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

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:	Castro
	Question to the Brexiteers, if Brexit remains such a good idea why do you fear a second vote?

It's not rock, papers, scissors, best of three.

Do as the voters has requested for once, this is the point of a democratic vote regardless of the outcome.

[marton]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	It's not rock, papers, scissors, best of three. Do as the voters has requested for once, this is the point of a democratic vote regardless of the outcome.

Via Parliament or bypassing Parliament?

Bypassing Parliament is not a good precedent for the future.
Implementing major decisions by the PM alone without Parliamentary review is travelling in a dangerous direction

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:	marton
	Via Parliament or bypassing Parliament? Bypassing Parliament is not a good precedent for the future. Implementing major decisions by the PM alone without Parliamentary review is travelling in a dangerous direction

I agree parliament should not be bypassed, it is clear the decision to trigger Art 50 is final, parliament should rubber stamp it.

Then again I prefer the Swiss method the people have spoken in a referendum so get on with it. Parliaments job is to implement the people's will and make it happen to the best of their ability.

All MP's/parties/house of lords should be part of the article 50 negotiations bringing together all sides of the house(s). It will happen so be a part of those discussions and move the country forward instead of holding on to non-hopes and dead end ideas, stalling via courts and whatever B$ scheme you can come up with to throw another roadblock up. (The Scots/Welsh should also be included)

The UK was once a beacon for democracy it seems it's forgotten what this means.

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	I agree parliament should not be bypassed, it is clear the decision to trigger Art 50 is final, parliament should rubber stamp it. Then again I prefer the Swiss method the people have spoken in a referendum so get on with it. Parliaments job is to implement the people's will and make it happen to the best of their ability. All MP's/parties/house of lords should be part of the article 50 negotiations bringing together all sides of the house(s). It will happen so be a part of those discussions and move the country forward instead of holding on to non-hopes and dead end ideas, stalling via courts and whatever B$ scheme you can come up with to throw another roadblock up. (The Scots/Welsh should also be included) The UK was once a beacon for democracy it seems it's forgotten what this means.

I posted this much earlier in our long discussion, but its a real question: does anyone know what happens now if the MP's vote against putting in article 50 ? I really cant see a way out here. On one side, you go against the will of the people, on the other you go against the will of the MP's. it cant work.

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I posted this much earlier in our long discussion, but its a real question: does anyone know what happens now if the MP's vote against putting in article 50 ? I really cant see a way out here. On one side, you go against the will of the people, on the other you go against the will of the MP's. it cant work.

For the Scots/Welsh it's an easyish choice they will mirror the request of their electorate, (no vote) with little comeback.

English MP's may find things a little more shady especially if they go against an "out" constituency.

She could trigger an election to grab more seats in parliament to force it through with a pure Tory vote led by the whips. Labour are weak with an idiot at the helm. Packing out the candidates with pro-brexit sympathisers controlled from Tory central office grabbing additional seats to pack the vote.

I guess it should go through regardless in parliament as the MP will be voted out in the next election IF they went against their constituents. (political suicide)

The blue shows you how many MP's will face this problem.

http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

[amogles]

	Quote:	Mikers
	I posted this much earlier in our long discussion, but its a real question: does anyone know what happens now if the MP's vote against putting in article 50 ? I really cant see a way out here. On one side, you go against the will of the people, on the other you go against the will of the MP's. it cant work.

MPs have broken promises before.

Just don't be surprised when voters grow increasingly cynical.

	Quote:	Mikers
	I posted this much earlier in our long discussion, but its a real question: does anyone know what happens now if the MP's vote against putting in article 50 ? I really cant see a way out here. On one side, you go against the will of the people, on the other you go against the will of the MP's. it cant work.

Any MPs that vote against the wishes of their constituents will face a backlash. Most will be out of a job.

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	The UK was once a beacon for democracy it seems it's forgotten what this means.

Not really.

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	The blue shows you how many MP's will face this problem. http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

Actually it doesn't as the referendum districts do not match single parliamentary constituencies. In particular, pretty well all city referendum districts comprised multiple constituencies (particularly London) wheras country districts usually contained just one.


I've not seen any attempt to convert the referendum result into parliamentary constituencies (and can't be bothered to do so myself) but I am pretty sure, as with the referendum result itself, it would be pretty close. Given the relative oversupply of Scottish MPs probably very close.

[marton]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	I agree parliament should not be bypassed, it is clear the decision to trigger Art 50 is final, parliament should rubber stamp it. Then again I prefer the Swiss method the people have spoken in a referendum so get on with it. Parliaments job is to implement the people's will and make it happen to the best of their ability. All MP's/parties/house of lords should be part of the article 50 negotiations bringing together all sides of the house(s). It will happen so be a part of those discussions and move the country forward instead of holding on to non-hopes and dead end ideas, stalling via courts and whatever B$ scheme you can come up with to throw another roadblock up. (The Scots/Welsh should also be included) The UK was once a beacon for democracy it seems it's forgotten what this means.

"I prefer the Swiss method" I am not sure what you mean
Here in Switzerland the various Houses of Parliament are definitely not bypassed, they do not need to go to court to enforce that.
They are actively involved and as in the recent case of the Mass Immigration Initiative (MEI) they significantly changed the implementation from what people expected to happen.

The question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?", nothing about Art. 50 or the implementation date.

I doubt our Parliament will block Brexit but they might demand, for example, that our Government has a proper plan for next steps before Art. 50 is invoked.

Some people (including May) have claimed that we should not release our negotiation position.
I have been involved in some serious negotiations in my life but never one where the other side refused to say what they wanted; how could that ever work?

Especially as the UK negotiation position will need to be shared with the 27 countries, the EU Parliament and the EU Commission.

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Not really.

I was referring to the 1689 Bill of Rights

"laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of Parliament"

[Castro]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	It's not rock, papers, scissors, best of three. Do as the voters has requested for once, this is the point of a democratic vote regardless of the outcome.

I'll use the well worn example of hanging. Put to a popular vote, the majority of Brits would support the re-introduction of capital punishment, especially for paedophiles, terrorists etc.. (51% in favour according to a 2010 MORI poll).

Why are we ignoring the will of the people here and not for something which will have a much greater impact on our economy, lives and children's future?

I am just as confused as anyone else which is why I want greater discussion and debate on this issue and not a headlong leap into the unknown. If BREXIT is truly better of us as a nation then I would be fully behind it, who wouldn't want to pull back sovereignty from the EU? But not if it means greater poverty, inequality and wholesale trashing of rights previously enjoyed by the masses.

The cuts and excuses by government are already rolling in.. with BREXIT the convenient scapegoat

[marton]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	For the Scots/Welsh it's an easyish choice they will mirror the request of their electorate, (no vote) with little comeback. English MP's may find things a little more shady especially if they go against an "out" constituency. She could trigger an election to grab more seats in parliament to force it through with a pure Tory vote led by the whips. Labour are weak with an idiot at the helm. Packing out the candidates with pro-brexit sympathisers controlled from Tory central office grabbing additional seats to pack the vote. I guess it should go through regardless in parliament as the MP will be voted out in the next election IF they went against their constituents. (political suicide) The blue shows you how many MP's will face this problem. http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

"I guess it should go through regardless in parliament as the MP will be voted out in the next election IF they went against their constituents. " Mostly the voting constituencies for the referendum did not match the voting constituencies for a General Election so for many areas it is not 100% clear what a majority of their constituents want.

	Quote:	marton
	I have been involved in some serious negotiations in my life but never one where the other side refused to say what they wanted; how could that ever work?

I think the point is that they don't KNOW what they want (or need for that matter).

Nobody really saw past the vote-out hysteria and outlandish promises from all sides.

It's like buying a massive, flat pack kitchen for a tiny bedsit. There's no instructions and no real space to put it so you end up pulling it apart and modifying it until it looks a bit like the old one but with a few mis-matched cupboard doors and some drawers that don't really slide in properly like they used to.

You only bought it to shut your wife up, who is now refusing to admit it was a bad idea and she can't find the balloon whisk. Or the bin.

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:	Castro
	I'll use the well worn example of hanging. Put to a popular vote, the majority of Brits would support the re-introduction of capital punishment, especially for paedophiles, terrorists etc.. (51% in favour according to a 2010 MORI poll). Why are we ignoring the will of the people here and not for something which will have a much greater impact on our economy, lives and children's future? I am just as confused as anyone else which is why I want greater discussion and debate on this issue and not a headlong leap into the unknown. If BREXIT is truly better of us as a nation then I would be fully behind it, who wouldn't want to pull back sovereignty from the EU? But not if it means greater poverty, inequality and wholesale trashing of rights previously enjoyed by the masses. The cuts and excuses by government are already rolling in.. with BREXIT the convenient scapegoat

Short answer have a referendum and bring back hanging if that's what the people want. That's democracy.

It could have been a lot worse with Osborne and chums hanging around.

To be clear

1. Parliament should vote
2. Parliament should agree on the terms of the exit on ALL sides of the house.
3. They should present these plans to their constituents.
4. Trigger article 50.

Guessing what will/won't happen is pretty much raising a finger in the air to test the temperature. NO one knows.

There could be a collapse of the EU for many reasons.

IT/FR/DE get an out vote too.

Bank collapses in the EU, such as Deutschebank taking out the Euro.

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:
	Actually it doesn't as the referendum districts do not match single parliamentary constituencies. In particular, pretty well all city referendum districts comprised multiple constituencies (particularly London) wheras country districts usually contained just one. I've not seen any attempt to convert the referendum result into parliamentary constituencies (and can't be bothered to do so myself) but I am pretty sure, as with the referendum result itself, it would be pretty close. Given the relative oversupply of Scottish MPs probably very close.

More generally, this exercise allows us to make the following claims:

421 out of 574 English and Welsh constituencies probably voted to Leave

Of these, 270 English and Welsh constituencies almost definitely voted to Leave

152 constituencies probably voted to Remain.

Of these, half (76) almost definitely voted to Remain.

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/th...0e1#.ieb57ahe0

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	marton
	Via Parliament or bypassing Parliament? Bypassing Parliament is not a good precedent for the future. Implementing major decisions by the PM alone without Parliamentary review is travelling in a dangerous direction

It is not bypassing Parliament. Parliament/Government called a referendum and should abide by the result. This isn't bypassing anything.

Did Parliament debate what terms we should enter the EU before any negotiations took place? No. The government negotiated and then presented their agreement to Parliament for approval. Exactly the same thing should happen this time. Trigger Article 50, the UK government negotiates an agreement with the EU and then Parliament approves or refuses it.

	Quote:	Castro
	I'll use the well worn example of hanging. Put to a popular vote, the majority of Brits would support the re-introduction of capital punishment, especially for paedophiles, terrorists etc.. (51% in favour according to a 2010 MORI poll). Why are we ignoring the will of the people here and not for something which will have a much greater impact on our economy, lives and children's future? I am just as confused as anyone else which is why I want greater discussion and debate on this issue and not a headlong leap into the unknown. If BREXIT is truly better of us as a nation then I would be fully behind it, who wouldn't want to pull back sovereignty from the EU? But not if it means greater poverty, inequality and wholesale trashing of rights previously enjoyed by the masses. The cuts and excuses by government are already rolling in.. with BREXIT the convenient scapegoat

The will of the people regarding the reintroduction of capital punishment is different because Parliament dare not give the people a chance to state their wishes via a referendum. Brexit however has had a referendum and the people made it clear what they wanted. Parliament doesn't like referendums precisely because they threaten their sovereignty. Which is also probably why they made it advisory and not binding.

[marton]

	Quote:	Cata1yst
	More generally, this exercise allows us to make the following claims: 421 out of 574 English and Welsh constituencies probably voted to Leave Of these, 270 English and Welsh constituencies almost definitely voted to Leave 152 constituencies probably voted to Remain. Of these, half (76) almost definitely voted to Remain. https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/th...0e1#.ieb57ahe0

Which all leaves a lot of flexibility for individual MPs to decide which class their own constituency falls into and possibly encouraged by the claims that some people regret their vote decision.

The whole thrust of the discussion here is that MPs will decide simply on the risk of losing their seat or not.
Which in turn contains an implicit assumption that they plan to stand again in 2020.
The elephant in the room is that nobody has claimed that MPs will have an Epiphany and suddenly recognise that Brexit is really a wonderful thing for the UK.

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	It is not bypassing Parliament. Parliament/Government called a referendum and should abide by the result. This isn't bypassing anything. Did Parliament debate what terms we should enter the EU before any negotiations took place? No. The government negotiated and then presented their agreement to Parliament for approval. Exactly the same thing should happen this time. Trigger Article 50, the UK government negotiates an agreement with the EU and then Parliament approves or refuses it. The will of the people regarding the reintroduction of capital punishment is different because Parliament dare not give the people a chance to state their wishes via a referendum. Brexit however has had a referendum and the people made it clear what they wanted. Parliament doesn't like referendums precisely because they threaten their sovereignty. Which is also probably why they made it advisory and not binding.

"why they made it advisory and not binding" The British constitution does not allow for a binding referendum; read the House of Commons briefing paper on this topic.

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Did Parliament debate what terms we should enter the EU before any negotiations took place? No. The government negotiated and then presented their agreement to Parliament for approval. Exactly the same thing should happen this time. Trigger Article 50, the UK government negotiates an agreement with the EU and then Parliament approves or refuses it.

Absolutely not the same. On entering the EU, parliament had the clear authority to agree or disagree. Trigger Article 50 and the decision has been taken out of parliaments hands as that is de-facto already the exit. Parliament would have no say in the fact of the exit, possibly only in any agreements negotiated out of that. As the courts have ruled, this is anti-constitutional.


Edit - by your own argument parliament should clearly decide on Article 50 but possibly not on any negotiated settlement arising out of it.

[Cata1yst]

	Quote:	marton
	Which all leaves a lot of flexibility for individual MPs to decide which class their own constituency falls into and possibly encouraged by the claims that some people regret their vote decision. The whole thrust of the discussion here is that MPs will decide simply on the risk of losing their seat or not. Which in turn contains an implicit assumption that they plan to stand again in 2020. The elephant in the room is that nobody has claimed that MPs will have an Epiphany and suddenly recognise that Brexit is really a wonderful thing for the UK.

You're clutching at straws. It's happening.