on with it, and guess what? EU said no & here we are with 2 months now to sort it out or no deal at all.

You couldn't make it up

 

[Abertawe]

I'm pretty sure the country would for a few reasons;


1. People not trusting this government to get a good deal
2. The deal (if any at all) on the table is a bad one
3. People are realising their currency, value of homes & everything else with it is falling/will fall
4. By the time of the new vote, all the people on the fence will come out and vote, I doubt many people have been turned to the leave side.
5. All the what were 16 & 17 year olds will not be 18 and would most likely vote.


Then all the more reason she never should have stepped up to do this role. The woman is a joke, I have absolutely 0 confidence in her at all - probably the first prime minister I haven't trusted to get anything right.

Im surprised she hasn't had the no confidence vote yet tbh. She f*cked up her party strength by calling the snap election, her closest people have resigned, the cocked up Brexit every time (EG wasting the first year on what she calls her first priority 'Citizens rights' & was demanding stupid rules of EU citizens there, in the end only to bend over to what the EU wanted in the first place which was to leave alone the people currently there - 1 year completely wasted!!!), and then finally her Chequer plan - every single person had said prior that it won't work, nor will the EU accept it. But she still pushed on with it, and guess what? EU said no & here we are with 2 months now to sort it out or no deal at all.

You couldn't make it up

If we take it from the beginning do you think it was her choice to involve Boris & co in the cabinet? Imo it was a condition of her becoming pm. We saw that strings were being pulled when Gove stepped up to challenge Boris. Maybe the plan all along was to undermine her and make the two extremes all the more likely, ie we either leave on no deal and we have a Bannon brokered corporate takeover or we reverse our decision to leave and return back to the status quo.

If it was her idea to involve Boris then that was a terrible decision. I don't think it was and I guess she called the election to cement her position and undermine her underminers.

I agree the election was a terrible call but I honestly don't see May as the bad un here not withstanding that she's crap & inept. Boris & co completely fucked her leverage and by extension the country when they walked out after chequers and started with the propaganda in the press. The way it's played out its as if that was their plan all along. Let May take all the inevitable flak, sweep the rug so she's on the floor and offer her a hand up on the proviso she does everything you say.

The EU know she's alone. If we were coming to the table as a unified force perhaps they wouldn't be so entrenched in their position. The EU I think are taking an almighty risk that we won't leave if it's a no deal.

Going to stick with my prediction that we won't leave. Mogg is desperate atm with his "the public have already decided" bollocks. We decided in the sense of making a pre season bet on who'll win the league before a ball was kicked - now we're in a position where we have about 10 games left and a clearer idea on who'll win. You can be sure as hell when he's staking his personal fortune on investments he only does so having a clear picture rather than the distorted jig saw the public voted on two years ago.

It's all Cameron's fault. His ego to call it thinking he'd smash it and the total lack of preparation in the case of voting leave. In hindsight he didn't have to leave. He should have carried on in the job he was elected to do and not been a shithouse.

 

[jacobncfc]

Why would you think that?

Simple demographics, if nothing else. I don’t really see what’s going to change to wipe out the fact that people under 40ish are pro-EU membership by a massive margin.

 

[Gassy]

If we take it from the beginning do you think it was her choice to involve Boris & co in the cabinet? Imo it was a condition of her becoming pm. We saw that strings were being pulled when Gove stepped up to challenge Boris. Maybe the plan all along was to undermine her and make the two extremes all the more likely, ie we either leave on no deal and we have a Bannon brokered corporate takeover or we reverse our decision to leave and return back to the status quo.

If it was her idea to involve Boris then that was a terrible decision. I don't think it was and I guess she called the election to cement her position and undermine her underminers.

I agree the election was a terrible call but I honestly don't see May as the bad un here not withstanding that she's crap & inept. Boris & co completely fucked her leverage and by extension the country when they walked out after chequers and started with the propaganda in the press. The way it's played out its as if that was their plan all along. Let May take all the inevitable flak, sweep the rug so she's on the floor and offer her a hand up on the proviso she does everything you say.

The EU know she's alone. If we were coming to the table as a unified force perhaps they wouldn't be so entrenched in their position. The EU I think are taking an almighty risk that we won't leave if it's a no deal.

Going to stick with my prediction that we won't leave. Mogg is desperate atm with his "the public have already decided" bollocks. We decided in the sense of making a pre season bet on who'll win the league before a ball was kicked - now we're in a position where we have about 10 games left and a clearer idea on who'll win. You can be sure as hell when he's staking his personal fortune on investments he only does so having a clear picture rather than the distorted jig saw the public voted on two years ago.

It's all Cameron's fault. His ego to call it thinking he'd smash it and the total lack of preparation in the case of voting leave. In hindsight he didn't have to leave. He should have carried on in the job he was elected to do and not been a shithouse.

True, although the still cocked up the negotiations for the 1st year, even if she wasn't negotiating personally, they must have been from her directive. She was wanting nonsense like if anyone comes to the UK 3 months before we even voted for Brexit, they should still have to go through tough immigration policies - but we expect you to leave UK citizens abroad alone. How did they ever think the EU would say yes to this? 1 year they debated this, they money the EU want from us & the border. Eventually Teresa just gave in, offered the money & accepted the citizens' rights. 1 year. 1 f*cking year. For absolutely no reason - 50% of the time wasted.

Now here I am, as a UK national living abroad - sweating over a no-deal situation.

I agree with the Cameron comment though - what an absolute shambles, he took the country this way & ran away the moment he didn't like it.

I hope you're right & we don't leave. The whole thing has been such a mess and quite frankly embarrassing.

The only nice thing about the whole ideal was to see that London got outvoted by the rest of the country - showing them that they don't run & rule everything at least.

 

[PuB]

Just watching Theresa May's EU statement this afternoon, it's absolutely full of half baked threats to the union that they have to back down to some of our demands. It's been two fucking years since the referendum and the Tories still haven't grasped that the EU doesn't have to back down on A SINGLE THING. If they want to they can just sit back and let us slip off the end of cliff with no deal.

Absolutely no British PM has ever been quite so humiliated as this one during Salzburg, threatening them further is going to get us absolutely no where.

What an absolute fucking shambles.

 

[Look Out There Are Llamas]

What an absolute fucking shambles.

 

[jacobncfc]

I don’t really get why it keeps being referred to as a negotiation. The frameworks for relationships with the EU for other countries are pretty well set, we just don’t want to pick one.

The most obvious thing to do was go for a Norway style arrangement that most closely aligned with the really close result and see how that goes for a bit.

 

[PuB]

It's not a negotiation, it's Theresa May stamping her feet outside the headmasters door.

 

[Gassy]

Just watching Theresa May's EU statement this afternoon, it's absolutely full of half baked threats to the union that they have to back down to some of our demands. It's been two fucking years since the referendum and the Tories still haven't grasped that the EU doesn't have to back down on A SINGLE THING.

And you know what? Its not like they're being some evil super power who are just take take take, on the whole I feel the EU are actually being fairer than the UK is.

 

[Super_horns]

Wonder how much this has cost the Government - to basically end up agreeing on nothing at all?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Simple demographics, if nothing else. I don’t really see what’s going to change to wipe out the fact that people under 40ish are pro-EU membership by a massive margin.

The large majority of those people were pro-EU membership based on economic reasons, so that stance is dependent on the economic apocalypse we were promised actually materializing. I wouldn't bet on that happening. And besides, people generally get more nationalistic as they get older (some would say wiser) which explains why the flower power generation gave popular support to Trump.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Just watching Theresa May's EU statement this afternoon, it's absolutely full of half baked threats to the union that they have to back down to some of our demands. It's been two fucking years since the referendum and the Tories still haven't grasped that the EU doesn't have to back down on A SINGLE THING. If they want to they can just sit back and let us slip off the end of cliff with no deal.

The UK leaving without a deal leaves them with a rather large budget deficit that the rest of Europe is going to have to pay for. They are in a stronger bargaining position than we are, but they still only stand to lose from a no deal Brexit. No EU country wants that even if some ideologue eurocrats do. And that's without knowing what is going on behind the scenes. We have an intelligence agency that could turn the EU as an institution upside down if we had the stomach for it.

 

[Jockney]

And besides, people generally get more nationalistic as they get older (some would say wiser) which explains why the flower power generation gave popular support to Trump.

The flower power generation: the generation of the National Guard as well as Kent State, Kennedy but also Goldwater and Wallace, Nixon after Johnson, William F Buckley and the slow, steady Genesis of Neoconservatism. The period from 1945 to 2008 is a unique duree in late modern history: the creation and subsequent destruction of the welfare state, the financialisation of the economy, the proliferation of digital networks of information, the start and end of the Cold War. Trying to map Millenials onto the path trodden by baby boomers (across entirely different nation states, no less) has no historical or material basis as far as I can see.

Though I think Remain is the popular position among under-40s but at the same time far from a primary issue. Even for those passionate about it, a sort of proxy for the hopelessness of domestic political issues which existed well before the referendum became a reality.

 

[Fompous Part]

No need to bring the Yanks and the flower power generation into it. People aged 60 or over, who voted for Brexit by quite a sizeable majority, are the only group who had a vote the last time we had a referendum on ‘Europe’. The British EU-sceptic movement is absolutely chock full of once-young-but-now-old people who voted “Yes” in 1975.

Remain would probably sneak a second referendum (on membership) held in the near future because there wouldn’t be the same complacency on the Remain side and because voting Remain would be seen more as a ‘fuck you’ to the existing government. But the idea that re-joining is inevitable in the long-term because of demographics is for the birds. The whole logic of that argument is based on the faulty premise that a person’s political views, priorities, etc. don’t change in response to events.

Mixed views on Salzburg. Never nice to see the British Prime Minister treated that way, but she deserved it. The PM and Olly Robbins seem to be the only two people in the known universe who think Chequers is a good idea. Tusk, Macron et al. were just brusquely repeating what Monsieur Barnier has been politely telling us for months.