advertisement


Can someone explain what a people's vote would deliver apart from more of the same?

P

Philim

pfm Member
I voted remain. That was my choice based upon the information available at the time. However when the vote came in I accepted it under the knowledge that in reality most situations like this have marginal impacts of people lives because pragmatic solutions are reached. I still believe that to be the case.
Sadiq khant has today come out and appealed for a "people's vote" to remain in the EU.
My problem is that we are falling in to the same trap we did when voting for brexit. Information on what "remaining" means is not clear. They are appealing to remainers with buzzwords and no substance.
My understanding is that we have formally resigned from the EU. As sadiq said himself before the referendum "if we vote out. There is no going back". To return would mean us losing our current terms and require us renegotiating our terms with the EU which would probably mean further integration, the euro etc. Not something I think this country would stomach.
What does "remain" mean now as a question and by continuing to look back at something which sadly we have given up are we just hurting ourselves by weakening our position?
 
Philim said:
I voted remain. That was my choice based upon the information available at the time. However when the vote came in I accepted it under the knowledge that in reality most situations like this have marginal impacts of people lives because pragmatic solutions are reached. I still believe that to be the case.
Sadiq khant has today come out and appealed for a "people's vote" to remain in the EU.
My problem is that we are falling in to the same trap we did when voting for brexit. Information on what "remaining" means is not clear. They are appealing to remainers with buzzwords and no substance.
My understanding is that we have formally resigned from the EU. As sadiq said himself before the referendum "if we vote out. There is no going back". To return would mean us losing our current terms and require us renegotiating our terms with the EU which would probably mean further integration, the euro etc. Not something I think this country would stomach.
What does "remain" mean now as a question and by continuing to look back at something which sadly we have given up are we just hurting ourselves by weakening our position?
Click to expand...

not as iui. we have not yet left, we are in the process of leaving, the 'leaving ante-room'. and the 'leaving' process can be stopped. and the implications of 'remaining' are, or should be, abundantly clear. we carry on as we have been doing, under the same, extant conditions.

i'm not sure just exactly what it is you are not sure about...?
 
I'd say remain means staying on the same highly favourable terms we enjoyed before the tories decided to gamble the unity - and future - of the country on internal party problems of racism and xenophobia.
We have not left yet, so can stay.
As someone on here said, you can have democracy and you can have irreversible decisions, but you can't have both.
 
Within 10 years Scotland will have left the UK and joined the EU including using the Euro. England will follow.
 
I think according to the letter of the law A50 is irreversible but the EU officials have said very plainly that "It's not too late, you can still stop this" so I'm convinced that a Remain would be "stay as you are" . Apart from anything else, negotiating new terms would take just as long as negotiating to leave.
 
If we had a second vote and decided to remain, the EU would only re admit us on very punitive terms as a warning to others not to leave. We will suffer due to Brexit, even Brexiteers know that, but the re admission terms would be equally as tough. Also all 27 member states have to vote us back in and the in fighting that it will generate is just not worth the hassle.

The country voted to leave and after two years of squabbling, the EU will be well rid of us. Out here in Spain, the average Spanish person likes the English but now regard us as too disruptive to come back in, so the attitude is just f*** off and do your own thing. I dare say the German and French citizens think the same.

We have burnt our boat - live with it.
 
If there was a second vote the best that could be expected would be a narrow vote to remain, pretty much like the current narrow leave position.
This would not stop the arguments, the numpties in the sticks would shout foul and the uncertainty would continue.

I am convinced that we have to leave, however disastrous and stupid it is, so that brexit can be completely discredited and we can work towards a return to the EU in twenty or thirty years time.

We are basically stuffed, Mick`s analysis is not far off the mark in my opinion.
 
Barrymagrec said:
If there was a second vote the best that could be expected would be a narrow vote to remain,
Click to expand...
That'll do me. Ratification, or not, of the negotiated, no deal or stay should be the choice.
There is an already available lexicon of encouraging phrases when leave lose - suck it up, remain means remain etc.
Incidentally Sadiq Khan came out for a second ref on the news this AM.
 
thebiglebowski said:
@Mick P

We haven’t left yet, the only thing so far is article 50 which declares a members intent to leave.

A50 can be cancelled with no repercussions
Click to expand...


Sorry but that is not true. Surprisingly there is no rule that says A50 can be revoked back to the status quo. It would be a legal minefield within the EU as to whether we can revoke it or not. The team that drafted the rules claim that A50 can be revoked but there are also clauses that indicate that all other member states must agree to it.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that if we voted to revoke A50, the EU would then discuss it and almost certainly many members would only allow us back in if it is more to their advantage. We are now very unpopular and there is certainly no love for us, so except a tough negotiation to get back in.
 
HairyHaggis said:
not as iui. we have not yet left, we are in the process of leaving, the 'leaving ante-room'. and the 'leaving' process can be stopped. and the implications of 'remaining' are, or should be, abundantly clear. we carry on as we have been doing, under the same, extant conditions.

i'm not sure just exactly what it is you are not sure about...?
Click to expand...

Im glad from your patronising response that you are so clear on the law because as far as I can see there is no clear guideline that says that. I also suspect the EU wouldn't just say no problem and everything returns as was.
If you have evidence that shows it is that easy please demonstrate as I fear we are sleep walking into another assumption thatleads to years of further uncertainty.
 
Mick P said:
Sorry but that is not true. Surprisingly there is no rule that says A50 can be revoked back to the status quo. It would be a legal minefield within the EU as to whether we can revoke it or not. The team that drafted the rules claim that A50 can be revoked but there are also clauses that indicate that all other member states must agree to it.

Therefore the logical conclusion is that if we voted to revoke A50, the EU would then discuss it and almost certainly many members would only allow us back in if it is more to their advantage. We are now very unpopular and there is certainly no love for us, so except a tough negotiation to get back in.
Click to expand...

Not true, you are just repeating the tory line there, I know you are against brexit but sometimes your blind following and trust of tory dogma is sad. There is nothing in the article that says we can't just tear it up and go back to normal.

The EU have said they would not object and there is nothing other member states can do to force us to leave.

European Council President Donald Tusk has said that he believes Article 50 can be reversed.

When asked if the UK could unilaterally withdraw its Article 50 notification during the next two years, he said, "Formally, legally, yes."

Lord Kerr - the former British ambassador to the EU, who helped draft Article 50 - agreed.

"You can change your mind while the process is going on," he said.

He acknowledged that this might annoy the rest of the EU, and be seen as a huge waste of time.

"They might try to extract a political price," Lord Kerr said, "but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."
Click to expand...
 
Mick P said:
Sorry but that is not true. Surprisingly there is no rule that says A50 can be revoked back to the status quo. It would be a legal minefield within the EU as to whether we can revoke it or not. The team that drafted the rules claim that A50 can be revoked but there are also clauses that indicate that all other member states must agree to it.
Click to expand...
There was a proposal to put this very question to the CJEU. I'm not sure what has become of it, but it would have been sensible to have certainty on that before pulling the trigger on Art 50, but hey, since when were this shower ever sensible? But, in the absence of a CJEU decision, both sides seem to have indicated their understanding that Art 50 is revokable. Often, in EU matters, what counts is what both sides want, not what the letter of the law says. Importantly, nowhere does it state that Art 50 cannot be revoked back to the status quo. It is my, and many others' expectation that if we did indeed withdraw our Art 50 notification, we'd revert to the terms we currently enjoy, and that would be that.
 
I also believe that we could simply change our mind and carry on as before; and the the EU would happily accept that.
 
Cav said:
I also believe that we could simply change our mind and carry on as before; and the the EU would happily accept that.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe we could agree to lob the odd UKIP MEP or two overboard by way of recompense for the aggravation we've caused.
 
slavedata said:
Where is the evidence that if we chose to remain currently it would be on punative terms?
Click to expand...

In Mick P's head? Maybe he just enjoys making things up.

In July it was reported "Britain could still cancel Brexit and stay in the European Union on the same terms it currently enjoys, the French government has said." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-leave-eu-remain-juncker-europe-a8464341.html

Personally, I don't think that we'd have time for a second referendum. By the time we find out what any possible deal is (which might not be till after November), March is too near.
 
Mick P said:
If we had a second vote and decided to remain, the EU would only re admit us on very punitive terms as a warning to others not to leave.
Click to expand...

I think the rest of the EU would welcome an end to Brexit and therefore would be unlikely to put an obstacle in the way of that outcome.

The debacle of the last couple of years should already serve as a warning to others - nothing more required here.
 
We are going in circles.

Not one EU lawyer will confirm that A50 can be revoked back to current terms, not one. Therefore after we vote to revoke, the EU enters into a complex set of internal negotiations to determine the rules and conditions of our re entry. Right now today we just do not know the attitudes of every member state. We then have to negotiate and some of us will be happy with the negotiations and others will not. This really is unchartered territory.

Only a total fool would put his hand on his heart and publicly state that we will revert immediately back to status quo terms.

The reality is that the stage has come where attitudes are hardening and we are looking less attractive to them by the day. If we do go back in, it is likely to be at a price. No one knows for sure. All that we do know for a certainty, is if we do revoke A50, the EU has a massive whip hand and we are crawling back with our tail between our legs and that does not bode well.

Live with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top