The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	krlock3
	I'm actually just quite surprised is all.

Aren't we all. So much surprise. Like one of those incredibly scary horror clowns who chase people into forests.

	Quote:	Mikers
	Yes they are, no doubt. Boris Johnson almost certainly will turn the UK into some offshore tax haven off europe, which is not a great thing.

Given that the UK income is roughly split 80% services vs 20% manufacturing, trying to be a tax haven off Europe can only end very badly.

[krlock3]

Services can be cross border too.

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	Given that the UK income is roughly split 80% services vs 20% manufacturing, trying to be a tax haven off Europe can only end very badly.

isnt this what Ireland do though ? they use a lower corporate tax rate to attract business - which works - bringing business into the country.

	Quote:	krlock3
	Services can be cross border too.

Yes, that's the problem...it wouldn't be terribly tricky for the EU to effectively ban UK services within its jurisdiction, whether by explicitly doing this (as with clearing houses in EUR) or taxing it enough to make it uncompetitive.

	Quote:	Mikers
	isnt this what Ireland do though ? they use a lower corporate tax rate to attract business - which works - bringing business into the country.

Yes, Ireland still has full, untaxed access to the EU market though.

The UK is a also net importer from the EU, let's not forget, so industry is likely to get a lot more expensive to run and have less margins for exporting to its biggest consumer. Not a good mix.

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	I think his unwavering stance will be his downfall, to be honest. I know it's seen as "heroic" and trying to deliver "what the people want" and all, but it's not as if it's delivering on a landslide result, despite those who did the maths and worked out that that 52% is actually 100%. Out of the 52%, three years on, it's unlikely there is much of that % rabidly chasing a no deal, which further dulls the appetite for backing BoJo (or is it Cummings these days?). He'd be better facing up to the reality that his "my way or the highway" doggedness is just not going to work or, if it does get forced through will, at some point, come back to bite him and bite him hard. When he faces up to that, he can then start to find a solution - or appoint someone who can. Or just scrap it. Ironically, I think the decision to scrap the whole thing would probably create a lesser and shorter-lived backlash than if he carries on head-down-arse-up into getting his result.

Problem is, what is the way out ? There just isnt one.

Remain - Goes against wishes of democratic vote.
Leave - Economic catastrophe.
General Election - Nothing fixed.
Rerun of vote ("Final Say") - sounds great. What do you do if the result is 51% vs 49% to remain on a lower turnout ?

There just isn't a fix without some sort of disaster.

	Quote:	Mikers
	Problem is, what is the way out ? There just isnt one. Remain - Goes against wishes of democratic vote. Leave - Economic catastrophe. General Election - Nothing fixed. Rerun of vote ("Final Say") - sounds great. What do you do if the result is 51% vs 49% to remain on a lower turnout ? There just isn't a fix without some sort of disaster.

Agree they've definitely painted themselves into a corner but at this stage they should be asking themselves which disaster is going to be the least damaging and the shortest-lived.

	Quote:	Mikers
	Problem is, what is the way out ? There just isnt one. Remain - Goes against wishes of democratic vote. Leave - Economic catastrophe. General Election - Nothing fixed. Rerun of vote ("Final Say") - sounds great. What do you do if the result is 51% vs 49% to remain on a lower turnout ? There just isn't a fix without some sort of disaster.

The sensible (so obviously won't happen) is a re-run of the vote, and in the event of a remain win, there should be an independent commission set up to assess the viability of Brexit in the future - i.e. potential upsides and downsides.

This obviously should have been done in the first place, well before any Brexit vote happened, but I cannot see any alternative way of sensibly informing people of the realities of leaving otherwise.

[Mikers]

	Quote:
	The sensible (so obviously won't happen) is a re-run of the vote, and in the event of a remain win, there should be an independent commission set up to assess the viability of Brexit in the future - i.e. potential upsides and downsides. This obviously should have been done in the first place, well before any Brexit vote happened, but I cannot see any alternative way of sensibly informing people of the realities of leaving otherwise.

ok so, to play devil's advocate, we rerun it. leave win 51-49%. same turnout.

Now what do we do ? say "ok thats it we're heading off the edge ?" you just cant do that, which is why its being stopped currently even though johnson hates it.

its a fundamental error. The commission bit should have been done in 2011 and should not just have looked at what if we leave, but also a what if we stay scenario - do we go for closer union, do we try and stay on the edge but in as well as soft leave and hard leave.

then a vote with the full range of ways to leave AND ways to stay.

but now we have had the referendum as is its a dogs dinner either way. We will stay, im fairly sure of that, johnson will be out, Ken Clarke will be in (for a while) or something similar and there will be unrest for a while, but we should end up staying as we are, but people will feel disenfranchised for a generation.

[John William]

The worst part of all this is that there's no British negotiating team ( worthy of the name ) in Brussels
trying to secure a deal with the EU and get round the backstop that so irks the ERG Eurosceptics
in the Tory Party before the 31st October.

All that's there by all accounts is David Frost which despite all Boris's promises that he will leave no
stone un-turned to secure a deal with the EU, has in reality shown himself up badly as a man
that's thrown in the towel even before stepping into the role of PM.

David Frost - British diplomat and the UK's Chief Negotiator for Exiting the EU

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	The sensible (so obviously won't happen) is a re-run of the vote, and in the event of a remain win, there should be an independent commission set up to assess the viability of Brexit in the future - i.e. potential upsides and downsides.

How is it sensible to hold another advisory referendum? There is no way to enforce it without a GE and the FPP system is no compatible with the referendum process and is unlikely to provide a mandate to implement the decision of a referendum.

	Quote:	Mikers
	ok so, to play devil's advocate, we rerun it. leave win 51-49%. same turnout. Now what do we do ? say "ok thats it we're heading off the edge ?" you just cant do that, which is why its being stopped currently even though johnson hates it. its a fundamental error. The commission bit should have been done in 2011 and should not just have looked at what if we leave, but also a what if we stay scenario - do we go for closer union, do we try and stay on the edge but in as well as soft leave and hard leave. then a vote with the full range of ways to leave AND ways to stay. but now we have had the referendum as is its a dogs dinner either way. We will stay, im fairly sure of that, johnson will be out, Ken Clarke will be in (for a while) or something similar and there will be unrest for a while, but we should end up staying as we are, but people will feel disenfranchised for a generation.

I think the question should have been multi-part.

Do you want to leave? YES/NO
In the event leave wins a majority are you willing to leave with no deal? YES/NO

That way we would know beyond doubt whether No Deal is an acceptable outcome or whether leaving the EU should be a negotiated settlement.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	How is it sensible to hold another advisory referendum? There is no way to enforce it without a GE and the FPP system is no compatible with the referendum process and is unlikely to provide a mandate to implement the decision of a referendum.

Not sure of your point; the first vote was exactly the same situation - not constitutionally valid, but a government (3 governments ago) agreed to go with it. No reason the same stipulation couldn't apply to a new referendum.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:
	I think the question should have been multi-part. Do you want to leave? YES/NO In the event leave wins a majority are you willing to leave with no deal? YES/NO That way we would know beyond doubt whether No Deal is an acceptable outcome or whether leaving the EU should be a negotiated settlement. Not sure of your point; the first vote was exactly the same situation - not constitutionally valid, but a government (3 governments ago) agreed to go with it. No reason the same stipulation couldn't apply to a new referendum.

If you want to do it better, I would do the following:
1. Cancel the article 50 procedure
2. Get the EU to agree on general leaving conditions that would be applicable to any country that would leave and would be non-negotiable

3. Hold a binding referendum

	Quote:	k_and_e
	2. Get the EU to agree on general leaving conditions that would be applicable to any country that would leave and would be non-negotiable

I think this is pretty much the whole problem. There's no solution to leaving unless you want a no deal and every member state would have its own unique set of issues with a departure (for example, UK/Ireland border where a hard border presents a whole new can of worms).

There is no one-size-fits all except for a no deal which, it seems, nobody apart from a hard-core minority wants.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	If you want to do it better, I would do the following: 1. Cancel the article 50 procedure 2. Get the EU to agree on general leaving conditions that would be applicable to any country that would leave and would be non-negotiable 3. Hold a binding referendum

Your second point is never going to happen, it is in the interest of the EU to keep as many aboard for as long as possible and thus making a leave as shitty as can be.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	3. Hold a binding referendum

this would suffer the same problem. if it was close (51-49, 52-48) it would lead to massive problems. all this "it was advisory" junk is just the sort of crap that annoys the average citizen because its brazenly trying to legal your way out of it. The government said they would implement the referendum result. full stop.

so a rerun is just as fraught with difficulty.

its a mess.

	Quote:
	Your second point is never going to happen, it is in the interest of the EU to keep as many aboard for as long as possible and thus making a leave as shitty as can be.

The default way to leave is simply a no-deal. End of.

Why should the EU add endless, tailor-made clauses to Article 50 for each member state to ease their passage out, as and when they fancy it?

Don't get me wrong - a no deal is utterly stupid but you can't peg it on the EU doing it as a roundabout way of preventing people leaving.

	Quote:	Mikers
	this would suffer the same problem. if it was close (51-49, 52-48) it would lead to massive problems. all this "it was advisory" junk is just the sort of crap that annoys the average citizen because its brazenly trying to legal your way out of it. The government said they would implement the referendum result. full stop. so a rerun is just as fraught with difficulty. its a mess.

They did, but we are 2 governments down the line, and as mentioned before, one of our founding pricinciples of democracy is that no future government can be bound by a previous government's decisions.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:
	Your second point is never going to happen, it is in the interest of the EU to keep as many aboard for as long as possible and thus making a leave as shitty as can be.

So the EU is Hotel California.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	So the EU is Hotel California.

Because we haven't had so much whine since 1969?