• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,304
Location
Isle of Man
And isnt that exactly what labour say they would do also - get a better deal?

No, Labour are happy to remain in the customs union and always have been. That removes the main issue of the backstop and allows a negotiation to achieve a similar settlement to Norway or Switzerland.

The hated backstop is a negotiated solution to one of our red lines- complete withdrawal from the customs union- and not one of theirs. Stay in the customs union and we don't need to deal with Northern Ireland in quite the same way.

It's also rather churlish to blame the EU for the Irish question. If our current Tory government want to "take back control of our borders", we can't leave a whacking great open border and shrug. It's the old Tory and Unionist way, forgetting Eire isn't ours and expecting James to bally well do as he's told.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,121
If the referendum were legally binding or electoral, it would have been declared void... so what does that tell you?
.
It tells me those behind such suspect & targeted social media campaigns are smart enough to realise in the real world its nigh on impossible to accurately prove what influence such tactics truly have, or to garner anything remotely close to the level of proof required to consider legally overturning such a vote , hence the likes of Cummings earn significantly more than most of us
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
No, it isn't. Labour position was that they want to remain in the single market and customs union, and accept the role that the ECJ has in those areas. All three of those are current red lines that they are willing to remove, which then opens up many other avenues of discussion and potential deal options. It would instantly get rid of the backstop complications too.

Exactly. The fundamental problem with the Tories' negotiating position was that (roughly speaking) they wanted (for very good reasons) to keep completely open trade borders between Great Britain Northern Ireland, and also between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. But at the same time they expected to be able to impose customs barriers and regulatory differences between Great Britain and the EU (which by definition includes the Republic of Ireland). Those three things are not really compatible: If you have open borders between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and also between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, then by definition you basically have open borders between Great Britain and the EU! That of course is one of the main reasons why negotiations were so painful, and why we ended up with the Backstop - as an attempt to square the circle. (And of course, many Tories as well as the ex-UKIP contingent then went on to keep blaming the EU and making out that the EU was being totally unreasonable because the EU wasn't prepared to agree to the logically impossible).

Because Labour would be willing to consider a customs union or similar arrangement, the biggest barrier to getting some reasonable Brexit deal immediately goes away (although personally I'd still prefer to just remain in the EU).
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,690
Location
Scotland
Interesting article from the Independent covering the question that the Supreme Court is going to be considering on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court will be asked to decide on Tuesday whether the prime minister’s prorogation of Parliament was legal. Its decision will have fundamental implications not just for the powers of the prime minister over parliament, but on how much Scotland’s distinctive constitutional history matters to the UK’s constitution.

The Scottish Court of Session, unlike the High Courts of Northern Ireland, and of England and Wales, took the view that the prorogation was a legal matter and not just a political question. The courts have jurisdiction to intervene when a prime minister’s actions are motivated by an improper purpose. In this case, the evidence showed that prorogation was an attempt to stymie the proper scrutiny of the executive by parliament. That, it concluded, was unlawful, and within the powers of the court to prevent.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I don't believe that anyone has said that. But, naturally, it's easier to debate a strawman than the actual position of the other side.

Well if nobody said that, what is this then?

Remain's campaign was "it ain't broke, don't fix it".

That to me says that there is no problem with the status quo and there is no need for reforms...

If only we had a leader of a political party in the EU as part of a working group on improving fishing rules and regulations.

Oh wait we did, but he couldn't be bothered to turn up.

As a remainder fishing was one of the areas I felt needed a major shake up if we stayed which made farages action's even more infuriating to me.

I agree with the above but it would never happen because some think it's better to sell off our interests then protect them.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,690
Location
Scotland
That to me says that there is no problem with the status quo and there is no need for reforms...
Might I suggest you re-read the post and the one it was a reply to. The comment was about the UK's relationship with the EU rather than the EU itself.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Might I suggest you re-read the post and the one it was a reply to. The comment was about the UK's relationship with the EU rather than the EU itself.

I did and my point still stands as it was on reference to our EU relationship.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Scottish independence is not what we are discussing here - if you would like to create a thread on Scottish Independence then please feel free to do so
I'm not making a point about Scottish independence (it's a probable consequence of Brexit but that is indeed for another thread). I'm asking you to consider whether the England and Wales government would damage its own interests to help Scotland in the event of independence negotiations. It might help you understand why the EU won't damage its own interests to help the UK during Brexit negotiations.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I'm not making a point about Scottish independence (it's a probable consequence of Brexit but that is indeed for another thread). I'm asking you to consider whether the England and Wales government would damage its own interests to help Scotland in the event of independence negotiations. It might help you understand why the EU won't damage its own interests to help the UK during Brexit negotiations.

Personally I think Brexit will damage the union more then any other course as Scotland will no doubt insist on a second vote of independence before they agree to any Brexit deal, Wales and Northern Ireland I’m not sure about.

All I do know is that the union has lasted for over 300 years and now it’s looking at risk.

By the way, what’s stopping us from applying to join the European Free Trade Association seeing as we were founding members....
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
Had he already left the Tories (I think he had) so the (lack of) majority doesn't change?
He was one of the Conservatives that was kicked out because he voted to block a no-deal Brexit.

Yep, so we can presume that the change is that he'll now be voting with the LibDems on most issues, whereas before you could have surmised that he'd probably be voting with the Tories on most issues not related to Brexit. So it probably does change things a bit for the Government.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I can't imagine there will be many more of the 21 ex-Tories going to the LibDems, as most of them have most recently been in favour of a deal (even Ken Clarke) and it is the pivot to no deal that has made them leave. I don't think the LibDems would accept anyone not committed to a referendum with support for Remain, or to revocation.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
A plan floated this morning on TV, I think it was on BBC News Channel.

A vote of no-confidence in Boris, with the aim of installing JC as a caretaker PM with a promised tenure of 6 months. A single role for the new government would be to organise and hold a second, potentially binding, referendum on Brexit, with the deals and no deals on the table, plus remain. One month after completion, the government is dissolved and a General Election is called.

I would be happy with this - people get to vote on a concrete outcome, possibly with a "better" deal than May offered, by dropping her red lines and possibly a Norway model, as was floated as an option in 2016. We are all better informed now of the consequences of Brexit and any incoming government will be focussed on implementation, not negotiation. We can vote for political parties with clear policies in the context of the decision, not single-issue blank sheet pressure groups, and yes, I do mean the Brexit Party.

Views?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
A plan floated this morning on TV, I think it was on BBC News Channel.

A vote of no-confidence in Boris, with the aim of installing JC as a caretaker PM with a promised tenure of 6 months. A single role for the new government would be to organise and hold a second, potentially binding, referendum on Brexit, with the deals and no deals on the table, plus remain. One month after completion, the government is dissolved and a General Election is called.

I would be happy with this - people get to vote on a concrete outcome, possibly with a "better" deal than May offered, by dropping her red lines and possibly a Norway model, as was floated as an option in 2016. We are all better informed now of the consequences of Brexit and any incoming government will be focussed on implementation, not negotiation. We can vote for political parties with clear policies in the context of the decision, not single-issue blank sheet pressure groups, and yes, I do mean the Brexit Party.

Views?

I would also be happy with this, with a possible caveat that the debate isn't allowed to sink to 2016 levels, and that a full document be made available free of charge to all citizens detailing the pros and cons of each option available. This would at least then set the mandate for moving forward, the option chosen by the public would be the one that Parliament would be asked to ratify, removing the ambiguity and stupid Marvel character references from the negotiator-in-chief...

I sadly don't expect this to happen though.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Is there any chance of someone as caretaker PM who’s impartial to both Remain and Leave?
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
I would also be happy with this, with a possible caveat that the debate isn't allowed to sink to 2016 levels, and that a full document be made available free of charge to all citizens detailing the pros and cons of each option available.

I'd like to see referendums in the future, the official campaigns required to nominate an independent fact checking organisation (one per campaign, although multiple campaigns could nominate the same organisation, at least two would be best to reduce claims of bias), and all of their campaigning materials should be approved by that organisation, with any of the organisations involved able to add content to those materials to clarify or confirm any claims made.

Rules, such as any correction / clarification had to be done in the same size font and space as the original claim, could be used to increase the impact of those fact checks.

That there is absolutely no punishment for blantantly lying in an official campaign is a democratic outrage.
 

lyndhurst25

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,406
Caretaker Government with a second binding referendum seems like a sensible way out of the current toxic tinderbox. There are currently comments on a certain national daily newspaper's website, with hundreds of upvotes, demanding that MPs who are seen as blocking Brexit "the will of the people" be hung for treason. That's how bad it's got and feelings are running very strongly.

Views on Brexit do not follow traditional party political lines, so a General Election isn't going to solve anything. The referendum should have at least three choices (remain/best deal on offer/no deal) and voters should rank them in order of preference. The current leave vs remain argument has got so polarised that voters need a way to back down while still being able to save face. Sell it to leavers as being able to choose what kind of Brexit they actually want. Sell it to remainers as a chance to remain if the country has indeed changed its mind, but if we can't remain then at least they can avoid a no deal crash out. Next time there needs to be some proper independent fact checking and scrutiny of the campaigns for both the remain and leave sides.

I'm not sure if Jeremy Corbyn would be the right person to be caretaker Prime Minister though as he's a divisive figure. Ideally it should be someone non-establishment, non-party-political, but who would be acceptable to both sides? An academic or celebrity like David Attenborough?!
 

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
I'm not sure if Jeremy Corbyn would be the right person to be caretaker Prime Minister though as he's a divisive figure. Ideally it should be someone non-establishment, non-party-political, but who would be acceptable to both sides? An academic or celebrity like David Attenborough?!

Isn't John Bercow looking for a new job?
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
Just got back from holiday in Croatia to read our Prime Minister has said "The madder Hulk gets the stronger Hulk gets". I just want to f*ck off back to Croatia as this place can't get any more mad. Apparently the Tories are up in the opinion poles inspite of this embarrassing nonsense. This country deserves everything it is going to get.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I'd like to see referendums in the future, the official campaigns required to nominate an independent fact checking organisation (one per campaign, although multiple campaigns could nominate the same organisation, at least two would be best to reduce claims of bias), and all of their campaigning materials should be approved by that organisation, with any of the organisations involved able to add content to those materials to clarify or confirm any claims made.
I think the fact checking organization should be a single independent statutory body which oversees all campaigns in a referendum, and elections too. Giving campaigns and parties the right to choose their own independent fact verifier is asking for trouble. Possibly a role for the Office for National Statistics, who intervened on the £350m bus claim but were powerless to stop it, perhaps in conjunction with the Advertising Standards Authority.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,690
Location
Scotland
I did and my point still stands as it was on reference to our EU relationship.
Well then yes, there was no reason to "reform" our relationship (whatever that means?), as full member but with significant opt-outs and a sizable rebate was pretty damned good.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
Let us remember it was those 17.4 million people that chose to leave the EU without fully understanding the potential consequences and pitfalls.
Did they?
Yes they did.
Sorry, but you lost me at this single bit so I didn't bother to read the rest of what you wrote.

You don't know that NOBODY understood what voting leave meant. Or rather, that 17.4 million people didn't fully understand the potential consequences.

Just because you believed whatever Vote Leave told you, then figured out they lied / bent the truth / white lies / whatever, doesn't mean everyone did, or that everyone who voted leave did.
I'd be surprised if anyone did.
I saw next to no advertising that swayed my voting. I knew what I was voting for and why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top