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

[st2lemans]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	The UK is a single market, who well do you think it would function if each of the four countries started implement different consumer laws, standards, corporate taxation laws, regulations on the movement of people within the union and so on.

The US is also a single market, and has many such laws that vary by state.

Tom

[Dinivan]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	That was actually my point. It will not happen that there is a deal accepted by a leaving country, so the only way for a country is a no deal or to stay.

There is a withdrawal deal accepted by the leaving country, negotiated between its government and the EU. That was agreed many months ago. The rest is dismal internal politics to the UK.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Just imagine that a country that is geographically in the middle of Europe and using the euro would leave with no deal, both for the country and for the EU.

I doubt any other EU country, especially not one using the euro, will want to go through this ordeal caused by, not by external forces (the EU or its 27 member states) but by the tensions that this decision is creating within the country.

You'd need a very large majority of people to agree on this (60-70%) in order to make it palatable to another country.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Dinivan
	You'd need a very large majority of people to agree on this (60-70%) in order to make it palatable to another country.

How about joining ?, the UK joined on the whim of Ted Heath, nobody was ever asked.

[Blueangel]

This thread is causing a bit of a stink, and rightly so... Posting 1/7 post long thread.


https://twitter.com/alexGspence/stat...19531169947648

[Dinivan]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	How about joining ?, the UK joined on the whim of Ted Heath, nobody was ever asked.

When joining the EU the options are clear: 1- you join and accept all the rules and institutions 2- you don't join and stay in the present situation.

When leaving the EU the options become a lot more complex as you need to add another layer: 1- you stay, accepting all the current rules 2- you leave without agreeing to any rules 3- you leave by maintaining some of the rules that bound you together... and which rules should be in and and which ones should be out? well, that's a tough one.

The unfortunate referendum was produced with a question to the public that forgot to differentiate between 2 and 3.

What could have been asked to the public is what type of relationship they would like to continue to have with the EU if a majority of people voted for leave. In that case, a 50%+1 rule would be acceptable. If 50%+1 of the voters had expressed a wish to leave without a deal, I imagine that the process would have been rather smooth. But because only a small majority voted for leave and there was no further question on the issue, the country is divided as to which option it should be pursuing.

Now, putting a precise question to the public is very complex. If many people and politicians did not understand the full extent of the consequences of leaving the EU (e.g. finding out that the UK is out of Galileo or even the consequences for the Good Friday Agreement), then I can't imagine how the general population would be able to choose between a customs union, a FTA, or the single market. That's where the MPs come in...

It's for no reason that referendums on independence often require larger than 50%+1 majorities.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Dinivan
	It's for no reason that referendums on independence often require larger than 50%+1 majorities.

Independence generally happen by revolution, not by referendum.

[Dinivan]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Independence generally happen by revolution, not by referendum.

Which doesn't change my statement in the very least,

	Quote:
	Given the momentous importance of the vote it seems reasonable that “if the approval rate of a referendum is too low, it ought to be discredited. A nearly simple majority does not provide sufficient legitimacy”.8 Without passing judgement as to the fairness of such a requirement, it is worth outlining a few comparative examples of when such stipulations have been introduced. Turnout and quorum requirements are relatively common in referendums on independence and other referendums on ethnic and national issues. source

unless you are suggesting that the best way forward for the UK is a civil war.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	How about joining ?, the UK joined on the whim of Ted Heath, nobody was ever asked.

Why should they be asked. You have a sovereign parliament not a sovereign people.... the whole point is that you elect representatives that make those decisions for you, if you don't like their decisions then you turf them out at the next election.

To my knowledge the only Parliament of Westminster style democracy that has a sovereign people is Ireland. The Irish constitution is enacted by the people and only they can change it. And unlike Switzerland, when they make a change they actually change the law of the land and parliament has no say in the matter, once the returning officer certifies the result of a referendum it's done. That is why Irish referenda questions are often very complex because they ask the voters to agree to do things like:

- Delete a paragraph from the text of the constitution
- Add new paragraphs
- change sentences in paragraphs etc...
- Add new sections and so on

For instance the amendment to establish a separate Court Of Appeal asked voters to agree to make changes to 3 different articles of the constitution.

The result is that politicians do not hold the same sway with the electorate. They rely more on the legal opinions of retired Justices of the Supreme Court, law professors and so on, since they are actually changing the laws and people want to be sure of what they are doing.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Independence generally happen by revolution, not by referendum.

Well there was a few explosions in Bern when the Jura were looking for independence.... I've been here so long I remember it.

[Blueangel]

Astonishing body language from the PM today. Surely someone must have coached him on how to hide this at some point?

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1171430398959636480

For reference: Body language 101.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Astonishing body language from the PM today. Surely someone must have coached him on how to hide this at some point? https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1171430398959636480 For reference: Body language 101. Attachment 137648

He’s got extensive form for telling bare-faced porkies, though.

[baboon]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Independence generally happen by revolution, not by referendum.

Certainly not always (Slovakia anyone?) - and certainly massively better for all concerned when it does.

	Quote:	baboon
	Certainly not always (Slovakia anyone?) - and certainly massively better for all concerned when it does.

Let's not forget Scotland within the next few years

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Independence generally happen by revolution, not by referendum.

Historically, yes. But since after WW2 or so the relatively peaceful separations are probably in the majority.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Dinivan
	The unfortunate referendum was produced with a question to the public that forgot to differentiate between 2 and 3.

That would have required negotiations beforehand (essentially that's the current situation), the government can't offer an option it isn't certain (as in, has the equivalent of guarantees) can be realised.

	Quote:
	Let's not forget Scotland within the next few years

There's going to be oddles of regret in a few years when Scotland departs: why oh why did we not revoke when we had the chance.

The Queen losing Scotland? Perish the thought..

[marton]

	Quote:
	Let's not forget Scotland within the next few years

Talking of which "Three judges at Scotland's highest court of appeal have ruled that the UK government's decision to shut down Parliament is unlawful, "

Just when you thought Brexit could not get more screwed up

	Quote:	Swisstree
	There's going to be oddles of regret in a few years when Scotland departs: why oh why did we not revoke when we had the chance. The Queen losing Scotland? Perish the thought..

From what I understand, we'd probably keep her as Head of State in order to appease the Rangers lot.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	Talking of which "Three judges at Scotland's highest court of appeal have ruled that the UK government's decision to shut down Parliament is unlawful, " Just when you thought Brexit could not get more screwed up

As I said a few days ago, it is not over until the Supreme Court rules on it.

	Quote:
	In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson's decision to suspend was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying Parliament".

So if the Supreme Court upholds the decision they will have basically have found that Boris has lied to the Queen on top of everything else.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	marton
	Just when you thought Brexit could not get more screwed up

The really screwed up thing is, this could mean that the 3 members of the Queen's Privy Council that were sent to Balmoral to make their case, might have lied to the Queen about their motives. Those three people were House of Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lords leader Baroness Evans and government Chief Whip, Mark Spencer. Of those three, one name stands out as having a motive to knowingly lie and the other two can claim to have been seriously misled.

The plot thickens and fact is always stranger than fiction.