Brexit process

[boisdevie]

I certainly support the idea of a public referendum on the terms of our exit. It may well be the case that in 2019 (or 2021 now!?) there'll be very little support for actually going through with the reality of Brexit. At the very least it makes sense to check because it'd be pretty daft to do something that the majority thought was a bad idea!.

You mean keep having referenda until the plebs conform and vote the 'right' way?

[clv101]

I actually mean what I just wrote?

[vtsnowedin]

I actually mean what I just wrote?

I hesitate to intrude on this discussion as I'm so far away from the implications of the result and the rest of the members here are sitting on the bulls eye. So I'll just ask a question. Two posts up you laid out two possible courses of action but you didn't say which one you preferred or suggest an alternate.
So if tomorrow morning you found yourself residing at No. 10 Downing street what would you do?

[cubes]

What's being betrayed here? I think you'll find you have less support for you opinion among the general public than you think you do. There may possible still be a majority for brexit, but it's not and never was for a hard totally leave the eu/sm/cu type brexit.

The electorate voted to leave. Would you prefer we keep running a fresh vote until you get the result you prefer?

All I'm saying is that "leave" isn't a well (or even poorly) defined concept in this case. What are we leaving? The EU? the single market? the custom union? Different people who support leave have different views what leave constitutes. Remainers (like myself if you haven't noticed) obviously think differently and just hope to make the best of a bad job.


To answer vtsnowedin's question. I would personally go for the hardest possible brexit just to spite the leavers then quit and let them pick up the pieces .

[vtsnowedin]

To answer vtsnowedin's question. I would personally go for the hardest possible brexit just to spite the leavers then quit and let them pick up the pieces .

A bit of middle school level sabotage?

.

[fuzzy]

What's being betrayed here? I think you'll find you have less support for you opinion among the general public than you think you do. There may possible still be a majority for brexit, but it's not and never was for a hard totally leave the eu/sm/cu type brexit.

The electorate voted to leave. Would you prefer we keep running a fresh vote until you get the result you prefer?

I certainly support the idea of a public referendum on the terms of our exit. It may well be the case that in 2019 (or 2021 now!?) there'll be very little support for actually going through with the reality of Brexit. At the very least it makes sense to check because it'd be pretty daft to do something that the majority thought was a bad idea!


May's speech seems pretty poor though. And the proposed two year transition period not going to make anyone happy. Proponents of a hard Brexit will see it as two years of slippage, but worse than that, two years of still paying, still accepting free movement, but losing what influence we had. Proponents of a soft Brexit will just see it a weak can-kicking exercise doing little to address their concerns. The 'risk' is that this transition period gets extended over and over and becomes the new normal.

Anyway, there are a lot more twists to come. Something will happen by the end of the Tory conference to upset their tenuous grip of power, May won't contest the next election, which will happen before Brexit... interesting times.

I would not stop people choosing, but what is there to choose? The trouble with having a referendum again is:

a] People have no idea what the facts are, including the clowns in govt. Eg there is no advantage to the total british people of 'single market membership' - we have a trading deficit so it is the EU who suffer from tariffs. Those pushing it are multinational corp and finance lobbyists and the scum in govt. We have no advantage in Norwegian arrangements, since they are a massive oil exporter.
b] Have we forgotten the last election with huge govt fear propaganda marketing versus a privately funded leave campaign? Remember cameron telling employers to tell their employees how to vote? Meanwhile every amateurish leave statement was pulled apart by the TV and most press?

[UndercoverElephant]

I actually mean what I just wrote?

So if tomorrow morning you found yourself residing at No. 10 Downing street what would you do?

Openly prepare to walk away from the EU without any deal at all. Call the EU's bluff. My position right now would be "It has become obvious you are negotiating in bad faith, and that the EU is more concerned about punishing the UK than arriving at a fair and mutually-beneficial deal. In those circumstances, not only is our decision to leave shown to be the right one, but in the interests of self-preservation we have to prepare to leave without a deal."

This would result in massive internal divisions within the EU about how to respond, and the UK would have to be prepared either to leave without a deal, or do a deal with a newly-realistic EU.

The absolute bottom line of all of this is that freedom of movement has to end. There's no way around this. If freedom of movement continues, or if the UK fails to leave the EU, we're heading for the biggest political crisis since the end of WWII.

[vtsnowedin]

UE:
Points well stated.

[johnhemming2]

The nub of the issue, of course, is that we are only discussing the detailed consequences of different options actually having had a vote.

[UndercoverElephant]

Looking at the mainstream media this morning, all I can see is total chaos. Chaos within the cabinet, chaos in the Labour party, chaos at every level below the leadership in both parties. We are just getting closer and closer to various deadlines, while it becomes ever more obvious that there is no compromise position available. I am no nearer coming to a firm conclusion as to how this is all going to end. But something has to break. Some group of people has to lose, and lose bigtime.

[Lord Beria3]

My take is that there will probably be a deal, hammered out by the various national leaders before the 2019 deadline, with a EU meeting going into the early morning, as per usual with Brussels.

This deal won't be perfect for either side, but will involve a 2 (maybe 3?) year transition period, continued membership of the single market and customs union for that transition period, Britain paying approximately 50 billion divorce bill to Brussels but exiting the single/custom union at the end of it.

By this stage, I suspect all the actors will be sick of the whole Brexit business and something akin to the status quo will be negotiated, largely preserving the current free trade movements with some token tariffs and continued membership dues for certain European agencies by Britain.

To a certain extent nothing much will change for the average Brit. Britain will still need EU migrants coming in but it will be under a controlled basis, like it was pre 2005 before free movement became the norm across the EU.

There may be some limited visa requirements for those wishing to travel to the EU but a minor inconvenience for most.

It will be in the longer term that the impact will grow. Should you see major financial or migration crises impact southern Europe, Britain will be able to control it's borders.

Plus Britain will be able, over time, to diverge on economic policy which could manifest itself in a shift to a more self-sufficient economy or a further move towards free market neo-liberal policies.

[clv101]

...something akin to the status quo will be negotiated, largely preserving the current free trade movements with some token tariffs and continued membership dues for certain European agencies by Britain.

To a certain extent nothing much will change for the average Brit. Britain will still need EU migrants coming in but it will be under a controlled basis, like it was pre 2005 before free movement became the norm across the EU.

There may be some limited visa requirements for those wishing to travel to the EU but a minor inconvenience for most.

Yes I think this is perfectly likely. The various powers at play will do all they can to avoid anything 'dramatic' happening on their watch. The so called 'cliff edge' is not something any minister wants to work though. My feeling is that LB3's description above may persist semi-permanently and we'll forever be in a period of transition, with no one particularly happy about the situation.

[cubes]

Although I'd rather stay in the EU, I see the most likely path to be a harder brexit (maybe an exit payment to cover our dues until next EU budget but no transition and no membership of SM/CU) as there seems to be little political will to fight for anything else.

Then a 2 or 3 years later they'll be a big fanfare about a trade deal with the USA but it'll take away far more rights than we ever got back from the EU.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -brexit-eu

Theresa May is under pressure to publish secret legal advice that is believed to state that parliament could still stop Brexit before the end of March 2019 if MPs judge that a change of mind is in the national interest. The move comes as concern grows that exit talks with Brussels are heading for disaster.

The calls for the prime minister to reveal advice from the country’s top legal experts follow government statements declaring that Brexit is now unstoppable, and that MPs will have to choose between whatever deal is on offer next year – even if it is a bad one – or no deal at all.

Even as a Leave voter, it seems to me untenable that this advice be withheld from the public. There must be a legal opinion - either the UK can reverse Article 50, or it can't. Whether or not you actually want the process to continue or not, that legal advice remains the way it is. By refusing to allow the public to know what the legal situation actually is, it becomes obvious that the advice is indeed that article 50 can be withdrawn, and that the tory government is hiding this information. If the advice was otherwise - that article 50 is irreversible - then they'd have nothing to lose, and something to gain, by making it public.

So it must be the case that the Brexit process can be legally stopped, unilaterally, at any point. This is very important whichever side you are on. If you're a remainer it is obvious why it is important, but even if you are a leaver it matters, because I think the threat of the UK remaining in the EU would actually be a powerful bargaining chip to get the EU to give us a better deal to leave. The EU wants to go ahead with ever closer union. It does not want the the UK screwing everything up, and that is exactly what would happen if Article 50 was revoked without the EU offering us a new status within the EU.

[Little John]

No

No "new arrangements". No "threats to stay". No more of any of this bullshit. The UK is leaving the EU. This, of logical necessity, means leaving the Single market and the Customs union. The EU can choose to cut an equitable trade deal on the back of those facts or it can choose to play silly buggers. In which case, the UK should walk away and fall back on WTO trade rules.

That's it.

This country voted out and if this or any government decides it is going to play fast and loose with what that means, they will reap a f***ing hurricane. The "legalities" are neither here nor there.

I may be mistaken here, but you're sounding like you might be a leaver with regrets UE. Well - if so - you are entitled to those regrets. But, you are not entitled to expect or endorse this or any other government refuting the democratic process by reversing wholly or partially the decision to leave, unequivocally and without qualification. Or, for that matter, even threatening to.

To be absolutely clear about this; the terms of continued membership - whole or partial - are not on the table and should not be on the table to be used as some kind of bargaining chip. This country is leaving the EU and if that does not now happen there will be bloodshed at some point over it.