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

There would be no point in having a second same referendum - it makes every sense to have a referendum on the final deal, and give people the option to accept or reject it- with some idea of the real consequences. That would be another referendum altogether, not a second one...

	Quote:	Jim2007
	However having a second referendum on it would be a joke, because legally there is no way back no matter what the politicians say. Any EU citizen could take an action to the ECJ requiring that the UK completes the process.

Many, including Lord Kerr (formerly a British diplomat, now a crossbencher in the House of Lords), who drafted Article 50, and senior government figures including presidents and prime ministers within the EU, seem to think that Brexit is revocable provided negotiations have not concluded. This is just one of literally hundreds of references that attest to this position.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	Many, including Lord Kerr (formerly a British diplomat, now a crossbencher in the House of Lords), who drafted Article 50, and senior government figures including presidents and prime ministers within the EU, seem to think that Brexit is revocable provided negotiations have not concluded. This is just one of literally hundreds of references that attest to this position.

But they are all opinions, primarily from common law jurists and there are no stated provisions for it's withdrawal, nor is there any indication that all 27 would accept it. I expect it would be very unwise to start building future commitments on an assumption that could be over turned later. And there is every chance the UKIP would take such an action.

In any case I think it is all academic at this stage. With both of the main parties committed to BREXIT there is no one to pull the handbrake.

	Quote:	Sgiobair Og
	Not really anything democratic about it. There's a big difference between Democracy and just holding a vote. For starters, the information provided to voters was either scant, misleading, or an outright lie, so there was no informed public. Second, there were not just questions about that vote, there were questions about the legitimacy of the elections which brought the people who brought the referendum, some of which, IIRC, are still underway. So there are questions about the process. Finally, as Marton pointed out, democracy doesn't mean 'too late, you voted, it's decided'. The landscape changed before the vote was even complete, suddenly very real impacts were in play that no one considered, the leaders who championed the referendum suddenly left, and suddenly the promises made disappeared. It wasn't a referendum, it was a political sham vote for a non-existent policy. If that wasn't enough for a renewed referendum, how about the ongoing dysfunction and the government's inability to hold a position? The whole thing was grossly undemocratic. But even if you believe it's squeaky clean, what is undemocratic about holding another vote to double-check that we really want to do something so incredibly stupid and harmful?

"And I would have said exactly the same thing if the UK had voted to remain in the EU. Honest"

	Quote:	Jim2007
	And we're off once again.... The UK has a sovereign parliament, or at least the like to think they have.... accordingly a referenda can only every be advisory no matter what the outcome. So it foreseen that the outcome of any GE is a mandate to change everything if the government of the day wishes. That is how the UK democracy works. Next the nonsense about not being able to change a decision made... if one were to follow your logic then they should never have been allowed to make the decision to leave, since there already have been a democratic decision to join and furthermore to continue committing the country to ever closer union by the sovereign parliament. You can argue one way when it suits you the the other when it does not. However having a second referendum on it would be a joke, because legally there is no way back no matter what the politicians say. Any EU citizen could take an action to the ECJ requiring that the UK completes the process.

You can dress it up how you want mate. The conditions of the vote were printed on the ballot paper. People had their voices heard. Get over it.

[pdofr]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	You can dress it up how you want mate. The conditions of the vote were printed on the ballot paper. People had their voices heard. Get over it.

Elective dictatorship in action.

	Quote:	pdofr
	Elective dictatorship in action.

It was a referendum. You should look up what that means. We live in a country that has loads of them.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	You can dress it up how you want mate. The conditions of the vote were printed on the ballot paper. People had their voices heard. Get over it.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...hot-523343.png


It's hardly an extensive run down of where the £350m saved would go, whether we we would attempt to remain part of the free trade zone, yada yada.


It's just a yes / no, not the 50,000 shades of grey that are the reality.

	Quote:
	http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...hot-523343.png It's hardly an extensive run down of where the £350m saved would go, whether we we would attempt to remain part of the free trade zone, yada yada. It's just a yes / no, not the 50,000 shades of grey that are the reality.

I can't be bothered to go over all this again now, the conditions of the referendum were made clear by the government at the time. The only thing I will say is that a country is either in the EU or out. There is no Hard or Soft Brexit, or 50,000 shades of grey.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The only thing I will say is that a country is either in the EU or out. There is no Hard or Soft Brexit, or 50,000 shades of grey.

Rubbish.

There is membership of the EEA or not (the Norway solution)
There is membership of the single market or not (the Switzerland solution)
There are forms of preferred trading partner or not (the Turkey solution)
There are other forms of free or preferential trade solutons
There are WTO rules

	Quote:
	Rubbish. There is membership of the EEA or not (the Norway solution) There is membership of the single market or not (the Switzerland solution) There are forms of preferred trading partner or not (the Turkey solution) There are other forms of free or preferential trade solutons There are WTO rules

Which one of those countries is in the EU?

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I can't be bothered to go over all this again now, the conditions of the referendum were made clear by the government at the time. The only thing I will say is that a country is either in the EU or out. There is no Hard or Soft Brexit, or 50,000 shades of grey.

They still aren't clear to this day to be fair, so not sure you can really state that with any confidence.

All your tweet says is that DC says there will only be one referendum, that's hardly clarity. I'm not sure as complex an issue as the EU referendum can be fully defined within 140 characters

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I can't be bothered to go over all this again now, the conditions of the referendum were made clear by the government at the time. The only thing I will say is that a country is either in the EU or out. There is no Hard or Soft Brexit, or 50,000 shades of grey.

Who cares what DC said, his statements no longer have authority.

May has already reversed some of his policies and decisions.

To make it clearer for the hard of thinking

	Quote:	Loz1983
	There is no Hard or Soft Brexit, or 50,000 shades of grey.

Rubbish.

There is membership of the EEA or not (the Norway solution)......................................... ......SOFT BREXIT
There is membership of the single market or not (the Switzerland solution)
There are forms of preferred trading partner or not (the Turkey solution)
There are other forms of free or preferential trade solutons
There are WTO rules .................................................. .................................................. .HARD BREXIT

	Quote:
	To make it clearer for the hard of thinking Rubbish. There is membership of the EEA or not (the Norway solution)......................................... ......SOFT BREXIT There is membership of the single market or not (the Switzerland solution) There are forms of preferred trading partner or not (the Turkey solution) There are other forms of free or preferential trade solutons There are WTO rules .................................................. .................................................. .HARD BREXIT

I'll let Jacob Rees-Mogg make it clear for the hard of accepting:

“You are either in the European Union or you leave it. This is not only my view, this is the view of Donald Tusk, one of the Presidents of the European Union, who said: “there is no such thing as hard and soft Brexit, there is being in the European Union or out.” If we are out of the European Union, we cannot have our laws by the European Court of Justice, we cannot have all our regulations set by being in the internal market and we can’t lose all our trading opportunities by being in the customs union. And this was clear at the election. I brought a quotation in case this came up, from Wolfgang Schäuble, a very senior German politician. He let the cat out of the bag after the referendum because he said he’d been asked to say this by one George Osborne, the then Chancellor. And he said: “If the majority in Britain opt for Brexit that would be a decision against the single market”. In is in, out is out. We knew what we were voting for, we voted and democracy must deliver.”

It's all very well for Moggy to say that, and yes, of course one day we will be in the EU and the next we won't be, however his black and white definitions (deliberately) simplify exit conditions and future relationship.

If it was that cut and dried, I'm sure his whole party would have a unanimous view on it...what's that, they don't? Come on.

	Quote:
	It's all very well for Moggy to say that, and yes, of course one day we will be in the EU and the next we won't be, however his black and white definitions (deliberately) simplify exit conditions and future relationship. If it was that cut and dried, I'm sure his whole party would have a unanimous view on it...what's that, they don't? Come on.

Good point, I'm beginning to think the only way we'll get the Brexit that people voted for is to have Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Only problem is he'll bankrupt the country at the same time.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Good point, I'm beginning to think the only way we'll get the Brexit that people voted for is to have Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Only problem is he'll bankrupt the country at the same time.

It's going that way anyway, to be fair, might as well give the people a share of it.


Luckily, people like Jacob Rees Mogg and his £150m net worth will be only too happy to provide workhouses for the destitute, whilst financial deregulation lets the financial house of which he is chairman run amok.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	You can dress it up how you want mate. The conditions of the vote were printed on the ballot paper. People had their voices heard. Get over it.

The only one dressing it up is YOU. Every democracy has a right to change its mind. You want to argue it, fine, but then you do it on the facts - legally referenda are advisory in the U.K. because they have a sovereign parliament (fact). The consequences of a sovereign parliament is that they can fully commit the country to any international agreement they wish, as they have done for the past 40 years (fact). There is nothing preventing the next parliament from reversing the current decisions on BREXIT or anything else if they believe it is the wishes of the voters (fact).

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	There is nothing preventing the next parliament from reversing the current decisions on BREXIT or anything else if they believe it is the wishes of the voters (fact).

No reason to think that the wish of the country has changed

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	No reason to think that the wish of the country has changed

No harm in asking them, just to make sure then, I suppose.