EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[MikeWh]

Unless I’ve misunderstood something I don’t think parliament has to accept no deal. Now that article 50 has been invoked it is the default position if no agreement can be reached.

So in that scenario we should crash out of the EU - hopefully saving ourselves the divorce bill in the process!

If we crash out and renege on our commitments in the divorce bill, how easy do you think it will be to sign trade agreements with anyone? Why would any country trust us to keep to our side of any agreement?

 

[EM2]

...a second referendum would give people a chance to vote against a brexit they didn't want, but you don't want a re-run? Pull the other one.

It would give people that, but I am of the opinion that the bed has been made and now we have to lie in it, so I am not one of those people that would take up that chance. Many other people would. The two stances are not incompatible.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If it's no deal, then yes, I WANT it to be a total and utter disaster bigger than the biggest disaster in disasterland.

I'm very strongly in the Remain camp, and I would be totally horrified if the Government really did go for a no-deal Brexit. But I'd still very much dissociate myself from that kind of sentiment. Surely it's possible to believe that a no-deal Brexit would be an utter disaster without also wanting it to be one?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I prefer looking at how people actually vote rather than what they tell opinion pollsters, though. The majority of Labour (and Conservative, unsurprisingly) held constituencies are taken to have been overall leave voting areas. You might be right about Labour members, though they're a tiny proportion of the party's supporters. You might not be though - I'm a Labour member and I've never been asked if I'm a remainer or not, so I take "stats" like those with a large pinch of salt.

In that case you're stuck, because in most of the country, we don't have the voting figures for Remain and Leave by constituency. The claim that most Labour constituencies voted Leave is actually the result of a statistical analysis, not actual counting of votes. See FullFact

The best figures we have for other constituencies comes from Professor Chris Hanretty, a political scientist at Royal Holloway University, who combined official results and the BBC data with statistical methods in order to estimate the proportion of Leave and Remain voters in every seat in England, Scotland and Wales.

These estimates show that while the national result of the referendum was relatively close, with 52% voting Leave and 48% voting Remain, a much larger majority of parliamentary seats voted to Leave – with 64% of seats in Great Britain voting Leave. (This is likely due to the uneven distribution of Remain voters, who tended to cluster in large cities, while Leave voters were more evenly spread.)

Bottom line... if you are unwilling to trust statistics and polling etc. then you can't say anything about what proportion of constituencies voted Leave. However, I'd suggest statistical methods, properly applied, are pretty reliable, so actually you can be very certain both that (a) most Labour voters are also Remain supporters, and (b) most Labour constituencies voted Leave in the referendum. The apparent discrepancy is very easy to explain by remembering that even very safe Labour constituencies still usually have substantial numbers of Conservative voters living in them, who are much more likely than Labour voters to have been Leave supporters - and those voters would be enough to tip the balance for Leave in many constituencies even if a majority Labour supporters in those constituencies voted Remain. There would also be an element of our electoral system not reflecting vote share, hence numbers of constituencies voting each way wouldn't be the same as percentages of voters. (Remember, the referendum result was almost 50/50 - The margin of victory for Leave was, in percentage terms, very small).

 

[Howardh]

You're one of the most vehement remainers on here, while talking about this today you said a second referendum would give people a chance to vote against a brexit they didn't want, but you don't want a re-run? Pull the other one.

Read that carefully. A Brexit "they" - YOU (as in you, a Brexit voter) didn't want/expect/agree with. Otherwise you will have to put up with whatever the government gives you, whether you think it's Brexit or not. You've put me down for wanting to give you a say in the outcome.
Of course it doesn't actually say I WANT a second referendum.

 

[bramling]

If we crash out and renege on our commitments in the divorce bill, how easy do you think it will be to sign trade agreements with anyone? Why would any country trust us to keep to our side of any agreement?

A lot depends on the legal status of the so-called "divorce bill". What actually commits us to continuing to pay anything after next March? I'm open to correction on this, however my feeling is that the fact we're actually offering to pay at present is merely Britain offering a gesture of goodwill in order to avoid messing up the EU's finances.

Personally I'd prefer it if we *didn't* pay, and in fact if there is no deal (which personally I'm increasingly coming to favour) I'd be rather peeved if we did end up somehow paying. There's plenty Britain can do with that money, if nothing else to fund tax cuts.

 

[AlterEgo]

If it's no deal, then yes, I WANT it to be a total and utter disaster bigger than the biggest disaster in disasterland. If she GETS a deal, and it goes some way to keeping things pretty much as they are today, I could live with it.

Happily it's very unlikely to be no deal, so what's left shouldn't be a disaster, and I'll do my best to support it. But if the deal means we lose our travellers rights in the EU (cheap roaming, no visas/waivers, keep the medical cards, use our drivers licences without extra, compensation rights for delayed flights etc) plus an increase in price of Mediterranean foods I love (and need for my cholesterol levels) then I can't support it. Why would I?? But it's not up to me, it's up to the electorate as a whole, who can be very fickle.

You don’t have to support something to want it to succeed. If Brexit does happen and it’s no deal, then it’s for the good of everyone that it’s a success whether you wanted it or not.

 

[bramling]

Unless I’ve misunderstood something I don’t think parliament has to accept no deal. Now that article 50 has been invoked it is the default position if no agreement can be reached.

Without knowing the full wording of the initial legislation, that position seems reasonable. Can anyone confirm?

 

[Howardh]

A lot depends on the legal status of the so-called "divorce bill". What actually commits us to continuing to pay anything after next March? I'm open to correction on this, however my feeling is that the fact we're actually offering to pay at present is merely Britain offering a gesture of goodwill in order to avoid messing up the EU's finances.

Personally I'd prefer it if we *didn't* pay, and in fact if there is no deal (which personally I'm increasingly coming to favour) I'd be rather peeved if we did end up somehow paying. There's plenty Britain can do with that money, if nothing else to fund tax cuts.

I think if we have agreed to certain commitments before the vote, it's only fair that we pay up, and be the good guys in this. If we default then, as alluded to, we become untrustworthy. Although if some of that money is to certain MEP's pensions, maybe that could be withheld, I'm with you on that one!
But if we pay up we should be guaranteed access to the Market in return, so it is a two-way thing.

 

[Howardh]

You don’t have to support something to want it to succeed. If Brexit does happen and it’s no deal, then it’s for the good of everyone that it’s a success whether you wanted it or not.

It won't be "no deal", at a bare minimum there will be a fudge. Mind you, I can't think of anything I've wanted to succeed that I haven't supported, is that possible??, but that aside the only beneficiaries of Brexit right now would appear to be the filthy rich. Can't see how Brexit can benefit anyone else, not in huge numbers anyway. Some might get a job, countered by those who may lose a job I suppose.
Anyhow, Brexit HAS to be a success as you rightly say whether I want it to or not. But what IS Brexit success?? We don't even know what Brexit is yet, let alone if it's a good 'un.

 

[Howardh]

Without knowing the full wording of the initial legislation, that position seems reasonable. Can anyone confirm?

With a *neutral* hat on - I've asked on specific politics forums and the answer is no-one seems to know. A50 has been delivered, and, yes, that means we leave on March 29 at 2300. The argument is whether that would have Parliament's approval (to put it strongly - if not would that make May a dictator?) and if not, what could Parliament do about it - the answer is in theory call a vote of "no confidence". But if it emerges at 2259 that there is no deal then there is no time for a no confidence, meaning we resort to a default situation of no treaties with EU countries and those treaties we have jointly with the EU (ie trade deals) which is - again I emphasise a neutral viewpoint - where the "no flights/ferries/Eurostar/imposts/exports" comes from.

Clearly any government allowing the situation to get that far would be totally incompetent, however the current lot have form....

Think the reality is, if we get that far (last minute of the last day etc) there will be emergency EU/UK legislation to extend A50 and we would continue to remain inside the EU until agreed otherwise.

Then the question arises - in May there are the Euro Elections. Do we remain in the EU for ??? time with or without representation?

Again, that's just a viewpoint gathered form other forums, if anyone knows different please inform.

 

[Bromley boy]

Without knowing the full wording of the initial legislation, that position seems reasonable. Can anyone confirm?

From a quick read around I can’t identify a requirement for a further vote in order to crash out (if anyone else can feel free to point to it!).

The triggering of article 50 itself was done by act of Parliament (as was required following the Gina Miller case), authorising the prime minister to deliver the letter triggering the process.

Article 50 itself (an EU treaty provision) is quite vague and simply confers a two year timetable after which the treaties will no longer apply to the departing member state. The mechanism for departure is (obviously) a matter for the constitutional requirements of the member state concerned.

The European Union (Withdrawl) Act 2018 is the substantive piece of legislation which repeals the European Communities Act 1972 and recasts much existing EU legislation into domestic law. When this legislation was tabled the bill was amended to give parliament a “meaningful vote” on the deal.

(Paraphrasing here, but I’ve linked to the act below and suggest following the link - apologies it’s impossible to copy and paste in full).

Section 13 introduces the requirement that parliament must ratify the eventual deal. Interestingly the same section provides for the situations where:

(a) the PM states before 21 Jan 2019 that no agreement can be reached on arrangements for withdrawal and framework for future relationship;

(b) there is no agreement in principle on 21 Jan 2019 which can be put to the commons;

(c) the commons rejects the proposed deal.

In each of these eventualities the requirement is merely that a minister makes a statement of how the government intends to proceed. This statement is required to be endorsed by parliament by a “motion in neutral terms”, but no vote is actually required.

So if there is no deal or the deal is rejected by the commons, it appears that there’s no requirement for a vote to be taken in order to crash out. Whether that would actually happen of course is another matter.

What might then happen is anyone’s guess. It’s also worth noting that it’s by no means certain that the EU’s legal system would permit it to agree an extension of the article 50 timescale.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13/enacted

13Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1)The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—

(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—

(i)a statement that political agreement has been reached,

(ii)a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and

(iii)a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
[/UNQUOTE]

 

[Bromley boy]

A lot depends on the legal status of the so-called "divorce bill". What actually commits us to continuing to pay anything after next March? I'm open to correction on this, however my feeling is that the fact we're actually offering to pay at present is merely Britain offering a gesture of goodwill in order to avoid messing up the EU's finances.

Personally I'd prefer it if we *didn't* pay, and in fact if there is no deal (which personally I'm increasingly coming to favour) I'd be rather peeved if we did end up somehow paying. There's plenty Britain can do with that money, if nothing else to fund tax cuts.

Absolutely.

There’s no legal basis for the divorce payments - the usual argument trotted out in favour of it is that it would look poor for the U.K. to renege on previous agreements (but would it? Do we really care?!).

Indeed there would be nothing to stop us abandoning the article 50 process altogether - we could have simply unilaterally repealed the 1972 act and immediately crashed out as some in UKIP favoured (I’m not saying that would have been my favoured outcome).

We should have negotiated far more robustly from the outset - our craven government appeared to roll over immediately on the divorce bill point.

If we leave without a deal (I’m also increasingly favouring that outcome!) why the hell should we be paying a divorce bill?!

I’m also considering joining the Tory party* in anticipation of a possible leadership election in the autumn. I’d quite like to have my say! It would be better all round to have a staunch Brexiteer as PM.

*I’d better keep quiet about my ASLEF membership.

 

[trash80]

There’s no legal basis for the divorce payments - the usual argument trotted out in favour of it is that it would look poor for the U.K. to renege on previous agreements (but would it? Do we really care?!).

Indeed there would be nothing to stop us abandoning the article 50 process altogether - we could have simply unilaterally repealed the 1972 act and immediately crashed out as some in UKIP favoured (I’m not saying that would have been my favoured outcome).

Don't you think it would add a difficulty to any future trade deals and future trade partners if we ignored and abandoned ones we were already in? Britain should try and act as a responsible world citizen. We arn't North Korea.

 

[dgl]

Crashing out without paying would make it look to other countries that once a trade deal starts to look bad form our side we will quit it at a moments notice, and of any of these such deals included free movement it could get very bad for us very quickly.
Again, if we want to keep our high standards esp. where food is concerned then it looks like the only countries that we can realistically do trade deals with are the big group of people we have just left, something that if we do actually leave will be neither easy or particularly beneficial to the UK.

 

[Mintona]

You people favouring ‘no deal’ obviously have no idea what ‘no deal’ actually entails. No power, no fuel, no flights, no food, no medicine. Great plan.

 

[nlogax]

You people favouring ‘no deal’ obviously have no idea what ‘no deal’ actually entails. No power, no fuel, no flights, no food, no medicine. Great plan.

It doesn't mean that. Come on. Enough with the hyperbole.

No-deal isn't world-ending. It's a complete sh*t sandwich of an outcome and I know of very few people that want it, but the things you've stated won't happen. In spite of the government's utter incompetency and arrogance, our country will continue to function in the event that its negotiators fail to pull their heads out of their rear ends.

 

[furnessvale]

I have signed the People’s Vote Petition to demand a vote on the Brexit deal.

We, the people, have the democratic right to determine our own future.

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/petition
#PeoplesVote

Having read the petition, what exactly are the petitioners voting on?

There is a lot of blurb from the pro remain side but no mention of what the vote itself would be. As a leaver, I could just about accept a vote with the options of leaving with whatever deal (or not) was on offer, or leaving but not accepting the deal.

I rather suspect that is not what the petitioners wanted, but as they have not specified that in the petition, it is not worth the paper it is not printed on!

 

[Jonny]

Again, if we want to keep our high standards esp. where food is concerned then it looks like the only countries that we can realistically do trade deals with are the big group of people we have just left, something that if we do actually leave will be neither easy or particularly beneficial to the UK.

Many non-EU countries have high standards as well. The 'lurking lawyer' may be cast as a villain but the threat of lawsuits does keep products safe in a lot of countries, the USA being an example.

 

[Jonny]

Crashing out without paying would make it look to other countries that once a trade deal starts to look bad form our side we will quit it at a moments notice, and of any of these such deals included free movement it could get very bad for us very quickly.

It's well established that any payments would be discretionary. It is reasonable to expect something in return. Remember the saying "No taxation without representation"? Exactly. It has to be a business deal if we are not represented.

 

[furnessvale]

I’m also considering joining the Tory party* in anticipation of a possible leadership election in the autumn. I’d quite like to have my say! It would be better all round to have a staunch Brexiteer as PM.

*I’d better keep quiet about my ASLEF membership.

Why keep quiet? Having been well and truly shafted by his trades union after WWII, my father was a committed conservative ever after, and it did him and the whole family no harm.

 

[Howardh]

It doesn't meant that. Come on. Enough with the hyperbole.

No-deal isn't world-ending. It's a complete sh*t sandwich of an outcome and I know of very few people that want it, but the things you've stated won't happen. In spite of the government's utter incompetency and arrogance, our country will continue to function in the event that its negotiators fail to pull their heads out of their rear ends.

What does "no deal" actually mean? As I can see, we have voted to tear up every single treaty we have with the EU and those beyond which we share with the EU. Therefore, where are the treaties and agreements to cover those torn up? In other words, somewhere there is, or will be, a piece of paper with a UK and EU signature on it allowing us to fly there, to dock ferries, to import oil??

Basically, I don't think any of us, least of all the politicians, actually KNOW what no-deal is, and while the above may be melodramatic (no tomatoes, ye Gods) none of us actually know what it entails and the immediate aftermath. No-deal could be OK, we just carry on but pay tariffs (and take the hit in the shopping bill). Buit isn't the fact that everyone is being very coy about telling us what it REALLY means not a worry that, after all, it may be very significant and lead to shortages?

Or have I completely read this wrong and somewhere out there there's a paper with every eventuality of no-deal outlined?

 

[Mintona]

It doesn't mean that. Come on. Enough with the hyperbole.

No-deal isn't world-ending. It's a complete sh*t sandwich of an outcome and I know of very few people that want it, but the things you've stated won't happen. In spite of the government's utter incompetency and arrogance, our country will continue to function in the event that its negotiators fail to pull their heads out of their rear ends.

That’s literally exactly what it means. All of the things mentioned require a deal or agreement of some sort, whether favourable or not. No deal means nothing at all.

 

[nlogax]

No power, no fuel, no flights, no food, no medicine.

That’s literally exactly what it means. All of the things mentioned require a deal or agreement of some sort, whether favourable or not. No deal means nothing at all.

It's hyperbole. In spite of a no-deal, there is no way on earth the government won't be paying for the basics of what our country needs to function on a daily basis. That price will undoubtedly be way over the odds in comparison to the current situation - no EU trade deal, WTO rules and a pound as weak as a kitten and the economy will be suffer for some time. But power, fuel, flights, food and medicine will all still be available come April 1st 2019. We'll be posting here on that day from our laptops and phones, supplied with power from our own three pin sockets. If you really believe any of the above isn't true, maybe it's time to step away from online news for a bit and take a deep breath.

Same advice goes for Brexiteers who continue any weird and unfounded belief that no-deal will be some sort of unicorn-blessed godsend for the UK, btw. It's delusional.

 

[Geezertronic]

Having read the petition, what exactly are the petitioners voting on?

There is a lot of blurb from the pro remain side but no mention of what the vote itself would be. As a leaver, I could just about accept a vote with the options of leaving with whatever deal (or not) was on offer, or leaving but not accepting the deal.

I rather suspect that is not what the petitioners wanted, but as they have not specified that in the petition, it is not worth the paper it is not printed on!

And I'd like to know what happens if there was a vote on the Brexit deal, what happens if the vote is a rejection of the deal? Surely that would lead to a no deal scenario wouldn't it? It's not as if there is now time to hold a vote, then depending on the result of that vote, negotiate again to hold a 2nd/3rd/4th vote until the government come up with terms that the public want to vote yes for?

 

[nlogax]

What does "no deal" actually mean? As I can see, we have voted to tear up every single treaty we have with the EU and those beyond which we share with the EU. Therefore, where are the treaties and agreements to cover those torn up? In other words, somewhere there is, or will be, a piece of paper with a UK and EU signature on it allowing us to fly there, to dock ferries, to import oil??

This is one of those - admittedly rare - situations where you have to have faith in a government quite literally keeping the lights on. And I do. It (and inevitably we) will pay to make it happen. Doomladen predictions just aren't worth the stress and fear they invoke.

 

[Mintona]

It's hyperbole. In spite of a no-deal, there is no way on earth the government won't be paying for the basics of what our country needs to function on a daily basis. That price will undoubtedly be way over the odds in comparison to the current situation - no EU trade deal, WTO rules and a pound as weak as a kitten and the economy will be suffer for some time. But power, fuel, flights, food and medicine will all still be available come April 1st 2019. We'll be posting here on that day from our laptops and phones, supplied with power from our own three pin sockets. If you really believe any of the above isn't true, maybe it's time to step away from online news for a bit and take a deep breath.

Same advice goes for Brexiteers who continue any weird and unfounded belief that no-deal will be some sort of unicorn-blessed godsend for the UK, btw. It's delusional.

You’ve just said the government would be paying for the basics of what our country needs. That would be a deal (of sorts). No deal is nothing.

 

[nlogax]

You’ve just said the government would be paying for the basics of what our country needs. That would be a deal (of sorts). No deal is nothing.

I should have been clearer. Not necessarily paying EU countries. Food, medicines, power (gas / oil and direct electricity interconnect) all are obtainable via non-EU sources.

 

[Howardh]

I should have been clearer. Not necessarily paying EU countries. Food, medicines, power (gas / oil and direct electricity interconnect) all are obtainable via non-EU sources.

Not saying that's incorrect - but doen't we have agreements with those countries via trade deals organised by the EU? In which case, if that's correct, those deals are also binned?
*Admits* not for the first time ever I'm out of my depth (ask me about curling, not global trade organisations ) but as a layman we were told we couldn't do our own deals whilst in the EU as they did them for us (which is one reason for leaving)...hence the question. Do we have trade deals where the EU isn't the middle-man?

 

[AlterEgo]

All of the things mentioned require a deal or agreement of some sort, whether favourable or not. No deal means nothing at all.

I don't think you've grasped what no-deal means. It doesn't mean that all trade and supply will stop.