EU membership referendum debate thread

[raspberry-blower]

Newsthump has a more accurate take

[UndercoverElephant]

https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/flip.i ... e%2Fqz.com

This is actually rather interesting, and I am surprised it isn't a bigger story. Article 50 is a very badly drafted bit of legislation - almost to the point of unusability. But the way it is worded does make it *sound* irreversible. It sounds like once it has been invoked, there must either be a negotiated settlement within 2 years or the country which invoked it just leaves with no treaty. But this does not actually rule out the possibility of the country which invoked it changing its mind and deciding to stay in the EU after all. Basically this looks to me like a complete cock-up. The problem is that the question is hugely important from the point of view of the negotiations. If the UK could un-invoke article 50 if we don't like the way the negotiations are going then it makes those negotiations pretty much impossible. The EU doesn't want the UK to leave, and doesn't want to give the UK a fair deal, so they might as well just not bother to turn up to the negotiations - or just say "no" to everything.

Article 50 is broken. And I think things might be even worse than that, because whichever way the court ends up ruling on this, we are left with a situation fundamentally different to the one we thought we had when the referendum was held. The EU will not want Article 50 to be revocable, the UK will want it to be revocable. This absolutely should have been in the treaty in the first place.

[Little John]

Notwithstanding the fact the obvious question of why the Uk should want article 50 to be revocable (unless one is Tony Blair), the situation is the situation and would have been the situation irrespective of the existence of article 50.

The EU has been rapidly trying to enact full political integration. However, for a variety of reasons including the collapse of the world economy which, in turn, has facilitated a democratic rebellion in the proles, the EU project is collapsing.

Exiting from the collapsing EU is going to be messy. Not least because the EU architects intend to make it messy. This was always going to be true.

[UndercoverElephant]

Notwithstanding the fact the obvious question of why the Uk should want article 50 to be revocable (unless one is Tony Blair),

The article answers this question. There's all sorts of reasons - lots can change in 2 years, including the British government, the outbreak of war, another financial collapse (worse than 2008), and also just the EU failing to offer the UK a reasonable settlement.

the situation is the situation and would have been the situation irrespective of the existence of article 50.

Eh? The situation would be completely different if article 50 did not exist.

The EU has been rapidly trying to enact full political integration. However, for a variety of reasons including the collapse of the world economy which, in turn, has facilitated a democratic rebellion in the proles, the EU project is collapsing.

Exiting from the collapsing EU is going to be messy. Not least because the EU architects intend to make it messy. This was always going to be true.

Probably so, but that doesn't change the fact that this is potentially a gamechanger, and in more than one way.

Let's imagine the court rules that the UK can unilaterally revoke article 50 once it has been invoked. The EU wants to "punish" the UK by offering only the crappest of settlements, but if it is possible to revoke article 50 then we (the UK) have an unexpected ace up our sleeve. It now turns out that any country can invoke article 50 then revoke it later, causing chaos. The last thing the EU will want is for the UK to remain a member after what has already happened - we were already the "awkward squad" before, imagine how much worse it would be then. Which might encourage the EU to offer a considerably better deal, just to make sure they get rid of us.

Now let's imagine the court rules that the UK cannot unilaterally revoke article 50, even though it does not say this in treaty. I suspect this will open up the possibility of the anti-Brexit camp challenging the legality of Brexit. They'll claim that the conditions governing Brexit have been changed post-referendum and post-Article-50, in a way that disadvantages the UK.

It is an important case, I think. The eventual ruling does matter.

[Little John]

We are leaving the EU. That is to say, we are regaining our sovereignty as an independent nation including border controls, fishing territories, supremacy of our parliament and of our judiciary. Of logical necessity, this requires leaving the single market and customs union. There is no "ace" up our sleeves of threatening to revoke article 50 because, to do so, would be to defy the democratic will of the nation as expressed in the referendum.

We are leaving the EU and it will happen in the context of a good deal with the EU, a bad deal with the EU or no deal with the EU.

But it will happen.

Or there will be bloodshed.

[woodburner]

Seems to me that you want bloodshed, regardless. It has taken 40 years of integrating into the EU, getting out in two years is a childish expectation.

[Little John]

Quite the reverse. It is people like you who seem hell bent on bloodshed as a consequence of trying to ignore, at best, and undermine, at worst, the democratic result of one of the the largest and most direct democratic exercises in this nation's history.

[cubes]

We are leaving the EU. That is to say, we are regaining our sovereignty as an independent nation including border controls, fishing territories, supremacy of our parliament and of our judiciary. Of logical necessity, this requires leaving the single market and customs union. There is no "ace" up our sleeves of threatening to revoke article 50 because, to do so, would be to defy the democratic will of the nation as expressed in the referendum.

We are leaving the EU and it will happen in the context of a good deal with the EU, a bad deal with the EU or no deal with the EU.

But it will happen.

Or there will be bloodshed.

HAHAHAHA dream on. The USA-UK Trade treaty will destroy any 'sovereignty' we gain by itself let alone any others - it's not as if we'd be in a strong negotiating position post-brexit after all. You also talk about border controls, yet over over half of immigrants were from outside the EU, thus being controllable yet govt after govt did nothing and will continue to do nothing about it.

[clv101]

Steve, you speak as if it's a black and white thing. It's not.

It was 52 to 42 (a 3.8 percentage point difference). It didn't include those aged under 18 in June last year. It didn't include some 3 million non-UK, EU citizens (let alone any other nationalities) living in the UK, it didn't even include all the citizens of the UK (those living outside UK for sometime).

I believe, had some more of these people been included (as they were for the Scottish independence vote) the result would have been 'remain'.

That's without even considering the two campaign's misinformation. I also believe were there to be a 2nd referendum the vote would be to remain. This leaves Brexit looking (to me) like something that's being pushed through against the "will of the people", maybe evening being rushed through before anti-Brexit sentiment can no longer be ignored.

I accept the result - but I don't accept the tone of PM May, which you seem to have adopted.

The truth is the country is split down the middle on this issue - those pushing the hard line 'will of the people' argument are being disingenuous IMO.

[Little John]

Steve, you speak as if it's a black and white thing. It's not.

It was 52 to 42 (a 3.8 percentage point difference). It didn't include those aged under 18 in June last year. It didn't include some 3 million non-UK, EU citizens (let alone any other nationalities) living in the UK, it didn't even include all the citizens of the UK (those living outside UK for sometime).

I believe, had some more of these people been included (as they were for the Scottish independence vote) the result would have been 'remain'.

That's without even considering the two campaign's misinformation. I also believe were there to be a 2nd referendum the vote would be to remain. This leaves Brexit looking (to me) like something that's being pushed through against the "will of the people", maybe evening being rushed through before anti-Brexit sentiment can no longer be ignored.

I accept the result - but I don't accept the tone of PM May, which you seem to have adopted.

The truth is the country is split down the middle on this issue - those pushing the hard line 'will of the people' argument are being disingenuous IMO.

1) I have nothing but contempt for May and all she represents. So, enough with the silly, but entirely predictable, conflations. Voting for Brexit does NOT mean one is either a Tory or a knuckle-dragging xenophobe. You just can't help yourself, though, can you.

2) Have you checked the latest polls? Support for the referendum result has risen significantly since the referendum

[woodburner]

Quite the reverse. It is people like you who seem hell bent on bloodshed as a consequence of trying to ignore, at best, and undermine, at worst, the democratic result of one of the the largest and most direct democratic exercises in this nation's history.

Typical twisting, bullying attitude, but just as I expected. I note you dismiss cv101's points. A bit trump like, really., or is it just belief in alternative facts?

[clv101]

1) I have nothing but contempt for May and all she represents. So, enough with the silly, but entirely predictable, conflations. Voting for Brexit does NOT mean one is either a Tory or a knuckle-dragging xenophobe. You just can't help yourself, though, can you.

The conflation comes from you choosing to use the same language as May, trying to make black and white a situation that is anything but.

Also please not I have not made any accusations of you or anyone else being a Tory or a 'knuckle-dragging xenophobe'! I made no comment what to ever about voting for Brexit... are you replying to someone else's post?

[Little John]

I am using the language appropriate to regaining sovereignty of this nation. That language applies irrespective of where one falls on the Left-Right political dimension and the fact of your refusal to acknowledge or even, seemingly, understand this this makes my point for me. It does not, however, apply irrespective of where one falls on the Globalism-Localism dimension. It is the language of Localism and I am a Localist. Not, especially, because I wish to be. But, because Localism is inevitable and will become ever more so in the years to come.

[kenneal - lagger]

If we carry on down the Globalist route it will end in riots because the Globalist route in one of reducing ordinary wages to a world level while maintaining profit and property prices for the very rich. You can't pay people Chinese wages and expect them to pay British housing and food costs. The high price of food in this country reflects the high cost of business and farm property.

Immigration is about business people importing cheap labour to keep local wage costs under control. i.e. on their way down towards world average level.

[kenneal - lagger]

https://flipboard.com/@flipboard/flip.i ... e%2Fqz.com

As a member of the WTO, however, the EU would be able to levy stifling import and export taxes on British products, in order to make products made within its 27-nation bloc more desirable than those from the UK.

That is not entirely true. The WTO sets maximum tariff barriers which can be set and most are well below 10%. If the EU did this to Britain it would be in our power to reciprocate. This could cause a massive shift in buying of cars, for instance, from VW to Mazdas or Toyotas built in Britain. German workers and their economy would be hit very hard indeed. There would soon be a big call from the EU's premier economy for a trade deal with the UK.

Someone mentioned an economic collapse above. This is likely to be caused by the collapse of the Euro at the rate things are going so being out of that contagion would be a very good thing.