BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Talking of opportunism, 2 years ago the SNP were more than willing to be ejected by the EU, now apparently it is paramount that it remains in.

Single issue politics - what could possibly go wrong with that?

It may not be evident from my recent posts, but I voted to remain and would probably do so again for reasons explained pages and pages ago. I am however mindful of the faults with the EU and am open to some of the concerns of Brexiters unlike some on here who are content to brand them all xenophobic bigots.
The vote went contrary to my views but we are where we are and must find a way to move forward collectively. As SC says, we are past the point of no return.

surrey_commuter

orraloon wrote:

gaffer_slow wrote:

You guys all realise that Article 50 will never be triggered .... right?

Is what the markets are thinking, with the FTSE 250 coming back up a bit(3.5%) today, leaving it just 9% down since the news.

To make clear, FTSE250 is more reflective of native UK companies, whereas FTSE100 includes global megacorps, big oil, big pharma, miners and that, who have loads of irons in fire other than the UK.

Let's hope that by this time tomorrow we are not discussing the bounciness of dead cats

joelsim

Just seen this on Facebook and it couldn't possibly be any more how I feel.


There is something I need to say. it will be a long post. Some of my friends might be offended, that is not my intention. But I need to say this. Please read it, even if you don't read my other EU posts.

Since the referendum result, it has been a much repeated statement that those of us still talking about the referendum should just shut up. Some people are polite and blindly optimistic, saying 'let's focus on what unites us, let's work together'. Other people are offensive, calling Remain voters bad losers, or worse. I need to tell you why I cannot - will not - be silenced on this. Why working together seems so difficult today.

A common thread seems to be 'we're all allowed an opinion, let us have our opinion and stop arguing about it, accept that some people don't agree with you and those people won.' Yes, you are allowed an opinion. You can form an opinion about whatever in the world you want to and I fully respect your right to that. You can have an opinion that the sky is purple with yellow spots if you want. However, if I asked you to bet your livelihood and future, and that of all the people around you, on whether your opinion of the sky is right, I would at least expect you to look up to check your facts are right. When you found the sky was, in fact, blue, I would expect you to respond accordingly. Sometimes there is a right answer and a wrong answer. Sometimes we cannot agree to disagree, however nice the sentiment is. Too many people have voiced the sentiment - 'I have a right to an opinion even though I don't really understand the EU or politics, so just leave me alone and stop challenging me.' You had a right to that opinion. But before you cast a vote, you had the responsibility to back that opinion up with fact. To at least start to understand what you were voting on. There was an awful lot of information out there during the debate. If you voted without really understanding the facts then I have every right to challenge you and I won't stop just because it makes you uncomfortable. This is far, far too important. All those people Googling what the EU means on the 24th June, or telling us all how they didn't really understand, just had a 'feeling' which way to vote should all be ashamed.

I will also address the idea that we don't like having 'lost'. I could not care less, this isn't a tennis match and I never saw it as 'winning or losing'. I saw it as fighting for the future, for hope, for diversity and tolerance. I saw it as making a decision that wasn't inward-looking and selfish, as being part of the modern world. 75% of the younger people of this country also had this vision for the future. I don't feel that I have lost a game. I feel that our whole country has been betrayed, destroyed (in the sense that the UK will disintegrate) and lost any respect in the eyes of the world. We have all lost the benefits of EU citizenship, even those of us who wanted to keep it. We have voted to be left on our little rock, all alone. All the values of 'Britishness' I identified with have been undermined. I do not feel any common ground with the vocal parts of the Leave campaign. Not because they 'won' and we 'lost' but because I simply do not have that mindset and I find most of what they have said to be offensive. The whole world has 'lost' after this referendum.

I do not want to tar all Leave voters with the same brush. I respect that there were individual people who made decisions based on thoughtful points of view. In my next words, I'm not saying all Leave voters are the same. Nor are all Remain voters automatically good people. However. I campaigned on the streets, I read article after article, I engaged in endless social media conversations. I know the tone of this debate. And the Leave side employed anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric. Many Leave voters voted because they wanted to restrict freedom of movement. I know because they told me, often aggressively. And, today, I've heard from migrant and British ethnic minority friends that they feel threatened and unwelcome in this country. They are worried to leave the house. They have seen that half of the country are willing to ally themselves with a racist and anti-immigrant campaign, even if they do not feel that way themselves. That is not a situation in which we can just keep quiet and find a way to work together. I don't think all leave voters are racists but I fear that the racists now feel legitimacy, that they think half the country agrees with them. I have already heard this expressed on social media.

'The majority have spoken, that's democracy', I've been told. But is it? Have they? The Scots don't think so, for a start. Do we have a country in which an angry majority can trample over the rights and wishes of a minority? That's a little scary. This referendum campaign was full of lies (yes, on both sides, but more of them on the Leave side, as the media is finally acknowledging) and many, many people voted with no knowledge of what they were voting on. For so many, if it wasn't about immigration, it was a protest vote against the Conservatives or against politics and politicians in general. The majority haven't actually spoken about the EU, they've expressed anger on all kinds of issues. None of this seems like a good basis for a decision that will throw us into recession and isolation, that will strip our young people of the right to live, work and study abroad, will affect every aspect of our lives. It was an irresponsible referendum because it had no regulations relating to what level of turnout or majority would give it legitimacy. I have resisted signing the petition for a new referendum so far because I want to be seen to be respecting the democratic decision. But I am beginning to see it as far from democratic or representative. And with so many of the Leave voters now saying they would change their vote if they could, what would the result of a referendum today actually be? Maybe we should find out before we think about triggering Article 50 and actually leaving the EU. Can we really let this decision stand after such a shabby campaign and with a small majority result? This is why I am proud of the Lib Dem stance to challenge the referendum and fight to stay in the EU at the next General Election.

There is an awful lot more I could say. But I will end with this. I am shocked, frightened and horrified by this. By the divisions in the country and by the outcome of the referendum. I feel alienated from a country I have always been proud of, in a liberal non-nationalistic sense. I have friends who feel even worse because they're migrants or minorities. Virtually the entire population of the world thinks we've lost our minds. We've become an inspiration for the French far right, for the Texas Tea Party movement and congratulated by Donald Trump. American and European friends are writing to me to express sympathy and disbelief that we could do this. I need to talk about this personally because I am mourning and talking helps. Don't you dare tell me to shut up if your vote is part of the reason I feel this way today. Block me if you don't care, but don't silence me.

If you are not talking about this, you do not understand how important this is. You have underestimated the impact. Not just on the economy or trade or freedom of movement. But on society, ideology, the heart and soul of this nation. On the whole world. If you are not still talking about this, you are irresponsible, in my eyes. This conversation is one of the most important in the nation's history. It will define who we are for generations to come.

But hey, you have your opinion don't you? And it sound lovely to say we should all just get along. Sounds like you're rising above it all. This will affect you too. And then you might be glad that some of us are talking about what it means.

I am the 48% #WeAreThe48

pblakeney

finchy wrote:

Anyway, my main overarching point is that lots of people on here are saying that we just have to accept the result of this referendum as binding, definitely can't have a second one. My argument is that this is a flawed idea, because circumstances might change drastically. That's why I gave ballysmate a list of hypothetical situations in which we might consider a second referendum.

Despite the obvious lies of the leave campaign, I don't think we should have another referendum just because my side lost, but I do think that if in 6 months' time, or a year from now, there is clear, reliable evidence that Brexit is no longer popular with the British people, or that it is having disastrous consequences for the nation's economy, the government should put the question to voters again.

Did you copy, paste and tweak one of Nicola Sturgeon's speeches?

finchy

PBlakeney wrote:

finchy wrote:

Anyway, my main overarching point is that lots of people on here are saying that we just have to accept the result of this referendum as binding, definitely can't have a second one. My argument is that this is a flawed idea, because circumstances might change drastically. That's why I gave ballysmate a list of hypothetical situations in which we might consider a second referendum.

Despite the obvious lies of the leave campaign, I don't think we should have another referendum just because my side lost, but I do think that if in 6 months' time, or a year from now, there is clear, reliable evidence that Brexit is no longer popular with the British people, or that it is having disastrous consequences for the nation's economy, the government should put the question to voters again.

Did you copy, paste and tweak one of Nicola Sturgeon's speeches?

Och, noo.

orraloon

That moment when you realise that the Chief Exec of Greene King Rooney Anand was born in Delhi

finchy

orraloon wrote:

That moment when you realise that the Chief Exec of Greene King Rooney Anand was born in Delhi

That looks like an entry to Viz's "Up the arse" corner.

haydenm

Ballysmate wrote:

Sturgeon maintaining that Scotland voted to remain and so could block Brexit doesn't stand scrutiny. The vote was a UK wide vote and not a local one. If Scotland had voted for Indy 2 years ago, would the Shetlands have been able to block it if they had voted to stay with the UK - of course not.

The Shetland analogy is not strictly relevant. Obviously it was a national vote but the problem they are in is that every MP in the country now has to vote to enact article 50, if their constituents didn't vote to leave then they can't really vote for it without making themselves very unpopular (a bit like the way the Lib Dems condemned themselves in the tuition fees nonsense). They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I think they will vote for it (with a questionable mandate) to help them trigger another Indyref and hope they survive.

4kicks

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let's put the recent losses in the FTSE 250 and 100 into perspective shall we.

Don't do that. Otherwise, how can some maintain their position of hysteria that we are heading towards being a third world country? :roll:

Whilst Capital Markets can overshoot, and even have a positive loop effect on "real world" events, in this case they are a pretty good proxy for how the economy will deteriorate over the next couple of years of, frankly, chaos.
How do I know? Experts. Oh, but wait, you guys have had enough of experts and their facts, havent you.
By the way, UK gilts wont go to junk bond status, but Im guessing AA or A+. NOt third world, but close enough to be able to see it out of the window.

4kicks

finchy wrote:

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.
2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.
3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.
4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.
5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.
6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.
7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.
8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

The problem with this thinking is youve attributed facts and rationale to a brexit community who have said they trust neither of those things. Yes, 2 million may "regret" their decision, but will probably be reinvigorated again at teh thought of "institutions" stealing their vote away from them. Camerons right, The people have spoken. BUt Ive no idea what happens constitutionally when you have elected MPS (either now or post a GE) who are against Brexit with the population for it.

ballysmate

4kicks wrote:

finchy wrote:

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.
2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.
3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.
4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.
5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.
6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.
7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.
8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

The problem with this thinking is youve attributed facts and rationale to a brexit community who have said they trust neither of those things. Yes, 2 million may "regret" their decision, but will probably be reinvigorated again at teh thought of "institutions" stealing their vote away from them. Camerons right, The people have spoken. BUt Ive no idea what happens constitutionally when you have elected MPS (either now or post a GE) who are against Brexit with the population for it.

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

pblakeney

HaydenM wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Sturgeon maintaining that Scotland voted to remain and so could block Brexit doesn't stand scrutiny. The vote was a UK wide vote and not a local one. If Scotland had voted for Indy 2 years ago, would the Shetlands have been able to block it if they had voted to stay with the UK - of course not.

The Shetland analogy is not strictly relevant. Obviously it was a national vote but the problem they are in is that every MP in the country now has to vote to enact article 50, if their constituents didn't vote to leave then they can't really vote for it without making themselves very unpopular (a bit like the way the Lib Dems condemned themselves in the tuition fees nonsense). They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I think they will vote for it (with a questionable mandate) to help them trigger another Indyref and hope they survive.

Option 1 - Vote with it and say "Look, they made us do it. What are you going to do about it?" Independence referendum.
Option 2 - Vote against it and get booted out. Independence referendum.

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

4kicks wrote:

finchy wrote:

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.
2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.
3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.
4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.
5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.
6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.
7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.
8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

The problem with this thinking is youve attributed facts and rationale to a brexit community who have said they trust neither of those things. Yes, 2 million may "regret" their decision, but will probably be reinvigorated again at teh thought of "institutions" stealing their vote away from them. Camerons right, The people have spoken. BUt Ive no idea what happens constitutionally when you have elected MPS (either now or post a GE) who are against Brexit with the population for it.

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

Article 50 para 3

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

As far as I can see, there is nothing in article 50 which says that a member state can withdraw its decision to leave, but maybe some of the forum members on here with more legal knowledge than me can confirm or deny this.

Lookyhere

Ballysmate wrote:

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

very true but who is going to trigger it?
DC took the white feather, he wasnt prepared to act, Boris? he became the OUTs poster boy but just a few months ago he was a committed Remain, so has he the courage? Cant see May or Hunt doing it either, both are remains through and through.

no one wants their legacy to be the PM who took us out of the EU and potentially wreck our economy and maybe even lose the subsequent election.

P1ssing off many labour and UKIP voters who opted leave, might be the best option, the tory media also seem a bit more realistic now as well.

Anecdotally, many i know who were committed OUTs have expressed big doubts now and they are all Tory voters, worried about the exchange rate and their investments lol! true!

surrey_commuter

Lookyhere wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

very true but who is going to trigger it?
DC took the white feather, he wasnt prepared to act, Boris? he became the OUTs poster boy but just a few months ago he was a committed Remain, so has he the courage? Cant see May or Hunt doing it either, both are remains through and through.

no one wants their legacy to be the PM who took us out of the EU and potentially wreck our economy and maybe even lose the subsequent election.

P1ssing off many labour and UKIP voters who opted leave, might be the best option, the tory media also seem a bit more realistic now as well.

Anecdotally, many i know who were committed OUTs have expressed big doubts now and they are all Tory voters, worried about the exchange rate and their investments lol! true!

The economy is wrecked already. I think the new Tory leader will take us out, the 'Spooners are being buttered up for a Norwegian deal but that will not matter as they never did and never will vote Tory.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

very true but who is going to trigger it?
DC took the white feather, he wasnt prepared to act, Boris? he became the OUTs poster boy but just a few months ago he was a committed Remain, so has he the courage? Cant see May or Hunt doing it either, both are remains through and through.

no one wants their legacy to be the PM who took us out of the EU and potentially wreck our economy and maybe even lose the subsequent election.

P1ssing off many labour and UKIP voters who opted leave, might be the best option, the tory media also seem a bit more realistic now as well.

Anecdotally, many i know who were committed OUTs have expressed big doubts now and they are all Tory voters, worried about the exchange rate and their investments lol! true!

The economy is wrecked already. I think the new Tory leader will take us out, the 'Spooners are being buttered up for a Norwegian deal but that will not matter as they never did and never will vote Tory.

It's not wrecked. The FTSE 100/250 has gone down a bit, we've gone down one credit rating, there's a long way to go before actually wrecking it. I mean, it's a pretty ****ing stupid thing to vote for, but nevermind!

bramstoker

Lookyhere wrote:

no one wants their legacy to be the PM who took us out of the EU and potentially wreck our economy and maybe even lose the subsequent election.

But then who will want to risk the chance of a Rising UKIP power block in Government, the constituencies that voted out may not vote in a MP that is remain. What happens if a snap GE is fought on a in/out stance and we just have a hung parliament that cannot come to any consensus, how would that effect the markets? Could there be even more damage done by buggering about, everyone says the markets don't like uncertainty .

ballysmate

finchy wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

4kicks wrote:

finchy wrote:

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.
2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.
3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.
4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.
5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.
6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.
7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.
8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

The problem with this thinking is youve attributed facts and rationale to a brexit community who have said they trust neither of those things. Yes, 2 million may "regret" their decision, but will probably be reinvigorated again at teh thought of "institutions" stealing their vote away from them. Camerons right, The people have spoken. BUt Ive no idea what happens constitutionally when you have elected MPS (either now or post a GE) who are against Brexit with the population for it.

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

Article 50 para 3

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

As far as I can see, there is nothing in article 50 which says that a member state can withdraw its decision to leave, but maybe some of the forum members on here with more legal knowledge than me can confirm or deny this.

That being the case, a second referendum would not be a Leave / Remain vote. It would be Leave / Ask the EU to stop the Brexit proces and accept whatever terms the EU impose on us.
It would be out of our hands. All 27 would have to agree.
If you think there is uncertainty in the markets now...

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

very true but who is going to trigger it?
DC took the white feather, he wasnt prepared to act, Boris? he became the OUTs poster boy but just a few months ago he was a committed Remain, so has he the courage? Cant see May or Hunt doing it either, both are remains through and through.

no one wants their legacy to be the PM who took us out of the EU and potentially wreck our economy and maybe even lose the subsequent election.

P1ssing off many labour and UKIP voters who opted leave, might be the best option, the tory media also seem a bit more realistic now as well.

Anecdotally, many i know who were committed OUTs have expressed big doubts now and they are all Tory voters, worried about the exchange rate and their investments lol! true!

The economy is wrecked already. I think the new Tory leader will take us out, the 'Spooners are being buttered up for a Norwegian deal but that will not matter as they never did and never will vote Tory.

It's not wrecked. The FTSE 100/250 has gone down a bit, we've gone down one credit rating, there's a long way to go before actually wrecking it. I mean, it's a pretty ****ing stupid thing to vote for, but nevermind!

wrecked is probably a bit strong. The word on expert street is that it is a lot worse than they were forecasting which probably means we are in negative growth territory so turning that around and getting back to where we would have been will take years.

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

finchy wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

4kicks wrote:

finchy wrote:

In what circumstances would you accept that it would be legitimate for a second referendum? I'll suggest a few scenarios, you tell us whether you think another vote should be triggered:

1) Opinion polling consistently shows a change of mood among the population, with 60+% now expressing support for remaining in the EU.
2) A large movement of people (say, 2 million) who voted for Brexit regret their choice and demand a second vote.
3) Whoever the government is in 2 years' time realises that reaching a favourable deal with the EU is going to be absolutely impossible, and explains to the British people that leaving the EU would be a disaster.
4) A deal is struck, but it's nothing like the one that the leave campaign promised voters.
5) Unemployment goes up to 15%, inflation to 10%, the government can't afford to pay social security and pensions.
6) Same scenario as above, but the government goes to the IMF. The IMF insists that the UK remains in the EU as a condition for receiving a loan.
7) A general election held, and parties clearly promising a second referendum/not to invoke article 50 win power.
8.) Boris Johnson is secretly recorded telling his close circle how he didn't even want to win the referendum, he was just angling for party leadership post-Cameron and he's going to down in history as the man who destroyed Britain.

The problem with this thinking is youve attributed facts and rationale to a brexit community who have said they trust neither of those things. Yes, 2 million may "regret" their decision, but will probably be reinvigorated again at teh thought of "institutions" stealing their vote away from them. Camerons right, The people have spoken. BUt Ive no idea what happens constitutionally when you have elected MPS (either now or post a GE) who are against Brexit with the population for it.

There is no rationale to a lot of Finchy's questions because once A50 is triggered we are out. Whatever deal is struck we don't have the option of deciding to REMAIN. The option is to REJOIN.

Article 50 para 3

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

As far as I can see, there is nothing in article 50 which says that a member state can withdraw its decision to leave, but maybe some of the forum members on here with more legal knowledge than me can confirm or deny this.

That being the case, a second referendum would not be a Leave / Remain vote. It would be Leave / Ask the EU to stop the Brexit proces and accept whatever terms the EU impose on us.
It would be out of our hands. All 27 would have to agree.
If you think there is uncertainty in the markets now...

I imagine one of the terms would be a suspension of A50 for at least 20 years.

The electorate were told of the economic risk of voting out and did so anyway. Anecdotally the economy has reacted worse than expected yet most Out voters are happy with their decision. No matter how bad things get they will blame it on Brussels/Cameron/Osborne. We are better off going for a sneaky Norway style deal.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

wrecked is probably a bit strong. The word on expert street is that it is a lot worse than they were forecasting which probably means we are in negative growth territory so turning that around and getting back to where we would have been will take years.

I think that's probably a fair assessment. I think if we could declare last Thursday null and void, we would be fine. But as it is, we're going to have uncertainty until the Tories elect a new leader, followed by more uncertainty until we either pass Article 50, followed by some more uncertainty.

Worst case scenario, by the time that all the uncertainty has passed, we'll have a wrecked economy. Or absolutely worst case, we'll have a wrecked economy, be out of the single market, and be unable to win any favorable trade deals.

joelsim

Can't remember the exact percentages but roughly 70% of all Labour voters voted Remain compared to 35% Tory voters.

bramstoker

Ballysmate wrote:

That being the case, a second referendum would not be a Leave / Remain vote. It would be Leave / Ask the EU to stop the Brexit proces and accept whatever terms the EU impose on us.
It would be out of our hands. All 27 would have to agree.
If you think there is uncertainty in the markets now...

EU terms monetary union, fiscal union, 2 of the options they could impose, would referendum mk 2 get a remain result if this was part of it? Or would it further divide us? Worse case maybe, but then they keep talking about us needing to be punished.

Pross

All these people who say the younger voters should have got off their backsides and voted need to take into account that the debate and vote took place at peak exam time for A level and university students so they had other important things affecting their future on their mind. For those that had finished it was peak holiday time (I know they could have registered for postal votes). Add to that these are inexperienced voters and didn't exactly get much useful information to help them and you can potentially see why some didn't take part.

As an aside, this was my daughter and her friends first opportunity to vote and I believe most of them did. However, one of her friends registered for postal voting and didn't get sent her paperwork so turned up at the polling station to be told she couldn't vote there as she was registered for postal voting. This may have been a one off but it isn't a great introduction to our democratic process.

joelsim

bramstoker wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

That being the case, a second referendum would not be a Leave / Remain vote. It would be Leave / Ask the EU to stop the Brexit proces and accept whatever terms the EU impose on us.
It would be out of our hands. All 27 would have to agree.
If you think there is uncertainty in the markets now...

EU terms monetary union, fiscal union, 2 of the options they could impose, would referendum mk 2 get a remain result if this was part of it? Or would it further divide us? Worse case maybe, but then they keep talking about us needing to be punished.

I doubt there'll be Ref 2.

It'll be an election fully based on one single policy.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

wrecked is probably a bit strong. The word on expert street is that it is a lot worse than they were forecasting which probably means we are in negative growth territory so turning that around and getting back to where we would have been will take years.

I think that's probably a fair assessment. I think if we could declare last Thursday null and void, we would be fine. But as it is, we're going to have uncertainty until the Tories elect a new leader, followed by more uncertainty until we either pass Article 50, followed by some more uncertainty.

Worst case scenario, by the time that all the uncertainty has passed, we'll have a wrecked economy. Or absolutely worst case, we'll have a wrecked economy, be out of the single market, and be unable to win any favorable trade deals.

Boris and co don't seem to give a monkeys about free movement, EU laws or making financial contributions so I see no impediment to a Norway deal. Bearing in mind where we are and it includes financial services this would be a satisfactory outcome.

As it would exclude agriculture, fisheries and regional assistance funds we could save a few quid by not introducing new subsidies - by reckoning that would be £5bn back in the kitty. Announce it early and they will have two years to transition.

btw - one of the biggest beneficiaries of CAP is Prince Charles (aged 67)

finchy

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Boris and co don't seem to give a monkeys about free movement, EU laws or making financial contributions so I see no impediment to a Norway deal. Bearing in mind where we are and it includes financial services this would be a satisfactory outcome.

Boris and Co might not, but it seems their supporters do. If we do end up with a Norway deal, the Tories might end up getting crucified at the next election.

surrey_commuter

bramstoker wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

That being the case, a second referendum would not be a Leave / Remain vote. It would be Leave / Ask the EU to stop the Brexit proces and accept whatever terms the EU impose on us.
It would be out of our hands. All 27 would have to agree.
If you think there is uncertainty in the markets now...

EU terms monetary union, fiscal union, 2 of the options they could impose, would referendum mk 2 get a remain result if this was part of it? Or would it further divide us? Worse case maybe, but then they keep talking about us needing to be punished.

beware literal translations and newspaper headline writers. What this term means is they have to leave us worse off or everybody will want to leave. It is perfectly reasonable that you cannot leave a club and expect to pick and chose to utilise the benefits you want and pay nothing or a reduced fee.

surrey_commuter

finchy wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Boris and co don't seem to give a monkeys about free movement, EU laws or making financial contributions so I see no impediment to a Norway deal. Bearing in mind where we are and it includes financial services this would be a satisfactory outcome.

Boris and Co might not, but it seems their supporters do. If we do end up with a Norway deal, the Tories might end up getting crucified at the next election.

I imagine they they think they can tell their voters any old rubbish and they will fall for it. In the Telegraph article Boris is eulogising the benefits of free movement - the man knows no shame.

90% of Tory voters (like Labour) would vote for a wheelie bin in a blue rosette. That just leaves them the crucial swing seats where they will be crunching the numbers.

With a new Tory leader not due until September I can not see a GE election before Spring next year when we are very likely to be deep into a recession. I think they will ride it out until 2020 and hope the economy is on the mend so thatthey can take the credit.

bramstoker

Surrey Commuter wrote:

beware literal translations and newspaper headline writers. What this term means is they have to leave us worse off or everybody will want to leave. It is perfectly reasonable that you cannot leave a club and expect to pick and chose to utilise the benefits you want and pay nothing or a reduced fee.

Fully understand this, but why would the club have you back and NOT do the exact same thing? The only thing going back would guarantee is that you could never ever do it again. Trade away our veto for instance, Turkey with all its issues gets brought in we could do what?