[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

[url= http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38571117 ]City of London wants 5 year deal for stability[/url]

Wouldn't the simplest solution to this be to say that we will not trigger article 50 for 5 years and in the mean time organise ourselves so that we can no go off the Brexit cliff? 🙂

If you like making signs and meeting people.....
http://www.uniteforeurope.org

Except in the last two cases, this relies on ignoring the results of the democratic process

Bu there is little doubt that we need to agree a transition period. Despite what Brexshiteers say, this is not a simple process. Still no harm with a bit of uncertainty ?!?

Except in the last two cases, this relies on ignoring the results of the democratic process

Not sure which cases you are referring to but isn't a suitable interpretation of the democratic process being that OUT won, but only marginally, and any true government that claims to govern for all has to take into account the almost equal number of IN voters and the same number who didn't express an opinion?

That would respect the outcome of the democratic public consultation but deliver a deal that doesn't exclude or alienate people. It would unlikely satisfy the brexopaths or hardline europhiles but would probably be palatable to most in the country.

I realise that such a common sense approach is unlikely to fly with our glorious leaders who are more interested in politics and themselves than making things better, and I'm being rather naive in hoping that they might do some cross-party nationally beneficial thinking on this.

The hardest part would probably be explaining the idea to people without it being distorted by the media and the same bunch of self-serving politicians who produced the mess.......

"We" voted to leave the EU. Period. The reasons given included (rightly or wrongly) immigration and law making. So May is correct when she says that there is/was not such thing as a hard or soft Brexit.

So we have to assume the worst and hope for the best.

And if I was May I would be making it clear that "We" is 30% of the population (or thereabouts) and I am not taking action based on that.

The cries of "what about democracy" would be met with the fact I am representing 70% of the country and the true will of the people.

And people would rightly call BS

It seems to me that the only solution that could possibly satisfy a large proportion of the population would be to marry some token efforts to limit EU immigration, together with continuing EU membership. Corbyn appeared to be proposing the Swiss solution yesterday before he drowned himself out with stupid crap about wage limits. Honestly, that guy is a disaster.

(Yes I know that the swiss aren't in the EU, but they face essentially the same problem.)

"We" voted to leave the EU. Period. The reasons given included (rightly or wrongly) immigration and law making. So May is correct when she says that there is/was not such thing as a hard or soft Brexit.

What does an advisory referendum have to do with "democratic process"?

Was that a serious question cougs?

Parliament won't vote no. We are leaving the EU. Get used to the idea

teamhurtmore - Member
Was that a serious question cougs?

Parliament won't vote no. We are leaving the EU. Get used to the idea

What does an advisory referendum have to do with "democratic process"?

Could all those who say we have to leave please clarify the definition of 'advisory'? I could have sworn blind it was an antonym of 'binding' when I was at school.

The government sent us all a document explaining the process. It was 100% clear

The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

[b]This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.[/b]

Which bit of "the Gov will implement what you decide" is difficult to understand?

Ditto, "this is your decision." If people couldnt be bother to vote or didn't try to understand the implications then more fool them. (With the obvious caveat, that we are a society were taking individual responsibility is a declining concept.)

May was badly advised in the RP for sure. She should also stop fannying around and put the bill before Parliament. Obviously she will now wait for the CJ decision, but that should not have been necessary.

The 35 million promise makes any result void.

You can't be voted in on a blatant lie and then say you didn't mean it.

It took 5 minutes to google that 35(0) million was a lie

if people were fooled by that, then that is there problem

Which bit of "the Gov will implement what you decide" is difficult to understand?

We have a referendum. There are official campaigns for each side. The one that wins has a mandate for delivery. That is what we decided so that's what the Government has to deliver. Not anything else.

No, its everyone's problem.

And whatever was said it was still, legally, an advisory referendum.

[i]Which bit of "the Gov will implement what you decide" is difficult to understand?[/I]

Seems easy enough, so why haven't they done it yet then...

GEDA City wants something for nothing. Services are tariff free, the issue is whether EU would block financial advice accross EU border. If that was the case it's trivial to arrange a fronting organisation or staff up a local sales office. Of course the businesses don't want to pay for any of that as right now they get it all for free paid for by the taxpayer.

Which bit of "the Gov will implement what you decide" is difficult to understand?

The bit where they didn't have the authority to make that claim. Y'know, as has been discussed subsequently in the highest courts in the country for the last six months.

A change to the law has to be decided with an act of parliament, an individual government cannot do this alone. It was ever thus.

The demographic that voted resoundingly out often don't own a computer, THM, and rely on the papers for news and opinion.

It was plastered all over my village on phone boxes , bill boards why would anyone think it wasn't a blatant lie.
When I asked my mp he still sticks by it.
Why should we believe the bit about leaving the EU?

Cougs, the only question that the courts had/have to discuss was the issue over royal prerogative versus Act of Parliament. They were very clear that there role was not to consider Brexshit itself.

But that does not relate to the simple question - the government was very clear in stating that it would implement the decision - it is not rude to ask which bit of this is difficult to understand. "Which bit do you not understand", would have been less polite!

b r - they are in the process of doing it and we have a deadline. At the moment, they are waiting for the Court opinion but dear old Theresa is claiming that we are still on track for deadline and Jezza promised (*) that he would not obstruct the vote yesterday

* admittedly he does change his mind on important issues on a rather rapid basis

The one that wins has a mandate for delivery.

Untrue

That is what we decided so that's what the Government has to deliver. Not anything else.

True. We agree.

I think we can all agree that the Cameron govt reneged on its promise, he resigned the day after the vote, remember. We've got a new govt, though of course the Tories were elected on the explicit promise to keep us in the single market.

No it wasnt

They did argue in favour of the single market (with some dodgy logic) but the opening line in the 2015 manifesto was about the fact that people had been ignored in europe and that they would have their say in a referendum.

That has been honoured.

No, the manifesto explicitly promised to protect our position in the single market.

Untrue

These one line responses without supporting basis are easy, aren't they.

[i]b r - they are in the process of doing it and we have a deadline. At the moment, they are waiting for the Court opinion[/I]

But if she'd just put a bill in front of the Commons (and Lords) she wouldn't have had a High Court case at all, so I call BS.

She knows in her head & heart that it's the wrong thing to do, but she knows 'politically' that if she doesn't do it she (and probably the Tories) will be toast - so she's doing it for that reason, so when the country is stuffed just remember that we didn't have to do this...

Our plan of action:

We will let you decide whether to stay in or leave the EU

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave

We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome

Seems pretty clear to me

on the single market, they did say this

But there is much more to do? The EU is too bureaucratic and too undemocratic? It interferes too much in our daily lives, and the scale of migration triggered by new members joining in recent years has had a real impact on local communities? We are clear about what we want from Europe? We say: [b]yes to the Single Market[/b]? Yes to turbo- charging free trade? Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone? Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out? No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels? No to unnecessary interference? And no, of course, to the Euro, to participation in Eurozone bail-outs or notions like a European Army?

But if she'd just put a bill in front of the Commons (and Lords) she wouldn't have had a High Court case at all, so I call BS.

Indeed, she got caught with her leather pants down there

She knows in her head & heart that it's the wrong thing to do,

True

but she knows 'politically' that if she doesn't do it she (and probably the Tories) will be toast - so she's doing it for that reason, so when the country is stuffed just remember that we didn't have to do this...

Yes, we did. They were elected on the promise to have a vote and to implement the result whatever the outcome. Its not there fault. Its the bloody Brexshiteers and those who voted to leave.

She/the Gov cant be blamed for delivering what they promised but they can be blamed if the screw the process up.

"We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market"

"We will [...] safeguard British interests in the Single Market"

Could hardly be more explicit. Glad we've got that cleared up. Hardly surprising that May is so evasive as she prepares to jettison a manifesto commitment after never even being elected as PM.

Indeed - what "we want"

Agreed, explicit and clear.

THM - an innocent question (all the best ones are)

It appears the manifesto says have a a vote on EU in/out and also stay in the single market. Assuming the Tories weren't lying, fibbing or just telling us what they thought we wanted to hear in the hope of being elected, can you envisage a situation where a country wasn't in the EU but was in the single market?
If you can then I guess the only reading of that manifesto is that is what we voted for (obviously I didn't but Jamba did I think)

That would meet what the Brexies voted for - they can rejoice in their victory - while keeping most of the benefits of a European trading club keeping the other half of the bite happy(ish). Added bonus - Farage loses that cushy number he's been on in Brussels.

Captain. Cameron campaigned to stay in and then resigned when he failed. The Referendum changed everything on that issue. Quite simple really.

igm May said on Shophy Ridge THE Single Market IS the EU. So her and my answer is no. The EEA is a market which is not the EU

In other news the Government is considering a levy of £1000 on every EU skilled worker post Brexit, interesting idea. A start but figure is far too low. Should have Singaporean style system where every worker has to pay sufficient tax to cover all service provision fully or have private cover to do so.

May is wrong if she said that.

Are you sure she actually said it and didn't retract it later?
It's a bit definite for her.

EDIT: EEA ok for you then? That might work. Does the four freedoms as I recall

Good to see you are acting as her spokesman now Jamba 😉

IGM - tbc, I am not defending Tory policy or their logic (which as I said early was convoluted in this area)

I do not accept the premise in your second line, but leaving that aside.

First step, we need to be clear about what we are talking about. There is a fundamental difference between "access to" and "membership of" the EU single market. Membership comes with obligations - and obligations for some bizarre reason the public are not happy with.

What we are talking about now is "access to". The four possible frameworks (ignoring the bespoke red white and blue version for a moment) have various levels of access to the single market with membership of the EEA being the closest to the status quo (but still clearly inferior). But and its a big but, that requires FoM and budgetary contributions.

It is blindingly obvious that there is tension between the Gov's desire to maintain liberalised trade with the EU while also curbing FoM and the reach of the CJEU. The next two years will determine how that tension is resolved.

Lets gets on with it.

Lmao, so let me get this straight, we charge people to come and work in positions we, as a nation, need filled?

Well there goes the nurses, doctors, engineers, scientists, researchers, teachers...

Is it me or is this morphing into a soft version of Day Zero? Purge the intellectuals!

In other news the Government is considering a levy of £1000 on every EU skilled worker post Brexit, interesting idea.

Bonkers idea

IGM - I was helping a tutee prepare for some interviews yesterday. One of the best sources that I have found - quality of writing/language and info - is

The pros and cons of the different frameworks are laid out clearly. FWIW, the report downplays the idea of a bespoke Brexshit agreement. I am not sure that they are correct there.

according to jamba and chewy the tories are unassailable right now. if she had any balls ( ha! ) May could decide to put aside the result of the [b]advisory[/b] referendum and pay only a minimal price in the the next GE.
i really do wonder what is in all this for them?

What's in it for them is holding the tory party together, because the brexit wing consists mostly of foaming at the mouth lunatics who wont' accept anything else, and the remain wing is prepared to make the best of a bad job and also looking forward to the opportunities to never let a crisis go to waste by wiping out employment and environmental laws, human rights and what remains of the welfare state including the NHS.

THM - as a fully signed up champagne socialist, I suspect I disagree with you on many things, but let me pay you the compliment of pointing out that you will be worth disagreeing with when we discuss those topics.

There are a couple of others on here I would extend that compliment to.

Blimey captain, there's a future job in strategy and communication with your name all over it. The Tories are nowhere near as good at you and defining the strategy with such clarity.

IGM, thank you, the pleasure works both ways!

I like this thread for the simple reason that you have to keep checking facts. Keeping on top of the pros and cons of the likely outcomes is q hard IME, hence my own refresher this week has been useful.

I am often dismissive of governments (!) so am always pleasantly surprised at the quality of work produced by various committees. The HoL paper that I linked was very good IMO. Not least the first two pages which are articulated so clearly. As I said to my tutee, if you can explain this as clearly as the author you will blow them away in the interview !!!

If corbyn had come up with that £1000 levy idea he'd have been laughed at long and hard by the press.

No doubt he will be along with a proposal of £1001.

I like this thread for the simple reason that you have to keep checking facts. Keeping on top of the pros and cons of the likely outcomes is q hard IME, hence my own refresher this week has been useful.

Yes it is not easy is it. Yet you are expecting the average voter to have the ability (technical and intellectual) to work everything out for themselves even if there are official looking billboards/buses/discussions on TV debates that all tell them lies.

It took 5 minutes to google that 35(0) million was a lie

if people were fooled by that, then that is there problem

£1000 fee clarifcation. We already charge that annually for non-Eu citizens so post Brexit it makes sense for that to be lobbied on every non-British skilled worker equally as we won't be in the EU.

£350m (again)

£363m is the weekly gross contribution to the EU as per the most recent official government annual report (I forget the doc name / page reference)
It is not a fixed figure, it has been generally and steadily rising. It is dependent on a vareity of factors including estimates of the "black market" and relative strength of the UK.
Rebate is not guaranteed (frequent threats to reduce / remove it)

There are something like 30 different official EU estimations of the UK's net contribution. That strikes me as chaotic and sends a clear signal that it's a dysfunctional arrangemnet if you cannot even track the money accurately..

The Referendum changed everything on that issue. Quite simple really.

A bit like Scotland then...

sterling has reached a 31 year low against the dollar

brexitastic

There are something like 30 different official EU estimations of the UK's net contribution. That strikes me as chaotic and sends a clear signal that it's a dysfunctional arrangemnet if you cannot even track the money accurately..

It would be as logical to argue that the UK govt is dysfunctional if it cannot track its money accurately...

Cougs, the only question that the courts had/have to discuss was the issue over royal prerogative versus Act of Parliament. They were very clear that there role was not to consider Brexshit itself.

But that does not relate to the simple question - the government was very clear in stating that it would implement the decision

Indeed. The courts were deciding whether or not May could take us out of the EU on her own or whether it required an Act of Parliament. It's been decided - so far at least - that it is the latter.

Ergo, what was written on the leaflet was a statement that the Government don't legally have the power to fulfil. It's about as legally binding as the the NHS bus, or Cameron's promise to see it through whatever the result.

I like this thread for the simple reason that you have to keep checking facts.

TBH, I genuinely thought you were trolling. You seem to be simultaneously against Brexit whilst being keen as mustard for us to actually "get on with it," which confuses me no end.

Either that or you're a Tory politician I suppose.

You seem to be simultaneously against Brexit whilst being keen as mustard for us to actually "get on with it," which confuses me no end.

Simple:

Remain - good
Brexit - bad
Dithering indefinitely - even worse

Indeed. The courts were deciding whether or not May could take us out of the EU on her own or whether it required an Act of Parliament. It's been decided - so far at least - that it is the latter.

Indeed.

Ergo, what was written on the leaflet was a statement that the Government don't legally have the power to fulfil. It's about as legally binding as the the NHS bus, or Cameron's promise to see it through whatever the result.

Not ergo at all. Simply incorrect factually and with the conclusion

TBH, I genuinely thought you were trolling.

Untrue, just being consistent...see below

You seem to be simultaneously against Brexit whilst being keen as mustard for us to actually "get on with it," which confuses me no end.

It shouldn't, its simple. IMO Brexshit is bad for us. But and its an important but, that view is not in the majority. We lost. Fact. We cant change that - we are not Scottish Nats - we have to accept the decision

Either that or you're a Tory politician I suppose.

No, the next simple fact is that uncertainty is bad for me professionally. "Ergo" I want this period of uncertainty to end ASAP. It is in no one's interests.

We know that there is a tension between what "we" want and what "we" can have (strictly speaking we should be the leavers/brexshiteers). That's a known, known. The known, unkown is we do not know what the resolution of this will be. For that we have to get in with negotiations. For that, we need to trigger A50 etc

You see, its not confusing at all. Its very simple.

The only confusing bit is the details - that will take at least two years to figure out. Probably more. "ergo" its time to stop fannying around and time to get on with the hard work and the rest of our lives

Sorry x-post. Mol has it (largely) the first two are IMO, the third isnt.

Lets assume the following are more likley to happen than not based upon the EU curent attitude to the Brits and WTO rules and the reality of establishing trade agreements -
1. Brexit is going to take 5 to 10 years (this allows for a Tory election win) as simply ****ing off is a fiscal nightmare.
2. An interim deal will be established (no change to status quo) for the above period.
3. A Norway style agreement reached (pay to play) at year 10
4. Poor people now really poor
5. National debt trebled
6. 10 years of flat line ecomomy (in real terms not OBR bollocks)
7. Talent pool slowly drains
8. Poorly educated unable to re skill
9. Welfare bill - massive
10. Young income tax payers in short supply

[img] [/img]

10 years of flat line ecomomy (in real terms not OBR bollocks)

😯

THM > that makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

But and its an important but, that view is not in the majority.

... not the majority as represented by those who turned out to the referendum, I'd be bet good money that Leave is in the minority right now (and probably was on the day in actuality).

Either way, it's academic. What the people want, majority or not, is irrelevant. We don't elect MPs to do what we tell them (unless we happen to own a newspaper), we elect them to do what's best for the country.

"The people" don't understand the intricacies of international politics and global economics, most people's knowledge of our relationship with the EU they got off the side of a ****ing bus. The single biggest countrywide change most of us are likely to see in our lifetimes and Cameron reduced it to a yes / no question like it was a vote for a Big Brother eviction, the spinless pig-bothering shitwit.

We lost. Fact. We cant change that - we are not Scottish Nats - we have to accept the decision

This is where we'll have to agree to differ I'm afraid.

"ergo" its time to stop fannying around and time to get on with the hard work and the rest of our lives

If we are to go ahead with this insanity, then I'd agree that we need to "get on with" working out exactly what it is we are and aren't going to be doing or trying to do, which there doesn't seem to have been a lot of in the last six months (and really, should've been completely planned out before throwing it to the great unwashed). I'd disagree with the notion that should "get on" by rushing through everything without properly thinking about it.

meh the problem is cameron lied

[img] [/img]

THM > that makes sense,

Indeed 😉

... not the majority as represented by those who turned out to the referendum, I'd be bet good money that Leave is in the minority right now (and probably was on the day in actuality).

we did a bad job then, didnt we?

At the end of the day, the world will still go round. We will have lost X% of GDP over the period (you decide), but it will not be doomsday. Its shit, very shit, but not terminally so.

But the basics are not complicated - its just that our, or should I say the leavers position is logically unsound, unless we, or should I say they, pull of a miracle and achieve a bespoke "red, white and blue Brexshit*" That does make it complicated.

So the delay arguments are based on a false premise and its becoming increasingly apparent that they are driven more by a desire (understandable but unsupportable) to ignore the result

To get on with the tough stuff - the detail - we need to get through the options bit (and an agreement on the transition period). Hence, "stop fannying around"

* as an aside, when I explained the RWB Brexshit to a young tutee he responded what does RWB have to do with the UK!! So Theresa may need to re-think the metaphor for the millenials

Of course the most ridiculous thing of all is having a referendum on membership of something that (by definition and design) cannot continue to exist in its current form

The whole thing is a waste of time, money and energy - Dave's Folly

Plus 1

When considering 'delays' don't forget that UK still doesn't have the staff in place to begin negotiations with the EU, never mind the other countries we currently have trade deals and arrangements with as a member of the EU and other European institutions. I know someone who had ambassador rank before returning to the UK to try and help sort this stuff out, and, well this isn't news to any one, but we really are not ready. Those saying "get on with it" not only have to appreciate that what "it" is hasn't been worked out yet, but, more importantly, we don't have the people in place do to the getting on!

Read the HoL report linked to in this thread recently if you need it spelled out… the different possible next steps require different skill sets and people… and we're not ready for any of the options!

I have, I posted it

The £1000 charge obviously doesn't make that much sense:

But the suggestion provoked an immediate business backlash which led Downing Street to try to play down the proposal. The prime minister’s spokesman said it was not on the government’s agenda and suggested Goodwill’s remarks had been “misinterpreted” and he had simply highlighted the skills levy for non-EU migrants coming into force in April.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/11/britain-considering-1000-a-year-levy-for-skilled-eu-workers-robert-goodwill

This Brexit stuff is Number 1 tricky

oldmanmtb, you missed 11, the Irish option, when times go bad you go abroad. I wouldn't be surprised that the picture you paint would see large numbers of the brightest emigrate.

I think I'm going to agree with THM here, lets get on with it.

At the moment we are in brexit dreamland, activate article 50 and let the nightmare begin, because what better way of shocking people into the mistake they have made than what awaits us in the next two years?

I don't expect the most mouth frothing brexiters to change their minds(distorted as they are), they want brexit at all costs, (costs we will be paying for)so why bother trying to reason with them?

We should be moving onto the next phase of fighting them.

A lot depends on whether A50 can be revoked, which seems to be unclear to me. If it can be revoked then sure let's have 2 years of mayhem and the ability to walk away from it at the end.

TMay et al are going to lose the court case (obviously, its not 1648 or that)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/11/government-brexit-supreme-court-theresa-may-article-50

More fallout worries from brexshit

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38587765

Gina Miller will she be remembered fondly? or in infamy?

depends what you voted ?

forgotten in 12 months

(unless you are a constitutional lawyer)

...cue Kenneth Williams.....

And THM has it again.

Edit: damn you THM. I've just found the time to open that HoL document you linked and it's 87 pages. I don't have a train ride coming up til next week so I might have to use real time not BR time to read it.

😀

I would suggest reading the v well written summary, Ch1 for the excellent summary of the different frameworks and then the summaries and the final conclusion. The last two bits are q repetitive

No more than an hour there and it's well written so easy to read

Have a glass of bubbly with it!! 😉

Boarding the Indy Ref 55/45 should have changed everthing for the SNP but they ignored it.

Gina Miller will be remembered by constitutional lawyers and law students. If there is a vote it will be passed easily. All a waste of time and her and our money really. I imagine she'll write a book

Kimbers did the UK fall apart 31 years ago when the £/$ was last at this level ? Dollar going up as markets quite liking what Trump means for business. I recall the $/£ used to be about 10:1, a ten fold depreciation over the long term doesn't seem to have hurt us too badly ?

The EU has more to lose from Brexit than the UK, the Governor of the Bank of England has said as he admitted that Britain's economy will defy his own gloomy forecasts and grow at a faster rate than expected.

Mark Carney conceded that Brexit is no longer the biggest domestic risk to Britain's economy after issuing a series of dire warnings about the consequences of a leave vote in the run up to the EU referendum.

The Bank of England is now “very likely” to improve its economic forecast next month, Mr Carney said as he said he was “surprised” that the economic slowdown that he forecast has not materialised.

Humble Pie 🙂

Also in the piece Oxford Uni's recently appointed head of Brexit Strategy says our EU membership has depressed links with American ans Canadian academics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/eu-has-lose-hard-brexit-uk-mark-carney-says/