If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

I think if we voted for Brexit there would have to be a second referendum. I don't see how you could vote for something without knowing what it entails. So you vote for Brexit, you're shown what Brexit means and then you vote on whether that still looks better than staying in.

that would seem like a betrayal unless the referendum was explicitly said to be a two part process in advance

angrypirate

CLAPTON wrote: »

that would seem like a betrayal unless the referendum was explicitly said to be a two part process in advance

That is exactly the tactic the government is playing. By having a so called "status quo" (which it wont be as the EU is changing and becoming more integrated every day) versus a so called unknown, they are counting on a significant majority opting for the "status quo" as they expect there will be a fear factor for some voters with the unknow.

If the Brexit vote happens, the government will probably go into a series of negotiations and then come out with 2 options, an EU-lite membership and Brexit which will go to a referendum. Its standard that referendums on EU are repeated until the yield the correct result. Just look at previous referendums countries have had on the EU - all basically been ignored when the result hasnt been correct

gfplux

Hello angry pirate, you appear to know a lot bout the EU. So I need your help.
You say:-
"as the EU is changing and becoming more integrated every day"
I would like to know and I need your help in understanding How the EU is more integrated today than, for example one month ago. Perhaps you can show me how the UK is more integrated with the EU than one month ago Can you link to the evidence for this as it would be very helpful. Thank you.

angrypirate

gfplux wrote: »

Hello angry pirate, you appear to know a lot bout the EU. So I need your help.
You say:-
"as the EU is changing and becoming more integrated every day"
I would like to know and I need your help in understanding How the EU is more integrated today than, for example one month ago. Perhaps you can show me how the UK is more integrated with the EU than one month ago Can you link to the evidence for this as it would be very helpful. Thank you.

You want an example? Well, its just over a month ago but how about the EU border force to replace each individual country's border force http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35093827

Whilst we may not be directly integrated with it, you can bet your life we'll be part funding it, providing man power and be involved with it whether we as a country like it or not

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

Can you link to the evidence for this as it would be very helpful. Thank you.

Continual process.

https://www.egi.eu/community/projects/

Shakethedisease

Second referendum would be iffy.. Voting for Brexit means invoking Article 50.

So if UK citizens vote to leave, it is unclear exactly what kind of future they are voting for. This raises the question of whether it might be more appropriate to hold a second referendum, following the negotiations, to see whether voters accept the deal.

Nevertheless, Boris Johnson signalled interest in such a plan last summer, and the columnist Simon Jenkins has given it strong backing. The idea appears first to have attracted attention after it was suggested in a blog post by Dominic Cummings, leading light in the Vote Leave campaign....

The idea seems to be that we could retain EU membership, but on much more radically changed terms than are currently on offer. But that is not possible. It would require a negotiation for revised membership terms, when what Article 50 provides for is a negotiation to cease membership. It might be suggested that it’s the politics that matter, not the rules – if EU leaders want to negotiate revised membership (and all do say they want the UK to stay in), they could do so. But the political reality in the UK after a vote to leave would require the Prime Minister to negotiate the terms of departure. He or she would have a mandate to do nothing else. As Steve Peers puts it, ‘those who claim to support invoking Article 50 to trigger renegotiation either have a hidden agenda or are quite naive about what they are suggesting'.

What both Cummings and Jenkins appear to have in mind is, rather, a referendum on whether to accept the terms of exit. As Cummings unabashedly admits, he proposes this prospect in order to persuade waverers to vote ‘leave’ at the first ballot, safe in the belief that they could always change their minds later. Matthew Parris has endorsed just that thought: ‘The terms on which we leave could affect us deeply. So I’ll stick my neck out. If Britain votes to leave, there will have to be a second referendum. And we will have to have the opportunity to relent of our first decision.’ Notwithstanding official denials, James Kirkup said a few months ago that this reflects what some senior people in government are thinking.

So these authors are suggesting a referendum to choose between leaving on the negotiated terms or not leaving after all. The trouble with this is that Article 50 offers no mechanism to withdraw a notification of intent to leave. We could have a second referendum (the UK parliament can call a referendum on anything it likes), but a vote to reject the negotiated terms would leave us in legal limbo. The European Court of Justice might rule (if asked) that an ability to withdraw such a notification is implied by Article 50 – but it might equally well rule that it is not implied. Some might say again that political realities will take over: the 27 other member states all want us to stay, so, if we indicate a change of heart, they will allow our withdrawal declaration to be quietly forgotten. Well, perhaps. But that would again require unanimity – either to amend Article 50 (and we know how much effort is required to change an EU treaty) or, in effect, to extend permanently the two-year negotiation window. Hence, any member state could drive a hard bargain, potentially one detrimental to the UK.

http://constitution-unit.com/2016/01/19/what-happens-if-we-vote-for-brexit/

Generali

The idea of a second referendum is a classic piece of behavioural economics. It lets people vote to quit the EU without having to vote to leave irrevocably IYSWIM.

One of the problems that referenda face is that people vote for the status quo because they don't like change. It's why the SNP promised the economically risible idea of using the pound, promised to stay in the EU and wanted to keep the Queen as Head of State. They also wanted, IIRC, a vote on FFA rather than actual independence. The attempt was to make changes as small as possible. It's also why the No campaign tried to promote an image of huge change if Scotland quit the UK.

Both sides tried to maximise their chances of victory by showing that they were the choice of little change. TBH I suspect that The Vow did more than anything else to promote a Yes vote because it sowed the idea that change was inevitable, you were simply voting for different sorts of change. If I'd been running the No campaign I'd have been spinning the idea that if you vote No you get what you always got: the BBC, the Quid and The Queen. If you vote Yes however you'd be turning your world upside down.

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

I think if we voted for Brexit there would have to be a second referendum. I don't see how you could vote for something without knowing what it entails. So you vote for Brexit, you're shown what Brexit means and then you vote on whether that still looks better than staying in.

That argument has been made. And for precisely that reason.

https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/on-the-referendum-6-exit-plans-and-a-second-referendum/

wymondham

Tracey Ullman would have a field day with her Merkel impressions!

Shakethedisease

Generali wrote: »

The idea of a second referendum is a classic piece of behavioural economics. It lets people vote to quit the EU without having to vote to leave irrevocably IYSWIM.

One of the problems that referenda face is that people vote for the status quo because they don't like change. It's why the SNP promised the economically risible idea of using the pound, promised to stay in the EU and wanted to keep the Queen as Head of State. They also wanted, IIRC, a vote on FFA rather than actual independence. The attempt was to make changes as small as possible. It's also why the No campaign tried to promote an image of huge change if Scotland quit the UK.

Both sides tried to maximise their chances of victory by showing that they were the choice of little change. TBH I suspect that The Vow did more than anything else to promote a Yes vote because it sowed the idea that change was inevitable, you were simply voting for different sorts of change. If I'd been running the No campaign I'd have been spinning the idea that if you vote No you get what you always got: the BBC, the Quid and The Queen. If you vote Yes however you'd be turning your world upside down.

You didn't IIRC. But don't let facts get in the way of anything. However, yes, small changes are good in referenda. It's once the vote's in, the gloves can only really come off from the 'Leave' side if they win.

The Remain side are only just gearing up with the 'banks, interest rates, higher food prices, holidays, millions of job losses, businesses lost... etc etc'.. though. Strange to see the Scottish referendum played out again so soon in terms of narrative. Still, it won the day in the end.

ps the Queen is descended from Scots. The English/Tudor line ended with Elizabeth I. Hello Stuarts ! Carry on though..