If there is a second referendum ...

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

There are many ways to leave the EU, with different levels of access. Unfortunately the only ones that satisfy Mays red lines are WTO or Canada (IIRC). The EU even provided us with a handy chart of which options violated which red lines, right back at the beginning.


The UK Government could leave in a week if they could decide which of the options they wanted, but that involves deciding which chunk of the electorate to upset. Which is why I find it bizarre that there isn't a 2nd referendum because that'd shift the blame from the politicians onto the public. The only reason I don't think that's happened is that May needs to apply a lot of pressure to get Parliament to decide that her option is the only viable one. I'm pretty sure that once her deal is shot down, a 2nd referendum will be announced*.


*Or at least, Brexiteers hope it will be. If Mays deal is shot down, then we'll be looking at revoking A50. A 2nd referendum might be the only way you actually get your Brexit.

The possibility of a second referendum exists only in the minds of those who refuse to accept the result of the first one. If the government attempted to introduce a second referendum, how long do you think it would take to get through parliament, what would the questions be and how long would it take to organise? And if May's deal fails to get through parliament, we leave on the 29th March without a political deal. If we remain in the EU beyond that date, we would have to submit candidates for the EU Parliament elections with the prospect of every UK MEP being a UKIP member. I'm sure the EU would be thrilled especially with the likelihood that many other MEP's would be from 'populist' parties.

cogito

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Or not, if remainers get the vote out

To do that, they would need the support of people that they have been calling ignorant, racist gammons for the past two and a half years. Best of luck with that.

andrewf75

cogito wrote: »

The possibility of a second referendum exists only in the minds of those who refuse to accept the result of the first one.

until May's deal is voted down I agree. But if May's deal is voted down it becomes a real possibility because parliament won't allow leaving with no deal.

Just look at the bookies odds. Not much more than evens for a second vote.

movilogo

We are (now) 100% a member. Norway and Switzerland 100% aren’t despite being in some ways more in than we are even before brexit!

That is EU vs EEA comparison.

Single Market = 4 freedoms [goods, service, money, people]
EEA = access to SM but without common agricultural/fishery etc policies
EU = EEA + even closer union

As SM rules are superset of both EU & EEA, a country can't be in EU/EEA without obeying 4 freedoms.

These are all facts - not subjective interpretation.


My subjective opinion is that Brexit was largely driven by curtailing Freedom of Movement. If there were an option of staying in EU but with 3 other freedoms, I think the referendum outcome would have been in favour of Remain.

However, as EU does not allow pick-&-choose (Cameron tried but failed) so unless any bespoke deal is made, leaving means leaving SM.

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

It fits the Remain narrative pretty well, if you remember what actually happened and not a romanticized version of events. We largely left Europe to it, whilst we were doing well from exploiting the rest of the globe, but even trying to ignore it we couldn't and we ended off involved.


That goes even more now that we're so integrated with it and prospering because of it, and almost all of our colonies have kicked us out. We can't just ignore Europe, so we may as well be properly involved.

I think you’re going to have to tell me where I’ve romanticised Britain’s relationship with its closest neighbours on our continent. I have a feeling such is your annoyance at Brexit, your trying to apply a overly negative narrative about Britain in this regard.
As an example of your negative attitude, I’m not aware of a history of most of Britain’s former colonies “kicking us out” as you describe.
It’s my understanding that in the post war era, a bankrupted Britain quite laudably gave up its imperialist tendencies in a reasonably progressive fashion.
You’ll concede Herzlos that Britain did bankrupt itself in saving our continent from the forces of facism?

andrewf75

movilogo wrote: »

That is EU vs EEA comparison.

Single Market = 4 freedoms [goods, service, money, people]
EEA = access to SM but without common agricultural/fishery etc policies
EU = EEA + even closer union

As SM rules are superset of both EU & EEA, a country can't be in EU/EEA without obeying 4 freedoms.

These are all facts - not subjective interpretation.


My subjective opinion is that Brexit was largely driven by curtailing Freedom of Movement. If there were an option of staying in EU but with 3 other freedoms, I think the referendum outcome would have been in favour of Remain.

However, as EU does not allow pick-&-choose (Cameron tried but failed) so unless any bespoke deal is made, leaving means leaving SM.

Agree with all except the last bit. Your subjective interpretation is that we have to end freedom of movement. Many people voted out because of opposition to the political project not FOM. And it’s not as if ending of freedom of movement necessarily means reducing immigration anyway. And there are ways of reducing immigration within it.

The only thing leaving means is ceasing to be a member. Nothing more.

There are two groups responsible if a 2nd vote is forced - the remainers who won't accept the result and the leavers who won't accept anything other than their interpretation of it.

badgerhead

Tromking wrote: »

I think you’re going to have to tell me where I’ve romanticised Britain’s relationship with its closest neighbours on our continent. I have a feeling such is your annoyance at Brexit, your trying to apply a overly negative narrative about Britain in this regard.
As an example of your negative attitude, I’m not aware of a history of most of Britain’s former colonies “kicking us out” as you describe.
It’s my understanding that in the post war era, a bankrupted Britain quite laudably gave up its imperialist tendencies in a reasonably progressive fashion.
You’ll concede Herzlos that Britain did bankrupt itself in saving our continent from the forces of facism?

I'd say more saving ourselves from the forces of fascism on the continent,

LHW99

It was well known that there are some non-members which abide by the rules for market access to varying degrees and to discount any of them as an option is plainly dishonest.

No use telling us what Cameron said, that was a warning to get us to vote remain!

So despite these options being "well known" and Cameron warning of the consequences of not voting remain, a majority still felt that leaving the EU was what they wanted?
IMO the meaning of the term "leave" is more easily understood than "options of varying degrees of market access". If I am told to leave the room, house, country, club, I may ask "Is that forever or can I come back sometime?" - but I know what I have to do at that moment.

andrewf75

LHW99 wrote: »

So despite these options being "well known" and Cameron warning of the consequences of not voting remain, a majority still felt that leaving the EU was what they wanted?
IMO the meaning of the term "leave" is more easily understood than "options of varying degrees of market access". If I am told to leave the room, house, country, club, I may ask "Is that forever or can I come back sometime?" - but I know what I have to do at that moment.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't leave. We should of course. There is a deal on the table to leave.

Matt_L

andrewf75 wrote: »

until May's deal is voted down I agree. But if May's deal is voted down it becomes a real possibility because parliament won't allow leaving with no deal.

Just look at the bookies odds. Not much more than evens for a second vote.

Although that may sound good, I am of the opinion that there isn't much parliament can do. If by the 29th March we haven't had an agreement in Parliament about what deal we want then by default we leave without a deal. Even if an MP wins a vote (amendment) stating we can't leave without a deal, if one isn't forthcoming before March 29th then we still leave with no deal..

Heres hoping May's deal fails because if it does all the better for WTO...:beer: