EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Senex]

"Prosperity before Politics". That can only mean continued membership of the single market, or some close approximation.

Like many others, I'd agree totally with that (as a second-best to retaining full EU membership, of course!).

I thought the comments in that speech from David Davis were pretty appalling, trying to lecture to the 27 on how they should negotiate with him. It seemed very much like an echo of the "Britain knows best and the world must listen" attitude of an empire long gone rather than a proper realisation of the fact that he's the one who wants favours from an organisation he's busily rejecting and too many of his colleagues are busy slagging off in public as noisily as they possibly can.

 

[AM9]

Like many others, I'd agree totally with that (as a second-best to retaining full EU membership, of course!).

I thought the comments in that speech from David Davis were pretty appalling, trying to lecture to the 27 on how they should negotiate with him. It seemed very much like an echo of the "Britain knows best and the world must listen" attitude of an empire long gone rather than a proper realisation of the fact that he's the one who wants favours from an organisation he's busily rejecting and too many of his colleagues are busy slagging off in public as noisily as they possibly can.

It's not surprising as the whole leaver negotiating premise is that if the 27 countries don't give us whatever we want without us sacrificing much at all, they will be the losers. Patriotism is all very well but some of these little Englanders do have such a pompous view of their own importance that they have a big shock coming their way. Unfortuantely, the politicians will just have their pride dented a bit. Many of those who voted for leave will lose their livelihood, maybe their homes and probably the welfare support that will be needed when it all falls down. The purveyors of the lie that the world loves us and will let us get our way will just shift their riches around to avoid loss, - as indeed many of them did when the credit crunch hit.

 

[northwichcat]

They did know. They voted for Brexit.

Since everything that's straight forward perhaps all political parties should be disbanded and all politicians should declare themselves either 'aligned to the left' or 'aligned to the right' and those are the only two options we should have on ballot papers for elections.

 

[Senex]

Can one of the economics experts here explain to me how the "they need us more than we need them" argument works? As I understand, we send more than 40% of our exports to them and they send 11% of their exports to us, even though in total value the latter slightly exceeds the former. But would it not be very much easier for them to find new markets reasonably soon for a relatively small proportion of their total exports than for us to find new markets for almost half of our exports within the same sort of time-scale? Particularly when even with all the constraints of the EU countries like France and Germany have done significantly better exporting to developing markets like China than we have managed? Or are Australia, Canada, and New Zealand just waiting to buy all the products we may no longer be able to sell into the EU?

 

[northwichcat]

They were Remoaners and because the vote didn't go their way they threw their toys out of the pram so, out of spite, have tried to frustrate the process.

Do you recall who set up the online petition asking for a second referendum unless the winning side gets something like a 56% threshold? Clue: someone campaigning for Brexit who thought Remain would win by a narrow majority.

 

[zuriblue]

Do you recall who set up the online petition asking for a second referendum unless the winning side gets something like a 56% threshold? Clue: someone campaigning for Brexit who thought Remain would win by a narrow majority.

Was it a "remoaner" who said before the referendum that a 52%- 48% win would be unfinished business?
IIRC it was a certain N. Farage.

After all if a referendum was once and for all then the 1974 one would have been the end of the matter.

 

[zuriblue]

According to The Daily Telegraph the remain Conservatives can be labelled as traitors to the British people.

Behind a paywall: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ps-threaten-rebel-against-brexit-date-brutal/

After all Thomas Mair was a lone wolf. Certainly Anna Soubry has already received a number of death threats from Brexiteers. (I wouldn't be surprised if others got them as well.) These have been referred to the Police.

 

[EM2]

They were Remoaners and because the vote didn't go their way they threw their toys out of the pram so, out of spite, have tried to frustrate the process.

I think you mean 'ensure that the process undergoes proper scrutiny'.

 

[furnessvale]

After all if a referendum was once and for all then the 1974 one would have been the end of the matter.

In 1975 we were given a vote on remaining members of the EEC (otherwise known as the Common Market).
Last year the people of the UK were given the first referendum on membership of the European Union, quite a different animal.
Even the change of name gives a clue to the ultimate aims of this club.

 

[northwichcat]

In 1975 we were given a vote on remaining members of the EEC (otherwise known as the Common Market).
Last year the people of the UK were given the first referendum on membership of the European Union, quite a different animal.
Even the change of name gives a clue to the ultimate aims of this club.

That they join together for a purpose they all agree on?

 

[furnessvale]

That they join together for a purpose they all agree on?

Indeed. That it cease to be a trading block and moved into ever increasing political union.
The UK disagreed with that thought so we are leaving.

 

[najaB]

Indeed. That it cease to be a trading block and moved into ever increasing political union.
The UK disagreed with that thought so we are leaving.

I doubt one in ten people who voted Leave did so because of objection to 'ever increasing political union'. (Which, by the way, requires unanimous agreement of all members and so couldn't be done against the wishes of the UK or any other member).

 

[Howardh]

Interesting how the debate has moved back from "we're leaving" to "how can we leave?" to "can we leave at all?" suggesting that the complete road-block that is the Irish Border has stopped Brexit in it's tracks. One of the sides has to give in - the EU over FoM so the UK can stay in the customs union/single market and keep the "all those immigrants" people happy, or the UK has the back down on Freedom of Movement and accept it's a small price to pay to keep Ireland and the CTA intact. Who will blink first - and if no-one blinks will the UK accept that Brexit's a bad job, withdraw the letter and call a General Election?

My money is on a Yes Minister compromise, we will stay in the market and customs union, but we will heve to accept soem degree of free movement, maybe set monthly limits, or qualified workers only (etc) (not that it would work, but it's a good paper exercise and gives some credence to "keeping control of our borders" whatever that means) and in return we won't be involved in that dreadful ETIAD schame.

 

[Moonshot]

Interesting how the debate has moved back from "we're leaving" to "how can we leave?" to "can we leave at all?" suggesting that the complete road-block that is the Irish Border has stopped Brexit in it's tracks. One of the sides has to give in - the EU over FoM so the UK can stay in the customs union/single market and keep the "all those immigrants" people happy, or the UK has the back down on Freedom of Movement and accept it's a small price to pay to keep Ireland and the CTA intact. Who will blink first - and if no-one blinks will the UK accept that Brexit's a bad job, withdraw the letter and call a General Election?

My money is on a Yes Minister compromise, we will stay in the market and customs union, but we will heve to accept soem degree of free movement, maybe set monthly limits, or qualified workers only (etc) (not that it would work, but it's a good paper exercise and gives some credence to "keeping control of our borders" whatever that means) and in return we won't be involved in that dreadful ETIAD schame.

This is a very reasonable post........and in fact the option of withdrawing our resignation was brought up in a Select Commitee session some time ago, it threw up some interesting legal debate.

 

[Bromley boy]

I doubt one in ten people who voted Leave did so because of objection to 'ever increasing political union'. (Which, by the way, requires unanimous agreement of all members and so couldn't be done against the wishes of the UK or any other member).

Have you asked all the leave voters why they voted as they did, then?

Your latter statement is highly disingenuous if you compare what the UK electorate signed up for in its original vote to join the EEC in 1973 - an economic trading bloc - with what they voted to leave in 2016 - an all encompasing political union with a president, a constitution and the stated desire for ever increasing federalism.

The erosion of our democracy has been insidious and creeping ever since we signed up - witness the Lisbon treaty which was rejected by referenda in more than one member state, but forced through nonetheless by repeatedly asking the same question until the answer was right. (A bit like remainers who want another referendum!)

By contrast, how many UK referenda have been held on the matter of increasing European integration in the intervening years?! Precisely none!

Has it occurred to you that many leave voters may have voted as they did because they value continuing to live in a mature, self-determining parliamentary democracy over and above any (indeterminate) economic benefits of remaining?

The economic concerns are of course perfectly legitimate, but please don’t try to imply that concerns about creeping federalism are somehow unfounded.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Have you asked all the leave voters why they voted as they did, then?

Your latter statement is highly disingenuous if you compare what the UK electorate signed up for in its original vote to join the EEC in 1973 - an economic trading bloc - with what they voted to leave in 2016 - an all encompasing political union with a president, a constitution and the stated desire for ever increasing federalism.

The erosion of our democracy has been insidious and creeping ever since we signed up - witness the Lisbon treaty which was rejected by referenda in more than one member state, but forced through nonetheless by repeatedly asking the same question until the answer was right. (A bit like remainers who want another referendum!)

By contrast, how many UK referenda have been held on the matter of increasing European integration in the intervening years?! Precisely none!

Has it occurred to you that many leave voters may have voted as they did because they value continuing to live in a mature, self-determining parliamentary democracy over and above any (indeterminate) economic benefits of remaining?

The economic concerns are of course perfectly legitimate, but please don’t try to imply that concerns about creeping federalism are somehow unfounded.

I would say that those reasons helped greatly influence the vote. Many people felt tired of not being listened to and were very dissatisfied with the European Union. Prime Ministers from Harold Wilson to David Cameron didn't particularly care what the people thought about the EU, and it was only because of threats from UKIP taking seats did Cameron do the referendum. His gamble backfired on him dreadfully. I myself was, at the time, for leaving the EU, but since then I've had a few different ideas and am unsure how I would vote next time because of the complexity of the issue.

Federalism is a reasonable concern, especially given that politicians like Nick Clegg called the idea of an EU Army 'a dangerous fantasy', yet it ended up being true in the end, but people were also concerned about mass immigration, and for a great deal it wasn't because of deep-routed xenophobia. Mass immigration can affect wages and create more demand for housing, the latter simply being because more people and less houses means a big demand. You can put that down to the fact of insufficient homes being built as well though.

Ultimately, I can understand why many people would be in favour of leaving, as well as remaining, but the issue is extremely complex, hence why Cameron was arguably stupid to call the referendum to the general public. I would say we elect MPs to make decisions that complex for us, but then again part of people's problem was people not being listened to. I don't think anybody can pretend it's a simple issue though.

 

[fowler9]

I would say that those reasons helped greatly influence the vote. Many people felt tired of not being listened to and were very dissatisfied with the European Union. Prime Ministers from Harold Wilson to David Cameron didn't particularly care what the people thought about the EU, and it was only because of threats from UKIP taking seats did Cameron do the referendum. His gamble backfired on him dreadfully. I myself was, at the time, for leaving the EU, but since then I've had a few different ideas and am unsure how I would vote next time because of the complexity of the issue.

Federalism is a reasonable concern, especially given that politicians like Nick Clegg called the idea of an EU Army 'a dangerous fantasy', yet it ended up being true in the end, but people were also concerned about mass immigration, and for a great deal it wasn't because of deep-routed xenophobia. Mass immigration can affect wages and create more demand for housing, the latter simply being because more people and less houses means a big demand. You can put that down to the fact of insufficient homes being built as well though.

Ultimately, I can understand why many people would be in favour of leaving, as well as remaining, but the issue is extremely complex, hence why Cameron was arguably stupid to call the referendum to the general public. I would say we elect MPs to make decisions that complex for us, but then again part of people's problem was people not being listened to. I don't think anybody can pretend it's a simple issue though.

What EU army became true?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

What EU army became true?

Strictly speaking it's not in motion yet, but there motion is still in there. According to the Wikipedia extract from 'Military of the European Union'.

The military of the European Union comprises the various cooperative structures that have been established between the armed forces of the member states, both intergovernmentally and within the institutional framework of the union; the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) branch of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

• Article 42.2 provides for complete integration, which would require unanimity in the European Council of heads of state or government and has as such been blocked by the United Kingdom, which is the main opponent of EU defence integration, in particular. (The United Kingdom is however scheduled to withdraw from the union in 2019.)
• Article 42.6 enables the armed forces of a subset of member states to establish permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) between themselves. As of 2017 this option has not been used, despite calls by prominent leaders such as former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt for a common defence for the Union.

So maybe the term 'EU Army' is a bit of a misnomer, but I use it as the simpler term. I was more about the fact Nick Clegg dismissed any element of it as a dangerous fantasy. Truth be told though, I didn't strictly listen to either of the campaigns, so I have no clue how the side arguing against it worded it.

 

[fowler9]

Strictly speaking it's not in motion yet, but there motion is still in there. According to the Wikipedia extract from 'Military of the European Union'.
To be fair mate you can't really say it became true. The UK would have had a veto on it and I doubt it would have happened.


So maybe the term 'EU Army' is a bit of a misnomer, but I use it as the simpler term. I was more about the fact Nick Clegg dismissed any element of it as a dangerous fantasy. Truth be told though, I didn't strictly listen to either of the campaigns, so I have no clue how the side arguing against it worded it.

. In all fairness then mate it didn't actually come true. I doubt it would have done if the UK had a veto.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

. In all fairness then mate it didn't actually come true. I doubt it would have done if the UK had a veto.

The UK has been a major obstacle in it's development as I'm sure you know.

 

[fowler9]

The UK has been a major obstacle in it's development as I'm sure you know.

Indeed. Good chance it wouldn't have happened or at least we wouldn't have been part of it if we remained. We wouldn't have been part of it if we had remained. I am confident.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Indeed. Good chance it wouldn't have happened or at least we wouldn't have been part of it if we remained. We wouldn't have been part of it if we had remained. I am confident.

Britain has always been one for concessions in the EU. It got out of going into the Schengen area, it got out of adopting the Euro (which I’m kind of pleased with), and its probably got out of a few other things. I’m not surprised David Davis expects a good deal, but whether he’s being realistic is another thing.

 

[Bromley boy]

. In all fairness then mate it didn't actually come true. I doubt it would have done if the UK had a veto.

What about the passage of the Lisbon treaty?That was a good example of how the EU is an undemocratic, self serving project in its own right.

The EU has existed for a few decades and is rapidly eroding national sovereignty - It wants to become a superstate. That’s my worry. Ironically, immigration is about the lowest item on my list of my concerns, I’m actually pro immigration.

I’d far rather continue to live in a mature parliamentary democracy that determines its own affairs and has existed for centuries. We still do pretty well on the human rights / stability front.

 

[EM2]

What about the passage of the Lisbon treaty?That was a good example of how the EU is an undemocratic, self serving project in its own right.

Why is it a good example? If the electorates of the states that rejected Lisbon were still unconvinced, they could have continued to reject it.

Edit - you do know that Ireland renegotiated the Treaty before the second referendum?

 

[fowler9]

What about the passage of the Lisbon treaty?That was a good example of how the EU is an undemocratic, self serving project in its own right.

The EU has existed for a few decades and is rapidly eroding national sovereignty - It wants to become a superstate. That’s my worry. Ironically, immigration is about the lowest item on my list of my concerns, I’m actually pro immigration.

I’d far rather continue to live in a mature parliamentary democracy that determines its own affairs and has existed for centuries. We still do pretty well on the human rights / stability front.

I was replying to someone who said the EU army had come true after Nick Cleggs warnings.

 

[fowler9]

Britain has always been one for concessions in the EU. It got out of going into the Schengen area, it got out of adopting the Euro (which I’m kind of pleased with), and its probably got out of a few other things. I’m not surprised David Davis expects a good deal, but whether he’s being realistic is another thing.

Well there you go, we aren't just forced to do everything the EU wants.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What about the passage of the Lisbon treaty?That was a good example of how the EU is an undemocratic, self serving project in its own right.

Is it? The Irish and Dutch both negotiated changes as a result of their referenda. Other countries ratified the treaty through their parliaments, like any other treaty.

As for the "creation of a superstate", a) I don't think they are and b) a reduction in nationalism is a good aim anyway after the destruction of two world wars.

No country can survive alone. Sadly we're about to prove it.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Well there you go, we aren't just forced to do everything the EU wants.

Not everything, but sometimes there are certain laws we are outvoted on and have to participate in. It's kind of what the UK signed up for with the Maastricht Treaty, but the people didn't know they were getting into that, so they're the ones affected by laws they didn't agree to nor have a vote in. It makes you wonder why some people don't see MEP elections as important considering they're the ones who actually do vote on some of the laws that affect them. They don't get to propose legislation as far as I'm concerned, but they get a vote on it, so it's a wonder why nobody cares about the MEPs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I’m not surprised David Davis expects a good deal, but whether he’s being realistic is another thing.

Britain had a strong negotiating position within the Union. An important part of the Union, we were a balance to the French and Germans and could push for what we wanted. And we got a lot: no Schengen, no Euro, a rebate...

Outside the Union, do we have the same negotiating position? I don't think we do. Why would we? You'll negotiate to save a marriage. You won't negotiate when the ex has gone.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Not everything, but sometimes there are certain laws we are outvoted on and have to participate in.

That's life.

I was outvoted on Brexit but have to participate anyway.

The joy of ANY democracy is that sometimes your neighbours vote for something you don't want.

It's true I don't directly vote for a Commissioner. But I don't directly vote for a Prime Minister or the Cabinet either. People don't get upset by that. They elect a representative who will choose a PM they agree with.