• 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.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
On the contrary I'd rather that Parliament delivered what it promised and actually voted for when they triggered article 50
Article 50 was triggered because under the treaty it was the only way to start negotiations on leaving. Failing to do so would be betraying the result of the referendum.

But once those negotiations turned out very differently to what the Leave campaign was promising, you don't allow Parliament to change its mind? Would you buy that nice shiny used car on Honest Boris's forecourt, once you found out the clock had run round twice, it was held together by filler and only running on three cylinders?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
There's this and now Turkey is starting to plunge into anti-democratic territory, trying to rebuild the Ottoman Empire?



Personally, nothing. The EU is the international 'Gold Standard'. Why would we want to plunge into a 'Just Money' situation where personal health is a very distant secondary concern?



And Cummings goes round telling the media to go to speak to 'Rich Remainers'.



The EU has a court + appeals court with constitutionally protected rights, and elects a parliament with constitutionally protected powers. The parliament is also arguably more representative of the people than the UK constituency system. Because it's impossible to satisfy 28 nations' needs, the EU exists to balance the overall interest over an every man for himself arrangement.



But, we elect the EU parliament and the other 27 elect their leaders so therefore EU presidencies are somewhat democratic.
I was referring to not having voted for Johnson, Cummings etc.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool
Not sure you understand how the UK system works
I, for example, didn't vote for Gordon Brown to be PM or Alistair Campbell to be an advisor, oh and I didn't get a vote on joining the EEC
The electorate delegates powers to a representative who then casts their vote
The Royals got their position by Parliamentary appointment and at the time they were the closest "royals" who weren't Roman Catholic
I do understand how the UK system works, I was merely pointing out the stupidity of calling the EU anti democratic.
 

Wuffle

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2019
Messages
131
Location
East Anglia
Article 50 was triggered because under the treaty it was the only way to start negotiations on leaving. Failing to do so would be betraying the result of the referendum.

But once those negotiations turned out very differently to what the Leave campaign was promising, you don't allow Parliament to change its mind? Would you buy that nice shiny used car on Honest Boris's forecourt, once you found out the clock had run round twice, it was held together by filler and only running on three cylinders?

Or alternatively the UK could have done this "we can unilaterally withdraw from the EU without invoking Article 50 and instead revoke the European Community Act of Parliament 1972 which will then free us to withdraw on our own terms while at the same time respecting international law and ethical considerations. We, the UK, are not bound by the Lisbon Treaty. It is non-binding and can be ignored. In fact, by my information from elsewhere, all the treaties between UK and EU that give UK sovereignty to EU are illegal under UK Law, the British Constitution, and are therefore non-binding on UK."
 

Wuffle

Member
Joined
1 Oct 2019
Messages
131
Location
East Anglia
I do understand how the UK system works, I was merely pointing out the stupidity of calling the EU anti democratic.

An interesting place to start regarding "democracy" and stupidity

Fullfact the UK's Independent Factchecking Charity the page linked to discusses the different arguments made by different Remain and Leave supporters

and this pdf makes much the same point about democracy
Civitas is the Institute for the Study of Civil Society 2015
This is one of a number of factsheets they have produced about the EU
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Or alternatively the UK could have done this "we can unilaterally withdraw from the EU without invoking Article 50 and instead revoke the European Community Act of Parliament 1972 which will then free us to withdraw on our own terms while at the same time respecting international law and ethical considerations. We, the UK, are not bound by the Lisbon Treaty. It is non-binding and can be ignored. In fact, by my information from elsewhere, all the treaties between UK and EU that give UK sovereignty to EU are illegal under UK Law, the British Constitution, and are therefore non-binding on UK."
And we cut all links with 27 countries in return for falling on the mercies of Trump and a few ex-colonies. Where exactly is the benefit in doing that?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
The default position is the colloquially named "No Deal"

But that's not what @najaB asked you. He/she asked what was promised, not what the default position after invoking Article 50 was. My memory of the referendum campaign is that the Leave campaign very clearly promised an easy and favourable deal - and they even clearly entertained the possibility that the deal might involve remaining in the single market or the customs union. At no stage during the campaign was no-deal seriously put forward as a consequence of voting for Brexit. I'm therefore at a loss to imagine how anyone can think that 'no deal' is what was promised.

One of the seldom mentioned parts of Article 50 is the onus is on the EU to do a deal

I assume you're referring to the bit of Article 50 that says, "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" Despite the wording of that, it's very clear that it is impossible to negotiate a deal unless both parties are able to come to a mutual agreement, so it makes no sense to say that the onus is on only one party. I would assume the real purpose of that text to ensure that the EU does actually enter into negotiations in good faith, and doesn't, for example, simply refuse to attempt to negotiate a deal with a leaving member who want so negotiate one.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
Or alternatively the UK could have done this "we can unilaterally withdraw from the EU without invoking Article 50 and instead revoke the European Community Act of Parliament 1972 which will then free us to withdraw on our own terms while at the same time respecting international law and ethical considerations.
So why didn't the UK do that then?
Could it be because it is a very, very, bad idea?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Or alternatively the UK could have done this "we can unilaterally withdraw from the EU without invoking Article 50 and instead revoke the European Community Act of Parliament 1972 which will then free us to withdraw on our own terms while at the same time respecting international law and ethical considerations.

So you're suggesting that the UK behave in a way that is completely unethical in order to respect '... ethical considerations'?

As for 'international law'... I don't know enough about international law to know whether what you're suggesting would also break international law, but unilaterally and almost without notice withdrawing from a treaty that other countries signed with us in good faith doesn't sound very legal to me - and certainly doesn't sound like the kind of thing to inspire other countries to trust us.
 

fowler9

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2013
Messages
8,367
Location
Liverpool

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
I'm afraid minds are now closed. Brexit mean Brexit and that's what we seem about to get. It was confused 3-4 years ago and it's no clearer now.

Unfortunately we don't seem to be able to have a clear view to compare what we can have now (after Cameron's amendments) with what we will get. That's not possible because we're going into a fog of uncertainty that is going to last 2 or 3 years at least. In another referendum Remain may be able to provide a clear view of the present position (but they failed to sell the EU 3 years ago) and the Brexit side may be able to paint another picture, but it can't be detailed, more hopes based on assumptions. That abstract view has served them well up to now.

The result is any new vote would be highly influenced by "let's get it over with" elements, whether they originally wanted to stay or go.

The irony of all this is that we have an opposition that's opposing itself! Corbyn sits for a strongly remain constituency but has a history of wanting to leave. His party members and MPs mostly want to remain, but his traditional voters mostly want to leave. During the early Thatcher years she was facing Michael Foot who was a similarly sincere man who was seen as unelectable in 1983. I see Boris coming through this stronger, as did Maggie after the Falklands - a campaign that should never have happened if the Foreign Office had spotted the warning signs. A bit like Cameron and Brexit but Boris looks like the one to benefit this time.

George Canning was the shortest serving PM back in 1827. A Tory, his health was broken and he died in office. The party was split just as now. 200 years later it's survived a few more schisms and is still going.
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
But that's not what @najaB asked you. He/she asked what was promised, not what the default position after invoking Article 50 was. My memory of the referendum campaign is that the Leave campaign very clearly promised an easy and favourable deal - and they even clearly entertained the possibility that the deal might involve remaining in the single market or the customs union. At no stage during the campaign was no-deal seriously put forward as a consequence of voting for Brexit. I'm therefore at a loss to imagine how anyone can think that 'no deal' is what was promised.

That is my memory too, a deal would be easy they said, the EU will be desperate they said, they need us more than we need them they said. Nobody was talking about 'no deal' during the campaign, and because Britain is so amazing & powerful the 27 other EU nations would be falling at their knees, sobbing and crying for a deal with us. Three and a half years on, Britain is shaking itself apart, we are a political joke and the EU has stood it's ground.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The irony of all this is that we have an opposition that's opposing itself! Corbyn sits for a strongly leave constituency but has a history of wanting to leave. His party members and MPs mostly want to remain, but his traditional voters mostly want to leave.
Shouldn't that be "a strongly remain constituency"?

https://labourlist.org/2018/01/labo...d-to-stay-in-single-market-and-customs-union/
Over three quarters of Labour Party members want a second referendum on any Brexit deal and nearly nine out of ten want to remain in the single market, new research shows today.

It seems most Labour members are closer to a remain position than to something like the May deal (and the putative Boris deal is even harder). The concern is more about Labour voters in Leave-voting constituencies who might be inclined to vote for a different party for that reason, which is why the Tory announcements unrelated to Brexit are more in line with traditional left-wing policies.
The residual hatred of past Tory governments in the those areas may still be enough that a lot of Leave supporters would vote for Farage instead.

In my own view, maybe they could have clung onto much of that support if they'd come out with their current "give the people the choice" policy a year ago, and they could even have broken the deadlock if they'd voted accordingly in the Commons, but a year of vacillation and the shenanigans at their last conference must have lost them a lot of supporters on both sides of the issue.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
News just in:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50079385
PM Boris Johnson says the UK and EU have agreed "great new deal" for Brexit

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

No detail at the time of me posting this, though I am sure there will be soon.

Of course, the devil will always be in the detail, so I won't trust that it genuinely is a "great new deal" until the evidence supports that!
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
The DUP still aren't on board with it. The white smoke may be premature.

Actually, now I consider it more, does the DUP's support really matter? The only way any new deal has more than a snowball's chance in hell is if it's bundled with a confirmatory referendum.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The various commentators seem to be saying that DUP support will carry with it a larger number of the Tory headbangers.

Johnson is now asking the EU not to agree an extension - either this deal or no deal - which sounds like it could bring him up before the beaks for attempting to undermine the Benn Act. The majority may now need to grab the agenda again and legislate for a referendum on this deal versus remaining (and possibly no deal as a third option). For this the EU would probably grant an extension even if they're not prepared to negotiate any alternative deals.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I would be very happy with an AV referendum of this deal vs no deal vs remain.

I would, for what it's worth, vote in this order:

1. Remain
2. This deal
3. No deal

However, some moderate Leavers may wish to reverse the top two.

If we did do that, I would suggest the referendum should be legally binding and should automatically invoke the selected option.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top