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

Guy Verhofstadt remembers the Good Friday Agreement on its 21st anniversary. GFA really made a huge difference and brought peace and stability to Northern Ireland, Ireland and the UK.

If Brexit has taught us anything, it is that unity and working together creates peace and prosperity. 2019 and the EU knows that better than the UK, it would seem.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/s...17048079626241

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	curley
	As far as I know (and of course I could be totally wrong here) the leaflet by the governement of GB had no such mistakes in it.

what about "The Government will implement what you decide"?

[curley]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	what about "The Government will implement what you decide"?

That was in the leaflet?

They will probably claim that was a different governement back then. Didn't somebody post here that a GB governement does not have to take over what ever a previous governement decided/promised?

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	curley
	That was in the leaflet? They will probably claim that was a different governement back then. Didn't somebody post here that a GB governement does not have to take over what ever a previous governement decided/promised?

It start with the Cameron government breaking the promise and then the next government failing to implement the promise.

[SponPlague]

	Quote:	curley
	That was in the leaflet? They will probably claim that was a different governement back then. Didn't somebody post here that a GB governement does not have to take over what ever a previous governement decided/promised?

https://assets.publishing.service.go...for-the-uk.pdf

	Quote:
	A once in a generation decision This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide. If you’re aged 18 or over by 23rd June and are entitled to vote, this is your chance to decide.

[SponPlague]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	It start with the Cameron government breaking the promise and then the next government failing to implement the promise.

IMHO it started when Cameron pretended “all options remain on the table” - some people took that to mean recommending leaving in the event of a bad deal; I took it (sadly correctly) to mean recommending staying

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	amogles
	If the Uk gets the right to revoke article 50 at will, ...

There's no "if" about it.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	what about "The Government will implement what you decide"?

That government ceased to exist at 00.01am on Wednesday 3 May 2017 when Parliament was dissolved.

	Quote:	SponPlague
	IMHO it started when Cameron pretended “all options remain on the table” - some people took that to mean recommending leaving in the event of a bad deal; I took it (sadly correctly) to mean recommending staying

Huh?!!

As far as I'm aware, that quote was made by Cameron in reference to the possibility of arming Syrian Rebels back in 2013. I know of no occassion when he made that quote in relation to Brexit as he resigned on 24 June 2016 and played no part in the Brexit negotiations.

	Quote:	curley
	That was in the leaflet? They will probably claim that was a different governement back then. Didn't somebody post here that a GB governement does not have to take over what ever a previous governement decided/promised?

Why are you solely focussing on the leaflet?

I take it you are aware that governments running campaigns employ various methods of informing the electorate? It’s not just ‘a Brit thing’ either.

It’s not difficult to google the main issues that were misinformation and downright untruths. Swisstree posted a link which details them.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	It start with the Cameron government breaking the promise and then the next government failing to implement the promise.

It started with the electorate failing to give the government a mandate to do so. It does not really matter what you did in the referendum, if you fail to give the government the majority necessary to carry it out, it is as if you never held the referendum.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	It started with the electorate failing to give the government a mandate to do so. It does not really matter what you did in the referendum, if you fail to give the government the majority necessary to carry it out, it is as if you never held the referendum.

but then you shouldn't do a referendum. or would you organise a referendum about a referendum?

Brexit extension until 31st of October. UK will be full members until then, with voting rights. UK, of course, is free to leave before that date.

Loved Tusk's dig when he commented there is more unity in the EU27 than in the HOC. (..a no brainer )

May is determined to stay on as PM and see this through.

The mess rolls on..

[SponPlague]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	There's no "if" about it. That government ceased to exist at 00.01am on Wednesday 3 May 2017 when Parliament was dissolved. Huh?!! As far as I'm aware, that quote was made by Cameron in reference to the possibility of arming Syrian Rebels back in 2013. I know of no occassion when he made that quote in relation to Brexit as he resigned on 24 June 2016 and played no part in the Brexit negotiations.

He said it repeatedly during the post-2015 negotiations on a better deal with the EU, whenever the press asked him about recommending leave in the event of a bad negotiation result. During the referendum itself, his deal was never mentioned again, because everyone knew it was laughable...

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	Swisstree
	Brexit extension until 31st of October. UK will be full members until then, with voting rights. UK, of course, is free to leave before that date. Loved Tusk's dig when he commented there is more unity in the EU27 than in the HOC. (..a no brainer ) May is determined to stay on as PM and see this through. The mess rolls on..

Imagine the discussions behind the scenes. Something like "LOL, let's do it on Halloween this time".

[greenmount]

	Quote:
	Why are you solely focussing on the leaflet? I take it you are aware that governments running campaigns employ various methods of informing the electorate? It’s not just ‘a Brit thing’ either. It’s not difficult to google the main issues that were misinformation and downright untruths. Swisstree posted a link which details them.

It's all right. You have Curley to worry sick about those undemocratic Brits who won't put Brexit in practice and watch out for your interests!

Would you just have that Brexit (finally) to make Curley happy? Pretty please? Now that would be a relief.

	Quote:	k_and_e
	Imagine the discussions behind the scenes. Something like "LOL, let's do it on Halloween this time".

May plays trick or treat with the EU on the day.

I bet the masks and costumes are being made up as we speak.

On a serious note, the 31st of Oct' is not enough time for a people's vote/2nd Ref. which this situation is now crying out for.. that, or a GE.

Most likely they'd get a refextension or an electextension if it came to it. Goodness.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	Depends. Each campaign had members of the government as part of it, didn't it? They were known as the "official" Leave or Remain campaign.

Were they part of the government, the executive, at that time? PM's for instance aren't, they're part of the legislative, the lawgiver. A crucial distinction.

	Quote:
	Going back to the earlier post about the Swiss vote, I think the idea was that there were "parallels" to be found not an exact carbon copy, to be fair. The implication being that votes gained by telling porkies should void the result, regardless of the result is in your favour or not.

The reasoning isn't out yet. But among them are probably the facts that the outcome was close (50.8% against) and that the majority of the Cantons said Yes (a Volksinitiative needs both to pass, majority of the population and of the Cantons).

Anyway, I'm not sure what relevance that has for Brexit, the British probably couldn't care less about that federal court ruling.

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Were they part of the government, the executive, at that time? PM's for instance aren't, they're part of the legislative, the lawgiver.

Does it make any odds? They were senior figures who have a responsibility to provide information to the electorate to facilitate their ability to make a reasoned choice, not act like some junior tabloid hack making up the info as they assume people want to hear.

I think furiously drilling down on irrelevant details about who had what position and whether they were "executive" is missing the point entirely.

Bottom line is; influential people in government willfully misguided the public to get a result only they wanted.

Both sides were guilty of it.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	It start with the Cameron government breaking the promise and then the next government failing to implement the promise.

The problem with that is, Cameron didn't have the authority to make that promise as the parliament had given orders to hold an advisory referendum.

But even if you think the promise is binding nonetheless, there's a conundrum to be solved:
1) It is the government's and parliament's job to work for increased prosperity
2) Every version of Brexit is regarded as detrimental economically, hence contradicts 1)

When you're in a similar situation at your job, what do you do? You go back to your boss and request clarifications, perhaps a change of instructions.

The same should happen here. Now that the options are known a 2nd vote should be held to decide which option to chose, including withdrawing the notice invoking §50.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:
	Bottom line is; influential people in government willfully misguided the public to get a result only they wanted.

Fully agreed. With the public's willful help however as they simply stopped thinking 3+ years ago. It's a very emotional issue to this day.

That said, in a blame-game you want to make sure you blaim where blaiming is due. That's why the distinction between "government" and "influential people" (or campaign figureheads, or similar, should you prefer that) is a crucial one. It's essentially the thinking behind your critique, stick to the facts.

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Fully agreed. With the public's willful help however as they simply stopped thinking 3+ years ago. It's a very emotional issue to this day. That said, in a blame-game you want to make sure you blaim where blaiming is due. That's why the distinction between "government" and "influential people" (or campaign figureheads, or similar, should you prefer that) is a crucial one. It's essentially the thinking behind your critique, stick to the facts.

So how would you class the MPs, MEPs and peers running the campaigns if you don't want to acknowledge their connection to the government?

It's still just labouring a point which is irrelevant to debate whether the committees of the campaigns were connected to the government or not anyway.

There's no point in allocating blame now anyway. The damage is done. Maybe people will learn not to sleepwalk through such stuff in the future, and vote with their brains rather than their fears.