Brexit means Brexit

BobQ

Brexit clearly means Brexit but there is such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I think the referendum outcome should be respected so I can only see the decision being reversed by a second referendum (ie not by a vote in Parliament).

So what could the EU do that would justify UK holding a second referendum?
For example, if the EU allowed nations to cap the numbers and types of immigrants

Thrugelmir

Why would the EU do anything at all. Would totally undermine the project. Also give ammunition to other factions in Europe who are disenchanted at the current time.

marleyboy

OUT means OUT, Brexit doesn't really mean anything, its just a made up word NOBODY voted on.

kinger101

The referendum didn't ask people why they wanted to leave. I suspect most disagreed with the free movement of people within the EU, but for a significant minority, it was the loss of sovereignty of the UK parliament (I'm not inviting lectures from people explaining why the EU is democratic or or own parliament isn't here).

I can envisage circumstances in which the first may be suspended temporarily (due to terrorism) but not the second. Hence I cannot see the need to hold a second referendum. IMO the only thing that could stop Brexit now would be a general election at which a party got elected with a mandate to remain.

"Brexit means Brexit" is a rather empty statement anyway. If it meant what people like to claim, why hasn't article 50 been triggered already? The EU has made their red lines clear already.

Thrugelmir

kinger101 wrote: »

If it meant what people like to claim, why hasn't article 50 been triggered already?

Because it triggers a 2 year time frame.

Masomnia

The government needs to work out exactly what it wants our relationship with the EU to look like first, then we can negotiate it; so I think they're right to delay.

There won't be an outcome that will please everyone, or even most people, so really I don't see the point in a second referendum. Nothing is set in stone, and I'm sure that our relationship with the EU will evolve in any event. Future governments can negotiate further if something isn't right.

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Because it triggers a 2 year time frame.

What do you think we might negotiate in that time? If we won't accept free movement of people and all the other bits that Norway have, then we're on WTO rules. The EU have made it clear there's no pick 'n' mix. It's not even clear they will commence negotiations until it has been triggered. The only benefit I can see in stalling is a bit more time to draft agreements with the rest of the world.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why would the EU do anything at all. Would totally undermine the project. Also give ammunition to other factions in Europe who are disenchanted at the current time.

You yourself referred to changes in fines within the EU affecting Spain as evidence of rules changing.

Personally I agree, there is no reason for the EU to do anything accept await our longwinded departure. But Government are already delaying the calling of Article 50, and those who publically advocated Brexit continue to have different interpretations of what it means. For xample some want to just leave and turn UK into a world free trade area, others want to remain in the single market.

So my question is quite simple. Those who voted for Brexit will either never change their minds until hell freezes over and can imagine nothing that would warrant a re-think. But others might take a different view on the EU if there was some material change by the EU.

For example, if the EU agreed all members could set a maximum number of EU migrants and manage the time they could remain would that be a price worth paying to retain membership of the single market? But I am not asking this specific question. I really want to know how many are ideologically opposed to the principle or simply the present terms and if the latter what changes would make a difference worth voting on

Thrugelmir

BobQ wrote: »

You yourself referred to changes in fines within the EU affecting Spain as evidence of rules changing.

That's bending of rules. Not the rewriting. Cameron received short shrift when he approached the EU. Hence why free movement was the achilles heel of the remain campaign. There was nothing to say. Many people put quality of life above economic output. Not that people have seen much benefit over the past 15 years in reality. With pay doing little more than rising with inflation.

savings_my_hobby

I don't think a second referendum is possible, Everytime there is a referendum that goes against what the EU wants there is a second referendum to put it right, when the French and the Dutch voted against the constitution the EU just re-branded and re-packaged it as the Lisbon Treaty.

Besides, I don't think Westminster can trust us to make "the right" decision, they should just get on with the renegotiation and parliament should ratify it. Of course there are MP's who won't ratify it no matter what deal we get. (Funny how these statements get reversed)

BobQ

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

I don't think a second referendum is possible, Everytime there is a referendum that goes against what the EU wants there is a second referendum to put it right, when the French and the Dutch voted against the constitution the EU just re-branded and re-packaged it as the Lisbon Treaty.

Besides, I don't think Westminster can trust us to make "the right" decision, they should just get on with the renegotiation and parliament should ratify it. Of course there are MP's who won't ratify it no matter what deal we get. (Funny how these statements get reversed)

Well I o not think Westminster can keep the UK in the EU without a second referendum. Legally they can if that was in the manifesto of a GE winning party. My point is if during the negotiations the EU wanted to do something creative that would see us remain, what would it take to make the UK Government say " this is a material difference, we need a second referendum"

I have given an example but I am asking what would warrant a second referendum, not if the change is likely to happen.