• 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.

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
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?

Yup. However, having no trade deal doesn't mean we're unable to buy commodities..just that we'll be paying over the odds for them. Should probably reiterate - I'm talking short term 'getting through 2019' here. Beyond that, who knows?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Many non-EU countries have high standards as well.

When one of the reasons some on the right want to leave the EU is so they can get rid of "red tape" and "regulations", why on earth do you think we will keep high standards for such things?
They wanted to leave specifically so they could lower standards!
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Yup. However, having no trade deal doesn't mean we're unable to buy commodities..just that we'll be paying over the odds for them. Should probably reiterate - I'm talking short term 'getting through 2019' here. Beyond that, who knows?
In effect, that means stockpiling long-lasting food now; not because they might run out, but to cushion from large price-rises in 2019!!
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
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!

The idea of another referendum would be to accept or reject the leaving terms negotiated by the government. Like I said in an earlier post the problem for Brexiteers is if the <48.2% accept no deal and the government can't get a deal then it means there's more in favour of remaining than leaving without a deal. End result no 'mandate' to take us out of the EU unless they can go back and get a deal. However, the fact that Brexiteers don't want it suggests they rather have a bad Brexit than no Brexit or postponed Brexit, if they thought they'd get a clear majority for accepting the leaving terms then why not have one and then it'll nullify any arguments about voters being misled ahead of the original referendum?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I don't think you've grasped what no-deal means. It doesn't mean that all trade and supply will stop.

But as most UK flights are to EU countries and Germany is our biggest trading partner it creates huge problems if we don't have some sort of arrangement in place.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
The idea of another referendum would be to accept or reject the leaving terms negotiated by the government. Like I said in an earlier post the problem for Brexiteers is if the <48.2% accept no deal and the government can't get a deal then it means there's more in favour of remaining than leaving without a deal. End result no 'mandate' to take us out of the EU unless they can go back and get a deal. However, the fact that Brexiteers don't want it suggests they rather have a bad Brexit than no Brexit or postponed Brexit, if they thought they'd get a clear majority for accepting the leaving terms then why not have one and then it'll nullify any arguments about voters being misled ahead of the original referendum?

I take it you’d be asking for another referendum if remain had won in 2016, then?!

It doesn’t look like you’ll be getting one anyway.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
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!

The EU has made it clear we can give notice that reversing article 50 is possible (they said so in the run up to the 2017 General Election) but whether there's a time limit on that is unclear.

Some in the Conservative Party are saying because the UK pound has not been performing well since the Brexit vote that the EU will owe us a rebate. Is it in our best interests to reject the rebate?

- both major parties are committed to withdrawing the U.K. from the EU.

Keir Starmer gives the impression Labour only want to take us out with a deal and Corbyn seems to be moving towards that idea as well.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I take it you’d be asking for another referendum if remain had won in 2016, then?!

It doesn’t look like you’ll be getting one anyway.

I don't know why we would need another referendum if the majority had voted remain as the reforms for remaining in the EU were agreed before the referendum, unlike the leaving terms.

If remain had won and it was found the remain camp broke the law I would consider it reasonable for a re-run of the referendum. Likewise if the EU backtracked on the reforms it gave us then I would also consider it reasonable for a re-run of the referendum. However, the proposed people's vote is not a re-run of a referendum we already had. Brexiteers just label it as such because they are scared public opinion has changed.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
The EU has made it clear we can give notice that reversing article 50 is possible (they said so in the run up to the 2017 General Election) but whether there's a time limit on that is unclear.

Extension of article 50 would require unanimous approval from other member states, as I understand it, so I don’t believe any such assurance can have been given.

I don't know why we would need another referendum if the majority had voted remain as the reforms for remaining in the EU were agreed before the referendum, unlike the leaving terms.

If remain had won and it was found the remain camp broke the law I would consider it reasonable for a re-run of the referendum. Likewise if the EU backtracked on the reforms it gave us then I would also consider it reasonable for a re-run of the referendum. However, the proposed people's vote is not a re-run of a referendum we already had. Brexiteers just label it as such because they are scared public opinion has changed.

But nothing has actually changed, so there’s absolutely no need for a second referendum:

- leave won in 2016 (voting to leave, not necessarily to leave with a deal);

- the current government clarified in its election manifesto that leaving meant leaving the eu and its major institutions.

Nothing was ever said about needing a second referendum to approve any deal (and we might end up without one). Negotiating any deal on the basis that it would then need to be ratified by the British public is clearly a nonsensical suggestion.

The only people who want another referendum are people who think it represents a way of thwarting Brexit.

And what would you do if that vote didn’t go your way?! Ask for a third, a fourth?
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Extension of article 50 would require unanimous approval from other member states, as I understand it, so I don’t believe any such assurance can have been given.



But nothing has actually changed, so there’s absolutely no need for a second referendum:

- leave won in 2016 (voting to leave, not necessarily to leave with a deal);

- the current government clarified in its election manifesto that leaving meant leaving the eu and its major institutions.

Nothing was ever said about needing a second referendum to approve any deal (and we might end up without one). Negotiating any deal on the basis that it would then need to be ratified by the British public is clearly a nonsensical suggestion.

The only people who want another referendum are people who think it represents a way of thwarting Brexit.

And what would you do if that vote didn’t go your way?! Ask for a third, a fourth?
I think the problem is - the Tories may well use another referendum as a way of getting out of the no-deal or bad-deal senario, whether leavers or remainers want one or not. There's nothing to stop them, so if it went ahead (either a accept/reject deal, or in/out again) would you boycott the vote in protest?

As I've tried to point out, I don't want one (maybe deal/no deal, could be argued that's a seperate issue) as I believe if you make a mess in your own bed you either clean it up or sleep in it, and ultimately we will return anyway with public support. But the Tories may well see another vote as the only way out, possibly not best for the country but certainly best to keep the Tories from nuclear meltdown. When have the Tories ever put the country before themselves??

A lot of this uncertainty and mess is down to Labour not having a clue where it stands - save for the likes of Hoey and that other guy....
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Extension of article 50 would require unanimous approval from other member states, as I understand it, so I don’t believe any such assurance can have been given.



But nothing has actually changed, so there’s absolutely no need for a second referendum:

- leave won in 2016 (voting to leave, not necessarily to leave with a deal);

- the current government clarified in its election manifesto that leaving meant leaving the eu and its major institutions.

Nothing was ever said about needing a second referendum to approve any deal (and we might end up without one). Negotiating any deal on the basis that it would then need to be ratified by the British public is clearly a nonsensical suggestion.

The only people who want another referendum are people who think it represents a way of thwarting Brexit.

And what would you do if that vote didn’t go your way?! Ask for a third, a fourth?

Nothing has changed? Seriously?

We have gone from the leave camp saying that we will get millions extra for the NHS to them having to assure people that we won't need to stockpile medicines, despite the NHS actually making preparations to stockpile medicines.

We have gone from "no one is talking about leaving the single market" and many leave supporters suggesting some outcomes which would leave us in the single market and customers union, to basically anyone who suggests not leaving every single EU institution being screamed as saying "RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OR ELSE".

We have gone from what should have been a fair referendum to finding out at least one side has broken the law.

Plenty has changed.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,390
Simple answer, if you lie to get the result you want, and it is shown that the result you got was due to the lies you perpetrated then the result, in my view, becomes null and void.
I could become prime minister by saying to the electorate that everyone gets £100,000 if I win, now the sensible people would realise that that is never gong to happen but some would use that as their basis for voting. If then I get in to power and don't give everyone £100,000 then it would be right to assume that people would be annoyed and might want the election re-run, even though strictly I might not have to.
The Brexit vote parallells this almost perfectly and I think that it would be quite correct to assume that if you took out the votes from the people who believed the lies that were being pedalled by the vote leave campaign then the vote would have almost certinaly gone in remains' favour.

At least now we know what some of these trading partners post=Brexit will be, A whole load of African countries who won't be buying out stuff but which we will probably use a cheaper replacement for Chinese manufacturers goods, what progress this is :rolleyes:
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
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

Thanks for that. Having had a skim-read I can’t see anything which requires a vote on no deal.

So it seems the scenarios for next year are:
* deal done voted and approved
* deal done voted and not approved leading to no deal by default
* deal done voted and not approved then some emergency arrangement of extra time
* no deal followed by extra time arrangement
* leave with no deal

Given how things are looking at present I’d say the fourth of those is certainly possible. Personally I’d be tempted to go for the last and start building an Irish border wall now! Things would of course be rather simpler if TM hasn’t screwed up the election and caused the DUP to be tangled up with things.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
But nothing has actually changed, so there’s absolutely no need for a second referendum:

- leave won in 2016 (voting to leave, not necessarily to leave with a deal);

- the current government clarified in its election manifesto that leaving meant leaving the eu and its major institutions.

Nothing was ever said about needing a second referendum to approve any deal (and we might end up without one). Negotiating any deal on the basis that it would then need to be ratified by the British public is clearly a nonsensical suggestion.

The only people who want another referendum are people who think it represents a way of thwarting Brexit.

And what would you do if that vote didn’t go your way?! Ask for a third, a fourth?

I've made it very clear my view is we have one vote on the leaving terms, if the leaving terms are accepted then it's the final vote. If that happens it also prevents people complaining for a generation that campaigning for the original referendum was unfair or the campaigns misled the public. The fact that you are suggesting I want a third or fourth vote after reading what I said confirms that you think the government are unable to get leaving terms which 50% of the population will be happy with, so want us to be removed without any final say to prevent that from happening.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
I think the problem is - the Tories may well use another referendum as a way of getting out of the no-deal or bad-deal senario, whether leavers or remainers want one or not. There's nothing to stop them, so if it went ahead (either a accept/reject deal, or in/out again) would you boycott the vote in protest?

I’d vote for the strongest possible version of brexit and would probably vote UKIP for ever more, as would many others!

I can’t see it happening. It would be political suicide for the Tories, the right wing of the party would never accept it. She wasn’t even able to get the chequers deal through without making huge concessions. If there was a hint of a further referendum May’s weak premiership would be toppled and leadership election triggered.


We have gone from what should have been a fair referendum to finding out at least one side has broken the law.

The Brexit vote parallells this almost perfectly and I think that it would be quite correct to assume that if you took out the votes from the people who believed the lies that were being pedalled by the vote leave campaign then the vote would have almost certinaly gone in remains' favour.

And if you took out the votes from the people who believed the lies pedalled by the remain camp you’d have a stronger result in favour of leave.

Please let’s not keep rerunning the referendum campaign. It’s old news now.

Things would of course be rather simpler if TM hasn’t screwed up the election and caused the DUP to be tangled up with things.

Wouldn't they just!

The fact that you are suggesting I want a third or fourth vote after reading what I said confirms that you think the government are unable to get leaving terms which 50% of the population will be happy with, so want us to be removed without any final say to prevent that from happening.

No it merely confirms I think you will only ever accept a vote which goes the “right” way (according to you), and will make up any number of tortured excuses as to why it should happen!
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Thanks for that. Having had a skim-read I can’t see anything which requires a vote on no deal.

So it seems the scenarios for next year are:
* deal done voted and approved
* deal done voted and not approved leading to no deal by default
* deal done voted and not approved then some emergency arrangement of extra time
* no deal followed by extra time arrangement
* leave with no deal

Given how things are looking at present I’d say the fourth of those is certainly possible. Personally I’d be tempted to go for the last and start building an Irish border wall now! Things would of course be rather simpler if TM hasn’t screwed up the election and caused the DUP to be tangled up with things.
Ah, yes, but will you volunteer to man the border? I mean, those chaps in lorries with their faces covered, and those pointy things hidden under blankets, they'll be legit, no worries!!
If you won't, someone will have to. Armed border force? The army? So we're back to the 70's?
Under normal circumstances a border could easily be *walled*; however the Ireland situation is such a difficult one - and I don't believe anyone really wants to take us back to the 70's, that it's well worth putting political issues to one side and leave well alone.
The other alternative is we hand Norn over to the Irish Republic. Except that opens yet another can of worms, least of which is getting the DUP to vote for it...
A hard border isn't gonna happen, even a tech border has it difficulties - how do you check that all the van's paperwork is legit without looking?
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
I’d vote for the strongest possible version of brexit and would probably vote UKIP for ever more, as would many others!

I can’t see it happening. It would be political suicide for the Tories, the right wing of the party would never accept it. She wasn’t even able to get the chequers deal through without making huge concessions. If there was a hint of a further referendum May’s weak premiership would be toppled and leadership election triggered.
Could one suggest they would only think that way if they thought they's lose, and if they lost surely that's the will of the people and they'd be going against it (round and round in circles again)?
Anyhow, as it stands there won't be one so it's pointless discussing. What we could well end up with is a General Election if a *no deal* situation is announced, and all elections trump referendums, advisory or not. T
So if they announced *no deal* today; who on earth do we vote for? Where's Screaming Lord Such when you need him??
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
So if they announced *no deal* today; who on earth do we vote for? Where's Screaming Lord Such when you need him??

I had to google him (before my time!).

Blimey, and I thought the political establishment was full of nutters now! :D
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
No it merely confirms I think you will only ever accept a vote which goes the “right” way (according to you), and will make up any number of tortured excuses as to why it should happen!

When did we vote on leaving terms from the EU? I've said I'll accept the outcome of the first vote if over 50% vote in favour. I also said if the outcome is 'no deal' and it gets rejected the first step is for the government to go back to the EU and to try and get a deal. Do you not think it's important to get a Brexit people are happy with over just taking us out of the EU on any terms just to tick a box? You're the one who's repeating generic 'anti-remoaner' arguments that have no relevance to what I'm saying because you know the public will not accept no deal, while you're in the small minority who want no deal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
And if you took out the votes from the people who believed the lies pedalled by the remain camp you’d have a stronger result in favour of leave.

So are you denying that the leave side broke the law? You may want to talk to the Electoral Commission then!
 

Intercity 225

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2014
Messages
329
I’d vote for the strongest possible version of brexit and would probably vote UKIP for ever more, as would many others!

Hypothetical question, but if the referendum result was in reverse wouldn’t you do this anyway? Or would you accept that the UK had narrowly decided to remain in the EU and abandon your wishes to leave?
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
When did we vote on leaving terms from the EU?

We didn’t.

I've said I'll accept the outcome of the first vote if over 50% vote in favour.

Huh? Over 50% voted in favour of leaving the EU, yet you are unable to accept it.

You're the one who's repeating generic 'anti-remoaner' arguments that have no relevance to what I'm saying because you know the public will not accept no deal, even though you want no deal.

And you’re the one asking for another referendum (which no one appears to be offering!) because you want to thwart brexit. Why can’t you just admit it?

It’s a pointless discussion anyway until such time as another referendum is actually on the cards.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
The other alternative is we hand Norn over to the Irish Republic. Except that opens yet another can of worms, least of which is getting the DUP to vote for it...
We could just renounce sovereignty and hand the Six Counties over unilaterally, but what would that do to Mrs May's parliamentary majority?
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
I'd vote for Such to bring some sanity back into politics....
He certainly couldn't offer anything any worse than we've got now, with a Tory party led by a Remainer offering the hardest Brexit she thinks she can get away with in order to placate her right wing—party above country at all costs—and a Labour party trying at the moment to be all things to all men by refusing to nail its colours to any mast and led by life-long hard-line Brexiteer of the Viscount Stansgate (aka Anthony Wedgewood-Benn) school. Such would indeed represent sanity in that company!
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
Huh? Over 50% voted in favour of leaving the EU

But over 50% did not vote for leaving the single market, leaving the customs union or leaving the EU without a deal.
Because as you admit, we did not vote on the possible terms of us leaving the EU.
So how the hell do you know that the current path is what the majority of the country want? The answer is you don't know.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
Hypothetical question, but if the referendum result was in reverse wouldn’t you do this anyway? Or would you accept that the UK had narrowly decided to remain in the EU and abandon your wishes to leave?

No, I had made up my own mind that a remain result would put the issue to bed (at least until things changed meaningfully).

As someone who is deeply suspicious of the EU I saw a leave vote as a win/win option: either we would win and end up leaving, or a narrow loss for leave would (hopefully) embolden the government to seek meaningful reform from the EU.

As time has gone on I’m increasingly frustrated with the remain camp’s attempts to thwart brexit and, if anything, I am now more in favour of leaving than I was in 2016.
 

Intercity 225

Member
Joined
2 Mar 2014
Messages
329
We could just renounce sovereignty and hand the Six Counties over unilaterally, but what would that do to Mrs May's parliamentary majority?

Not entirely sure whether you’re being serious or not but the loss of May’s parliamentary majority would be a minuscule issue compared to the amount of problems that’d cause. You’d be looking at civil unrest as an absolute minimum.

There’s more chance of Northern Ireland becoming an independent state in its own right than joining the ROI. That’s still highly unlikely though, there’s no realistic chain of events I can foresee where NI will leave the UK.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,611
But over 50% did not vote for leaving the single market, leaving the customs union or leaving the EU without a deal.
Because as you admit, we did not vote on the possible terms of us leaving the EU.
So how the hell do you know that the current path is what the majority of the country want? The answer is you don't know.

But the current government was returned having run with leaving the single market etc. as part of its election manifesto.

Not every matter of policy should be put to the public for a bare majority vote! I’m certainly not in favour of government by plebiscite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top