EU membership referendum debate thread

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 26 Jun 2016, 01:47

Well, this Brexit thing is all turning out rather interesting. Never have the bureaucrats from Brussels been quite as effectively hoist by their own petard as now. Mr Juncker and numerous other EU leaders are telling the UK that they need to get out as soon as possible. Except the bureaucrats deliberately made the procedures for leaving the EU as undefined as possible, because they were convinced nobody would ever try to actually do it. But because they arrogantly assumed the British would vote to remain even if the concerns of the people were ignored, somebody actually is doing it.

Juncker and co want the UK out as soon as possible to limit "contagion" - they want the period of uncertainty to end ASAP to stop people in Holland, Denmark and France getting funny ideas about asking for referendums and exceptions. But the rules that do exist are clear - the referendum was not legally binding and nothing can happen until the UK voluntary enacts article 50, and even then there is no way to get rid of the UK until 2 years have passed. Two long years that don't start until the UK says so! And why should we say so straight away, when the prime minister has understandably resigned and there is a real possibility of both a change in labour leadership and an unplanned general election? It makes no sense for the UK to enact article 50 immediately, just because that is what suits the Eurocrats.

Sod them. Chickens are coming home to roost for them too. The UK will leave the EU in its own sweet time, and if we can take some more nations out with us then that is all well and good.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... xit-crisis

Britain was heading into a period of unprecedented political, constitutional and economic crisis on Saturday night as European leaders stepped up demands for it to quit the EU as soon as possible.
Petition to hold second EU referendum reaches 2.5m signatures
Read more

However, prominent Leave campaigner and cabinet minister Theresa Villiers, writing in the Observer, dismissed the calls. “There is no need to plunge into tabling article 50 now, whatever [European commission president] Mr Juncker may want,” she writes, referring to the trigger for formal Brexit negotiations. “The period of informal negotiation prior to an article 50 process will be crucial and should not be rushed.”

Johnson, the favourite to succeed Cameron, has also said there is no need to hurry triggering the formal process, a move he believes would limit the UK’s room for manoeuvre.

But after an emergency meeting of ministers from the bloc’s six founder members, Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said negotiations should begin “as soon as possible” and that Britain had a responsibility to work with the EU on exit terms.

BJ is right. If the Eurocrats want the UK to leave as soon as possible, to limit the uncertainty and contagion, then the last thing we should do is rush it. On the contrary, the longer we dawdle, the more likely the EU will be to grant us a decent deal to get the negotiation process over with! Make them sweat.

Post by **clv101** » 26 Jun 2016, 06:47

Marr's on BBC at 9am (with Farage, IDS, Sajid Javid, Sturgeon, John McDonnell...) Peston's on ITV at 10am (Sturgeon, Hammond, Esther McVey, Ed Balls, Osborne's ex chief of staff...) So not a single member of the official Leave campaign? Isn't it weird how no one wants to talk about their victory?

It seems Osborne is still AWOL, maybe he really is writing an emergency budget!

This from the Guardian comments section (apparently):

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 26 Jun 2016, 07:21

The referendum petition may be nonsense in its request to change the rules after the event, but it is an immediate and direct line of communication to the government, and by sheer numbers it is saying that millions, probably tens of millions of people will never vote again for a party that pulls the plug on Europe. The Tory party is finished, if they follow the vote and invoke clause 50, they will be wiped out at the next election. If they refuse to invoke clause 50, they will be wiped out at the next election.

The EU is a highly divisive issue, and it cuts straight through both the Tory and Labour party support bases. By allowing the vote, Cameron has destroyed his own party.

2.8 million and rising.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 26 Jun 2016, 07:46

The main two parties are essentially defined by their opponents. People tend not to vote for them, but instead vote against their opponents.

The issue is how to get through the process whereby the government copes with negotiating a brexit. They need a brexit supporting PM and Chancellor for this as they would not be perceived as having to prove that we should have remained.

Step forward Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 26 Jun 2016, 07:54

UndercoverElephant wrote:The truth is that the Greek situation just exposes why the EU doesn't really work. Specifically, why the single currency was a bad idea in the absence of full political and fiscal union. It is not just that the Greeks are corrupt or lazy. They are using a currency that is designed to work best for the Germans, not the Greeks.

It does not demonstrate that the EU doesn't work. It demonstrates that you need a banking union when you have a currency union. You do not necessarily need a full political and fiscal union although some of that helps. In theory Maastrict provided it, but it was not effective.

If you compare Europe to the USA you see that states and cities can go bankrupt without that affecting the whole of the federal state. The EU has been federal since the late 80s.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 26 Jun 2016, 07:58

clv101 wrote:Marr's on BBC at 9am (with Farage, IDS, Sajid Javid, Sturgeon, John McDonnell...) Peston's on ITV at 10am (Sturgeon, Hammond, Esther McVey, Ed Balls, Osborne's ex chief of staff...) So not a single member of the official Leave campaign? Isn't it weird how no one wants to talk about their victory?

It seems Osborne is still AWOL, maybe he really is writing an emergency budget!

This from the Guardian comments section (apparently):

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

THE REFERENDUM RESULT IS NOT BINDING. IT IS ADVISORY. PARLIAMENT IS NOT BOUND TO COMMIT ITSELF IN THAT SAME DIRECTION.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

2.8M+ folk may not have a cat's chance in hell of voting in a second referendum, but their petition may turn out to be very influential in forcing the HoC to abandon the first one.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 26 Jun 2016, 08:38

notwithstanding the specific timing of when article 50 is most judiciously triggered, if the results of the referendum, that is to say the democratic will of the winning side, are not acted-on there will be mayhem on our streets and even outright civil insurrection.

And there should be.

Post by **clv101** » 26 Jun 2016, 08:45

Little John wrote:...that is to say the democratic will of the winning side...

Exactly, but what is that? There is no common view, let alone a negotiated one of what Brexit looks like. What is the "democratic will of the winning side"?

Norway is not a member of the EU but I doubt many Leave voters would be happy if we ended with the same relationship as Norway in a few years time.

3rdRock · Post by **3rdRock** » 26 Jun 2016, 08:49

England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this divided England

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 26 Jun 2016, 08:53

Although political violence should not be encouraged, if there is a failure to recognise a properly democratic decision that undermines public confidence in the institutions of the state. That is a bad idea.

This is why only those who have been in the Brexit camp are people who can press for a second referendum. (or post a general election where it is in the manifestos of parties).

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 26 Jun 2016, 09:13

Looks like the SNP and NOrthern Ireland have some blocking power:
https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/status/ ... 3522400256

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 26 Jun 2016, 09:27

clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:...that is to say the democratic will of the winning side...
Exactly, but what is that? There is no common view, let alone a negotiated one of what Brexit looks like. What is the "democratic will of the winning side"?

Norway is not a member of the EU but I doubt many Leave voters would be happy if we ended with the same relationship as Norway in a few years time.

What a load of disingenuous bullshit Chris Vernon. If the Remain side had won by the same margin you would not have come out with that weasel-worded bollocks. Brexit means being no longer subject to the direct legislative rule of the EU which, in turn, means being able to set our own migration policy. As for what migration policy is acceptable to the British people that can now be settled at UK general elections.

That's the POINT of Brexit

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 26 Jun 2016, 09:33

clv101 wrote:Marr's on BBC at 9am (with Farage, IDS, Sajid Javid, Sturgeon, John McDonnell...) Peston's on ITV at 10am (Sturgeon, Hammond, Esther McVey, Ed Balls, Osborne's ex chief of staff...) So not a single member of the official Leave campaign? Isn't it weird how no one wants to talk about their victory?

Farage wasn't a member of the leave campaign?

This from the Guardian comments section (apparently):

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
This is Remainer Porn.

The claim/threat that Article 50 would be enacted on Friday morning was just one more of the enormous pile of lies that was peddled by the Remain campaign. It was part of the "out means out" line - that there could be no further bites of the cherry for either side. What is actually going to happen is firstly a period of uncertainty as the tories, and maybe labour, elect new leaders. Then there will be a period of pre-article-50 negotiations which may well include possible new concessions from an EU that will be desperate to resolve the situation in order to stop more countries from leaving.

Leave hasn't lost, simply because Article 50 hasn't been noticed. On the contrary, it holds all the trump cards and should bide its time and play them slowly.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished.
The author has assumed that if he runs, he will win. What if he runs but loses (which is very likely)? Still finished? Why?

If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away...
Oh boy I am bored of this lie. For the umpty-ninth time Scotland is powerless to "break away". Scotland can't "break away" unless the very same person who'll be in charge of dealing with the EU situation gives them permission to do so, and that person will have very strong grounds for with-holding that permission.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
The "Brexit Leaders"? Farage isn't even a member of the tory party, and Gove is himself poison. He'd happily take the leadership, but his own party know he is an electoral liability because he makes so many people's skin crawl.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ...
Two very obvious reasons. Firstly because Cameron really isn't the right person to conduct those negotiations so there has to be a leadership contest in the Tory party. Secondly because a delay will cause panic in Brussels and may well result in them offering further concessions upon which a second referendum might be won by Remain, as much as they deny they will do this.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Absolute twaddle written by a person who can't accept the result. If somebody stands up and say "Brexit is unachievable; the referendum wasn't for real", the result will be a UKIP government.

Post by **clv101** » 26 Jun 2016, 09:40

Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:
Little John wrote:...that is to say the democratic will of the winning side...
Exactly, but what is that? There is no common view, let alone a negotiated one of what Brexit looks like. What is the "democratic will of the winning side"?

Norway is not a member of the EU but I doubt many Leave voters would be happy if we ended with the same relationship as Norway in a few years time.
What a load of disingenuous bullshit Chris Vernon. If the Remain side had won by the same margin you would not have come out with that weasel-worded bollocks. Brexit means being no longer subject to the direct legislative rule of the EU which, in turn, means being able to set our own migration policy. As for what migration policy is acceptable to the British people that can now be settled at UK general elections.

That's the POINT of Brexit

It's not 'disingenuous bullshit'. We've voted to leave the EU and that'll happen, my point is that what that actually means is very much still up in the air. As you say yourself we don't yet know what our migration policy will be.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 26 Jun 2016, 09:44

The referendum was not on our migration policy. It was, amongst other things a referendum on our capacity to set our migration policy. That can now be determined in a democratically accountable way