Brexit: Let's call the whole thing off..

robert88

..it was a crappy idea after all.

Article 50: Law officer says UK can cancel Brexit

The UK should be able to unilaterally cancel its withdrawal from the EU, according to a top European law officer.

The non-binding opinion was delivered by the European Court of Justice's advocate general.
..
In a written statement, the ECJ said Mr Campos Sanchez-Bordona's opinion was that if a country decided to leave the EU, it should also have the power to change its mind during the two-year exit process specified in Article 50 of the EU treaty.

And it should be able to do so without needing the consent of the other 27 member states.

If as was suggested by some it was a protest vote against austerity then it's going to be a spectacular failure.

fenix

Seconded.

slowbike

It'd certainly be interesting to see the split now.

People voted eitherway for various reasons - and the progress that's happened since the referendum may change those views.
Has the EU treated the UK with respect following it's decision to leave?
Would the EU welcome us back should we decide not to leave now?

fenix

Yes the EU say we are welcome to abandon the whole leaving thing.

Out of their own mouth :

https://news.sky.com/story/donald-tusk- ... t-11096219

bianchimoon

at least everyone would be a little better informed this time, makes sense

crispybug2

The whole thing about having a new vote is for anything other than total chaos following it, then one side would have to win unequivocally, I’m thinking of at least a 60/40% split and neither side is even remotely likely to attain that

Also, I’d like to see the legal justifications for the UK being able to rescind the article 50 legalisation, as it has already been rejected by one European court, this from the ECJ does seem to have more than a bit of ‘made up on the back of a fag packet’ about it.

robert88

crispybug2 wrote:

The whole thing about having a new vote is for anything other than total chaos following it, then one side would have to win unequivocally, I’m thinking of at least a 60/40% split and neither side is even remotely likely to attain that

Also, I’d like to see the legal justifications for the UK being able to rescind the article 50 legalisation, as it has already been rejected by one European court, this from the ECJ does seem to have more than a bit of ‘made up on the back of a fag packet’ about it.

Sure, I realise that the damage has well and truly been done by the divisive, Russia-funded campaign that took advantage of our underlying discontent for their own ends.

But from a world perspective the UK has been offered the opportunity to reverse the government's decision to act on the referendum. Thus whatever the consequences, the EU can now say to the world: "It is entirely a bed of their own making; we cannot help them to lie on it beyond what we have offered."

That's the way it is and it is up to a UK government to resolve the divisive mess we are in. I cannot see a government capable of that anywhere on the horizon.

slowbike

Robert88 wrote:

But from a world perspective the UK has been offered the opportunity to reverse the government's decision to act on the referendum. Thus whatever the consequences, the EU can now say to the world: "It is entirely a bed of their own making; we cannot help them to lie on it beyond what we have offered."

That's the way it is and it is up to a UK government to resolve the divisive mess we are in. I cannot see a government capable of that anywhere on the horizon.

Assuming of course, that it is a pure reverse - putting us back where we were - as we all know, once Pandora's box has been opened, nothing can change that and put it back to how it was.
The UK will ALWAYS be treated as the one who voted to leave - regardless of the final outcome.
Which then leads you back to "should we stay or should we go".

ugo.santalucia

what happened to the Brexiteers on this forum...?

Stevo_666

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

what happened to the Brexiteers on this forum...?

Curled in in a corner hiding from the reality of the sh!tstorm.

Matthewfalle

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

briantrumpet

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

What, like having elections every few years?

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

Really? I wish someone had pointed it out. Might have been quite fun.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

Really? I wish someone had pointed it out. Might have been quite fun.

I'm going to go search for it now.

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

Really? I wish someone had pointed it out. Might have been quite fun.

I'm going to go search for it now.

If you do find it, perhaps you could read it through (I'm sure it won't take long), and append a short summary to this thread.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

Really? I wish someone had pointed it out. Might have been quite fun.

I'm going to go search for it now.

If you do find it, perhaps you could read it through (I'm sure it won't take long), and append a short summary to this thread.

Easy:
https://youtu.be/z20qLln3qI8

singleton

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

The Brexit vote was a farce - do you want to get married? Yes. Okay, here's your wife and the conditions of your marriage - happy with that?

Plus, we change the democratically elected government every few years.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

When I put this up I knew there was one person who would either ignore it or play the politician.

They just proved me right on option two.

Stevo_666

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

When I put this up I knew there was one person who would either ignore it or play the politician.

They just proved me right on option two.

Oops, looks like I annoyed you. I was just pointing out the bleedin' obvious You should have put it in the Brexit thread.

ugo.santalucia

What they should have done in 2016 was to nominate an independent commission, which would have produced a few pages report for the public to highlight the potential benefits and pitfalls of Brexit and more importantly, how the process was supposed to work. They should never have allowed a political campaign, which inevitably led to a lot of lies... it had far deeper implications than a conventional election for a 5 year term, which people only found out after the vote.
The report should have been nicely packaged, printed and sent to all households in Britain eligible to vote. And that should have been it.
Any outcome of the referendum would have been based on "unbiased" information and therefore a second referendum would never be an option

Matthewfalle

briantrumpet wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

What, like having elections every few years?

utterly different and you know it.

to put your election analgy in place what you're saying is - for example - May 1 the Tories are voted in, May 2 you say "nah, don't like what the majority of people voted for, lets try again".


it was a democratic vote and the majority of people voted to leave and leave you shall. end of.

perhaps you should have campaigned better/harder but you lost. end of.

your people spoke, your country will leave the eu. reap what you sow really.

robert88

Stevo 666 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I could have sworn there is already a thread about Brexit somewhere on here...

When I put this up I knew there was one person who would either ignore it or play the politician.

They just proved me right on option two.

Oops, looks like I annoyed you. I was just pointing out the bleedin' obvious You should have put it in the Brexit thread.

No, I think it's time to move on from that.

Especially as parliament has now demonstrated that the PM is so weak.

When she finally kicked off the debate about the deal itself, Mrs May insisted the UK would enjoy a "better future" outside the EU.

She's still giving us the same bullshit that got us into this mess. At least Dominic Raab admitted he had been deluded and resigned.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

What they should have done in 2016 was to nominate an independent commission, which would have produced a few pages report for the public to highlight the potential benefits and pitfalls of Brexit and more importantly, how the process was supposed to work. They should never have allowed a political campaign, which inevitably led to a lot of lies... it had far deeper implications than a conventional election for a 5 year term, which people only found out after the vote.
The report should have been nicely packaged, printed and sent to all households in Britain eligible to vote. And that should have been it.
Any outcome of the referendum would have been based on "unbiased" information and therefore a second referendum would never be an option

Yes, instead it was handled with arrogant incompetence which is the hallmark of the regime we suffer under. They are clearly unift to continue in charge of such a vital issue.

It's obvious a deal that puts us in a satisfactory position after Brexit is just not possible; we should be negotiating to call off the exit and re-negotiate our position within the EU with European parliamentary representatives - none of whom should be UKIP saboteurs like Farage.

rolf_f

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

I don't recall anything in the referendum stating any minimum time limit before we got a chance to vote again. And, of course, the referendum wasn't legally binding anyway - there's loads of objections both to holding another referendum and not holding one. But the bottom line is that a referendum should be a winner for everyone; either the vote is still for leave only this time we know exactly what bucket of vomit we've voted for so no reason for the remainers to complain anymore (aside from the fact that changing the status quo should never be based on a 50:50 vote) or the majority is to remain - in which case the democratic majority is for remain.

Matthewfalle wrote:

to put your election analgy in place what you're saying is - for example - May 1 the Tories are voted in, May 2 you say "nah, don't like what the majority of people voted for, lets try again".

What, like the 2017 election that TM called?

slowbike

Problem is - what Brexit meant to one, isn't what Brexit meant to another - and other than the UK not being part of the EU, nobody could be sure of what Brexit would actually be - especially in the short term. So, unfortunately, I agree that (in hindsight) an independent commission should've put together a piece on what Brexit would've likely meant - both pro's and con's - and published that - sounds good, but ultimately there are 2 major issues - 1) It would've been a best guess (and used by the EU in any negotiations) and 2) It would've still needed explaining to a great number of the public - which is when a spin could be applied.

So what we have ended up with is, the few big players in the EU start getting all sh1tty about the UK wanting to leave, because there goes a major contributor - not forgetting there will be others waiting to see the outcome of this divorce, thinking that if it's not to bad, perhaps they'll leave as well - again, the EU won't want that. Assuming it goes ahead - the UK will be left with an uphill struggle to make it work (for the better) - my best guess is that it'll be a good few years before the UK sees any benefit from leaving - if not more. The danger along the way is that the EU will make it as difficult as they can for the UK to make a success of it - one immediate issue could be that the UK starts the leave process - loses it's input on the EU council - and still is obliged to comply with any new laws being passed - however unreasonable.

proto

Okay, let’s just assume that we end up with a second referendum. What question, would you ask of the people? Who decides what the question should be? A simple ‘in’ or ‘out’ of everything, complete break? Or something more complicated with terms, conditions, Custom Union, Free Trade, movement etc., etc. ?

It was niaivity of the first referendum question that got us into this mess.

Matthewfalle

Rolf F wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

I don't recall anything in the referendum stating any minimum time limit before we got a chance to vote again. And, of course, the referendum wasn't legally binding anyway - there's loads of objections both to holding another referendum and not holding one. But the bottom line is that a referendum should be a winner for everyone; either the vote is still for leave only this time we know exactly what bucket of vomit we've voted for so no reason for the remainers to complain anymore (aside from the fact that changing the status quo should never be based on a 50:50 vote) or the majority is to remain - in which case the democratic majority is for remain.

Matthewfalle wrote:

to put your election analgy in place what you're saying is - for example - May 1 the Tories are voted in, May 2 you say "nah, don't like what the majority of people voted for, lets try again".

What, like the 2017 election that TM called?

exctly - theydidn't turn around the next day and try again.

the majority of people in your country voted to leave so you are leaving. end of. what terms you leave under is up to your parliament.

reap etc.

Matthewfalle

proto wrote:

Okay, let’s just assume that we end up with a second referendum. What question, would you ask of the people? Who decides what the question should be? A simple ‘in’ or ‘out’ of everything, complete break? Or something more complicated with terms, conditions, Custom Union, Free Trade, movement etc., etc. ?

It was niaivity of the first referendum question that got us into this mess.

the people of britain aren't clever enough to understand any more difficult than leave/stay.

its what got you into this mess in the first place.

hell's teeth, most of them still think britain is a first tier world nation - contrary to what the FCO actually says you are.

Matthewfalle

proto wrote:

Okay, let’s just assume that we end up with a second referendum. What question, would you ask of the people? Who decides what the question should be? A simple ‘in’ or ‘out’ of everything, complete break? Or something more complicated with terms, conditions, Custom Union, Free Trade, movement etc., etc. ?

It was niaivity of the first referendum question that got us into this mess.

it wasn't the naivity etc - your remain campaign was lazy, disorganized, failed to counter racism and stupidity in britain. it failed on every count.

rolf_f

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

I don't recall anything in the referendum stating any minimum time limit before we got a chance to vote again. And, of course, the referendum wasn't legally binding anyway - there's loads of objections both to holding another referendum and not holding one. But the bottom line is that a referendum should be a winner for everyone; either the vote is still for leave only this time we know exactly what bucket of vomit we've voted for so no reason for the remainers to complain anymore (aside from the fact that changing the status quo should never be based on a 50:50 vote) or the majority is to remain - in which case the democratic majority is for remain.

Matthewfalle wrote:

to put your election analgy in place what you're saying is - for example - May 1 the Tories are voted in, May 2 you say "nah, don't like what the majority of people voted for, lets try again".

What, like the 2017 election that TM called?

exctly - theydidn't turn around the next day and try again.

the majority of people in your country voted to leave so you are leaving. end of. what terms you leave under is up to your parliament.

reap etc.

Ahh, I didn't realise that your "next day" analogy was so temporally specific. How many days after the election would it be appropriate to run another election then?

And, should point out yet again - the majority of people in the UK did not vote to leave. The majority of voters in the UK voted to leave. It isn't the same thing.

Matthewfalle

Rolf F wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

No - democratic majority voted for it so it has to be done.

End of.

you can't go changing democratically voted results because you don't like them.

I don't recall anything in the referendum stating any minimum time limit before we got a chance to vote again. And, of course, the referendum wasn't legally binding anyway - there's loads of objections both to holding another referendum and not holding one. But the bottom line is that a referendum should be a winner for everyone; either the vote is still for leave only this time we know exactly what bucket of vomit we've voted for so no reason for the remainers to complain anymore (aside from the fact that changing the status quo should never be based on a 50:50 vote) or the majority is to remain - in which case the democratic majority is for remain.

Matthewfalle wrote:

to put your election analgy in place what you're saying is - for example - May 1 the Tories are voted in, May 2 you say "nah, don't like what the majority of people voted for, lets try again".

What, like the 2017 election that TM called?

exctly - theydidn't turn around the next day and try again.

the majority of people in your country voted to leave so you are leaving. end of. what terms you leave under is up to your parliament.

reap etc.

Ahh, I didn't realise that your "next day" analogy was so temporally specific. How many days after the election would it be appropriate to run another election then?

And, should point out yet again - the majority of people in the UK did not vote to leave. The majority of voters in the UK voted to leave. It isn't the same thing.

the amount of time as stated in Law.

And yes they did. They voted to leave the EU so your country is leaving.