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

[curley]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	It took Switzerland seven years for the Bilaterale 1. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the UK.

Less.

[marton]

The petition for a second EU referendum will be debated in Parliament on 5th September; we sure live in interesting times.
I assume this means art 50 will not be invoked before then. v

[Troublawesome]

Some think it will happen after French and German elections in 2017. Insane if they think the market will just sit and watch.

[Faltrad]

	Quote:	marton
	The petition for a second EU referendum will be debated in Parliament on 5th September; we sure live in interesting times. I assume this means art 50 will not be invoked before then. v

They are just using that to delay invoking the art. 50, May announced clearly that there wouldn't be a second referendum, she can't contradict herself between july and september. At least I assume she is competent enough as politician not to. After that, they'll find something else to play the clock. Once the art. 50 is invoked, the clock is ticking and plays for team EU. Well, the interest of the EU industry and the British economy are not totally antinomic so some parts of the deal will be soft and cosy. France does not revoke the Accords du Bouquet (about the border controls) and might only name them as part of the game, nothing more.

[marton]

	Quote:	Faltrad
	They are just using that to delay invoking the art. 50, May announced clearly that there wouldn't be a second referendum, she can't contradict herself between july and september. At least I assume she is competent enough as politician not to. After that, they'll find something else to play the clock. Once the art. 50 is invoked, the clock is ticking and plays for team EU. Well, the interest of the EU industry and the British economy are not totally antinomic so some parts of the deal will be soft and cosy. France does not revoke the Accords du Bouquet (about the border controls) and might only name them as part of the game, nothing more.

Well to quote Harold Wilson; a week is a long time in politics.
This was his answer when he was UK PM and was asked to explain why he contradicted himself within a week!
There are many precedents for PMs contradicting themselves......

[Medea Fleecestealer]

Just because they're debating it, it doesn't mean anything will happen.

"In a statement, the House of Commons Petitions Committee said a debate on the petition would allow MPs to "put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents" and a government minister would respond to the points raised.

But it said: "A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won't end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum...

"It will be up to the government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36777494

Given May's statement that seems unlikely.

Only being debated because it passed the 100,000 signatures required for it to go forward.

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Just because they're debating it, it doesn't mean anything will happen. "In a statement, the House of Commons Petitions Committee said a debate on the petition would allow MPs to "put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents" and a government minister would respond to the points raised. But it said: "A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won't end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum... "It will be up to the government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36777494 Given May's statement that seems unlikely. Only being debated because it passed the 100,000 signatures required for it to go forward.

Strange statement; there is no law to be changed? There is not yet any law on Brexit? Or did I miss something?
The debate could end with the House of Commons making a recommendation? Rather than a decision?

[marton]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	It took Switzerland seven years for the Bilaterale 1. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the UK. Until then Brexit means uncertainty, non-predictability, and that is never good for business, which by extension means it's also not good for employment. While it may be unlikely for existing projects to be cancelled, certainly not on a whim, future UK investment decisions got a big negative factor added to them.

The complexity of the UK’s efforts to disentangle itself from the European Union has been made clear by the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, who said the process might take as long as six years to complete and the possibility of signing bilateral trade deals in the interim may be limited.

Source

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	marton
	Strange statement; there is no law to be changed? There is not yet any law on Brexit? Or did I miss something? The debate could end with the House of Commons making a recommendation? Rather than a decision?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...endum_Act_2015

Presumably another Act would have to be made to allow a second referendum.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...endum_Act_2015 Presumably another Act would have to be made to allow a second referendum.

It is probably safer to make an act that allows unlimited referenda until there is a favorable outcome.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	It is probably safer to make an act that allows unlimited referenda until there is a favorable outcome.

Define "a favourable outcome". Re-running referenda until the goverment gets the answer it wants is not democracy imho. Not to mention a colossal waste of time and money. I'm quite happy with the result we got.

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...endum_Act_2015 Presumably another Act would have to be made to allow a second referendum.

Well as I posted before I do not envy May.

May cannot simply ignore a petition with 4 million signatures, the largest number ever on this site.
She also has to consider the counter petition "to invoke Art. 50 immediately" has only achieved 90 thousand signatures so far which is an indicator of some lack of enthusiasm; needs a minimum of 100K before the Govt. is obliged to reply.

Of course different countries have different laws but here in Switzerland so many signatures would force a referendum; even on a population comparison that would be equivalent to ca. 400 thousand signatures.

Best case is Parliament debates, then comes to no conclusions and the whole idea is forgotten.

Worst case is Parliament recommends a second Referendum; May ignores that view & then has to face a vote of no confidence

[amogles]

	Quote:	Phos
	A simple plan of action and strategy statement from Theresa May should immediately reduce uncertainty. They need to base this on the quality of plan and not the urgency of time. She needs to outline a sequence of events that demonstrate smooth and seamless transitions from present mode to future mode. It will probably be a multiple step implementation strategy. *-Strategize Exit with individual entities when and where possible -Rejoin EFTA -Invoke Article 50 -Open Bi-Lateral negotiations Invoking Article 50 without a clear and coherent strategy could be unnecessarily damaging for the UK and the EU. The more forward momentum the UK generates, the better its negotiation position.

Strictly speaking, the referendum didn't actually mention article 50. It just mentioned leaving the EU, implying that it is up to the government to work out the modality. It would probably make sense to negotiate or at least start negotiating EFTA, bilaterals etc before invoking article 50. Basically, as long as Britain is planning to leave but has not invoked the article it has the EU by the balls as the UK is effectively sitting on both sides of the negotiating table. It is more in the interests of the EU than the UK that the aricle be invoked sooner rather than later. And the UK can use that as a negotiating ploy to get other concessions.

	Quote:	marton
	Well as I posted before I do not envy May. May cannot simply ignore a petition with 4 million signatures, the largest number ever on this site.

4 million vs 17.4 million. Yes she can ignore it.

[amogles]

	Quote:	marton
	Well as I posted before I do not envy May. May cannot simply ignore a petition with 4 million signatures, the largest number ever on this site. She also has to consider the counter petition "to invoke Art. 50 immediately" has only achieved 90 thousand signatures so far which is an indicator of some lack of enthusiasm; needs a minimum of 100K before the Govt. is obliged to reply. Of course different countries have different laws but here in Switzerland so many signatures would force a referendum; even on a population comparison that would be equivalent to ca. 400 thousand signatures. Best case is Parliament debates, then comes to no conclusions and the whole idea is forgotten. Worst case is Parliament recommends a second Referendum; May ignores that view & then has to face a vote of no confidence

I think there are many intermediate shades between invoking article 50 immediately and not invoking it at all.

I am pro Brexit but I wouldn't want to see the article invoked immediately.

I might even be swayed into switching to the Remain camp if the EU stretched out a hand of reconciliation and offered genuine and meaningful concessions, not the window dressing they fobbed Cameron off with.

	Quote:	amogles
	Strictly speaking, the referendum didn't actually mention article 50. It just mentioned leaving the EU, implying that it is up to the government to work out the modality. It would probably make sense to negotiate or at least start negotiating EFTA, bilaterals etc before invoking article 50. Basically, as long as Britain is planning to leave but has not invoked the article it has the EU by the balls as the UK is effectively sitting on both sides of the negotiating table. It is more in the interests of the EU than the UK that the aricle be invoked sooner rather than later. And the UK can use that as a negotiating ploy to get other concessions.

An announcement of a roadmap and process without specifying timeframe could suffice, the key is to commit to stability and continuity and demonstrate that investments in the UK will not go down the rain.

Some in the EU have said they would like to make an example of the UK, by making it unpleasant, to dissuade other countries from leaving. The EU has expressed some childishness, and sometimes its good to delay a child's gratification.

At the moment, the EU has a backdoor into the UK, in the form of the ECJ. I would not be surprised if there is an attempt to exploit it by activist courts in this situation. The sooner that backdoor can be closed, the better.

[dodgyken]

	Quote:	Phos
	An announcement of a roadmap and process without specifying timeframe could suffice

I've know entire departments in big companies do that - on a 2 year basis - never actually achieving anything.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Phil_MCR
	I guess business can reduce the uncertainty by building capability in the UK then they can serve the UK market from the UK.

Why settle for a 65mln market when you have a 500mln market available instead?

In 2012, the financial services sector accounted for 8% of UK output and around 3.5% of employment, i.e. it's more than twice as productive(profitable) than the average job. Bank of England: "More foreign banks operate in the UK than any other EU country, and around half of the world’s largest financial firms have their European headquarters in the UK."

EEA memberships brings "passporting" rights, the right to provide financial services in all EU countries by domestic financials, instead of having to ask permission to build a local shop in each serviced cuntry. IF UK leaves EEA it will be much less attractive to set up shop in the UK, but if instead UK stays in EEA it must accept all four freedoms including free movement of people - you see the dilemma.

	Quote:	amogles
	Strictly speaking, the referendum didn't actually mention article 50. It just mentioned leaving the EU, implying that it is up to the government to work out the modality. It would probably make sense to negotiate or at least start negotiating EFTA, bilaterals etc before invoking article 50. Basically, as long as Britain is planning to leave but has not invoked the article it has the EU by the balls as the UK is effectively sitting on both sides of the negotiating table. It is more in the interests of the EU than the UK that the aricle be invoked sooner rather than later. And the UK can use that as a negotiating ploy to get other concessions.

Doesn't "Leaving the EU" technically mean no longer being an EU member, hence invocation of Article 50? Or can it also mean momentarily leaving, flouncing, only to be called back with new amends?

50 Ways to Leave Your Lover

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	marton
	Well as I posted before I do not envy May. May cannot simply ignore a petition with 4 million signatures, the largest number ever on this site. She also has to consider the counter petition "to invoke Art. 50 immediately" has only achieved 90 thousand signatures so far which is an indicator of some lack of enthusiasm; needs a minimum of 100K before the Govt. is obliged to reply. Of course different countries have different laws but here in Switzerland so many signatures would force a referendum; even on a population comparison that would be equivalent to ca. 400 thousand signatures. Best case is Parliament debates, then comes to no conclusions and the whole idea is forgotten. Worst case is Parliament recommends a second Referendum; May ignores that view & then has to face a vote of no confidence

Of course she can. 4 mil is what? Around 1% (maths dunce here so don't yell at me if it's wrong ) of the total 33,551,983 people that voted in the referendum. If she can ignore the 16mil+ that voted Remain she can certainly ignore the much smaller number.