EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[nlogax]

The media have been slow to pick up on this. The new Brussels plans (which the UK had a say in) have been known about for a long time and are probably in response to other countries like America and Canada introducing a fee for European visitors.

And €7 is nearly €4 cheaper than the ESTA fee for US entry.

 

[northwichcat]

And €7 is nearly €4 cheaper than the ESTA fee for US entry.

Is the European one going to be valid for multiple trips across multiple years? The American ESTA costing $14 is valid for multiple trips for 2 years, while the Canadian eTA costs CA$7 and is valid for multiple trips for for 5 years.

 

[northwichcat]

I wouldn't think so. I was about to make a snide comment about how the 7 euro payment would delight anyone who had to cross the border frequently until I realised that it was a Schengen area thing, so it shouldn't be an issue (unless Ireland joins the Schengen area of course)

Didn't realise it was Schengen zone only but it'll still be 'nice' for those travelling between Gibraltar and Spain.

 

[nlogax]

Is the European one going to be valid for multiple trips across multiple years?

Link above referred to three year validity though this conflicts with the five year figure I've seen quoted elsewhere.

 

[furnessvale]

Didn't realise it was Schengen zone only but it'll still be 'nice' for those travelling between Gibraltar and Spain.

Indeed, assuming we reciprocate, by no means a certainty, it would hurt Spaniards travelling to work in Gib far more than Gibraltarians going the other way.

 

[Howardh]

I wouldn't think so. I was about to make a snide comment about how the 7 euro payment would delight anyone who had to cross the border frequently until I realised that it was a Schengen area thing, so it shouldn't be an issue (unless Ireland joins the Schengen area of course)

There's a really importand point there - the UK and RoE COULD have a system where citizens could pass freely between them even under ETIAS, as Ireland's an island and therefore UK's can be checked leaving for the continent.
However that system would prevent RoI joining Schengen should it want, they could of course but that would then meaning the UK/RoI border would have to become hard and everyone subjected to checks and the ETIAS system, as any Brits inside RoI would be free to travel to the rest of the EU relatively unchecked. Unintended Brexit Concequence!!

 

[Howardh]

Trips UK/GIB should be ETIAS-free.
However, anyone residing in Gibraltar with a criminal record that prevents them entering Spain would be a virtual prisoner, which might be fine for some (get what they deserve etc) but a little tough if they have completed their rehabilitation and are "going straight" and their conviction was many years ago. Maybe they have found work inside Spain and commute daily - what then?
Admittedly the number would be very small in the great scheme of things, but we are still dealing with human beings even if it's only one or two.
A greater concern to me would be ther addition of bureaucracy and the chance that the whole system collapses. Of course, web systems never fail (TSB, British Airways, NHS cough cough) and no-one would therefore ever get their ETIAS wrongly declined or dumped into some airport cell when the system went red instead of green.
Happy days ahead.

 

[Howardh]

Didn't realise it was Schengen zone only but it'll still be 'nice' for those travelling between Gibraltar and Spain.

Techically it's Schengen + the rest of the EU and EEA*; those under "Freedom of Movement". EU's/EEA's can/will be checked going into the Schengen zone but all they will require will be their ID card/Passport and they will be free to pass under Freedom of Movement, and there are no checks within Schengen as alluded to. That's the same Freedom of Movement we threw away.

*Plus San Marino, Andorra, Monaco etc etc

 

[northwichcat]

Trips UK/GIB should be ETIAS-free.
However, anyone residing in Gibraltar with a criminal record that prevents them entering Spain would be a virtual prisoner, which might be fine for some (get what they deserve etc) but a little tough if they have completed their rehabilitation and are "going straight" and their conviction was many years ago. Maybe they have found work inside Spain and commute daily - what then?

A large number do cross the Gibraltar-Spain border daily but it's mainly those living in Spain and working in Gibraltar. Of course Gibraltar is very small so it would be surprising if there are people living in Gibraltar who never cross the border to Spain.

What's interesting is Gibraltar Airport sometimes gets closed due to the strength of the wind and planes get diverted to Malaga. How would that one work? "Attention ladies and gentlemen due to adverse weather conditions your flight will now depart from Malaga, we will arrange a free shuttle bus to Malaga Airport but you may still need to pay 7 Euros to cross the border."

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed, assuming we reciprocate, by no means a certainty, it would hurt Spaniards travelling to work in Gib far more than Gibraltarians going the other way.

The fact that people working in Gibraltar get paid in pounds, even if they are Spanish or Moroccan, might mean they'll be quite a few vacancies for shop, cafe and restaurant workers in Gibraltar if the value of the pound drops anymore - never mind what happens on the border.

 

[AlterEgo]

Unlike other European countries the UK hasn't introduced a tourist tax, presumably because we think it'll put off foreign visitors. Cities like Rome and Venice are probably better placed to get away with it than cities like Birmingham and Bath.

Northern Ireland's tourism could be hit badly by this, there's a lot of tour companies doing tours of the North of Ireland covering sections of both Northern Ireland and the Republic - some itineraries could change so they only cover one country.

The Republic of Ireland isn’t in Schengen.

Edit: sorry, missed earlier posts + acknowledgement pointing that out already.

 

[Howardh]

A large number do cross the Gibraltar-Spain border daily but it's mainly those living in Spain and working in Gibraltar. Of course Gibraltar is very small so it would be surprising if there are people living in Gibraltar who never cross the border to Spain.

What's interesting is Gibraltar Airport sometimes gets closed due to the strength of the wind and planes get diverted to Malaga. How would that one work? "Attention ladies and gentlemen due to adverse weather conditions your flight will now depart from Malaga, we will arrange a free shuttle bus to Malaga Airport but you may still need to pay 7 Euros to cross the border."

That's a very good point! Probably wouldn't be charged as you are in a controlled environment, but what if the flight landed, and someone *disappeared* walking to the bus?
There's also talk of joint ownership of GIB airport (UK/SPA) which would either mean two teminals - one is Spain; or one terminal split between the two.
As for crossing the border for work; ironically Sky News today interviewed live the first x-border worker they could find and she was living in Gib and crossing over to Spain!!

 

[northwichcat]

There's also talk of joint ownership of GIB airport (UK/SPA) which would either mean two teminals - one is Spain; or one terminal split between the two.

In 2010, when they were in the process of finishing off the new terminal building at Gibraltar Airport, I flew there and there was a man doing a survey to find out how many people arriving were heading straight for the border and how many were remaining in Gibraltar, which was supposed to be in preparation for an exit to Gibraltar and an exit to Spain for arrivals as soon as the new terminal building was put in to use. It seemed a change in politicians the Spanish side of the border meant that plan was scrapped.

 

[Howardh]

In 2010, when they were in the process of finishing off the new terminal building at Gibraltar Airport, I flew there and there was a man doing a survey to find out how many people arriving were heading straight for the border and how many were remaining in Gibraltar, which was supposed to be in preparation for an exit to Gibraltar and an exit to Spain for arrivals as soon as the new terminal building was put in to use. It seemed a change in politicians the Spanish side of the border meant that plan was scrapped.

Yes, didn't know about the counting! Could be win-win for both sides if the airport was joint; thinking the local Spanish area could be rejuvinated, more passengers passing through = more income keeping the airport viable. However, if tensions are stretched and the Spanish military walk in and take over the control tower...hmmm. Bit melodramatic maybe, but how much easier life would be if we managed to remain in the EU somehow. Methinks considering Ireland and Gibraltar this wasn't thought through properly.

 

[northwichcat]

Campaign group Leave.EU has been fined £70,000 for breaches of election law in the 2016 EU referendum.

The Electoral Commission said the group - which was separate from the official pro-Brexit group Vote Leave - failed to report "at least" £77,380 it spent.

It has also referred Leave.EU chief executive Liz Bilney to the police following its investigation into what it calls "serious offences".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44080096

 

[furnessvale]

Remain campaigners have also been fined for breaches of election law so neither side was perfect.

 

[Domh245]

Remain campaigners have also been fined for breaches of election law so neither side was perfect.

The remain campaigners were fined £19,000, Leave.EU have been fined £70,000 (near enough the maximum fine that they can levy), and referred their Chief Executive to the police. Neither side was perfect, but from this one side was far further from perfect than the other

 

[northwichcat]

Remain campaigners have also been fined for breaches of election law so neither side was perfect.

The remain campaigners were fined £19,000, Leave.EU have been fined £70,000 (near enough the maximum fine that they can levy), and referred their Chief Executive to the police. Neither side was perfect, but from this one side was far further from perfect than the other

So Britain Stronger in Europe were fined £1,250 for failing to submit spending returns and the Lib Dems were fined £18,000 for failing to retain receipts and invoices. Lib Dems were more in the wrong than the remain campaign and both matters are now closed.

Leave.EU have been fined £77,380 because they failed to declare £77,000 of spending and that difference was enough to make the difference between permitted spending by a political campaign and breaching the limit. It also sounds like the 'serious offences' relate to relations between Leave.EU (unofficial leave campaign funded by Arron Banks) and Vote Leave (official leave campaign) and an allegation that Leave.EU gave money to another party who had connections with Cambridge Analytica and the matter remains open and could lead to bigger fines or even someone being given a prison sentence.

 

[Bromley boy]

So Britain Stronger in Europe were fined £1,250 for failing to submit spending returns and the Lib Dems were fined £18,000 for failing to retain receipts and invoices. Lib Dems were more in the wrong than the remain campaign and both matters are now closed.

Leave.EU have been fined £77,380 because they failed to declare £77,000 of spending and that difference was enough to make the difference between permitted spending by a political campaign and breaching the limit. It also sounds like the 'serious offences' relate to relations between Leave.EU (unofficial leave campaign funded by Arron Banks) and Vote Leave (official leave campaign) and an allegation that Leave.EU gave money to another party who had connections with Cambridge Analytica and the matter remains open and could lead to bigger fines or even someone being given a prison sentence.

All that really shows is that both sides were in the wrong. In any case, how significant are these discrepancies, really, in the context of the millions being spent by both sides?

In any case, it doesn’t change the result of the vote, so who really cares?

 

[northwichcat]

All that really shows is that both sides were in the wrong. In any case, how significant are these discrepancies, really, in the context of the millions being spent by both sides?

Leave.EU were a registered referendum campaign so were allowed to spend up to £700,000, so they went over 10% over budget and lied on their returns to cover up that overspend. That is on top of allegations of further, more serious, wrong doing which are being investigated by the police.

Britain Stronger in Europe were also allowed to spend up to £700,000. As a political party the Lib Dems were allowed to spend up to £4m. There's no evidence that either exceeded their limits but as they failed to acquire/retain receipts and invoices for all spending they had to be fined, otherwise parties and campaigns could overspend and then simply fail to acquire/retain receipts and invoices and get let off.

In any case, it doesn’t change the result of the vote, so who really cares?

The actual result of the referendum is irrelevant. The reason we are leaving the EU is because the previous PM said so after taking in to consideration the referendum result (he had no legal requirement to act on it), the current PM could overrule her predecessor if it's found the law was broken in the run up to the referendum although I think that would be very unlikely as once she's picked a path she's too stubborn to change her mind.

Advertising and campaigning can certainly change people's views. Although, from what I saw of some of the vote leave adverts and campaigns it made me less likely to vote leave, opposed to more likely! The one that topped it off was the TV campaign that was supposed to be broadcast the day Jo Cox was murdered, it got moved to some random slot at the weekend so I finished up having the TV on when it was broadcast, when I would have avoided it otherwise. The tone of the message was patronising and talking down to viewers, while spend 5 minutes repeating 2 claims over and over again - one being the EU is causing NHS waiting times to be longer and the other being countries like Montenegro and Turkey will (not may) join the EU which will (not may) result in millions of additional immigrants. Although, credit to whoever came up with Montenegro and putting it in the same sentence as Turkey - a country which looks small in comparison to Wales, that many people won't have heard of so may conclude it's a large country which will send millions of immigrants to the UK, despite not even a million people living there.

 

[Domh245]

Good to see Arron Banks is holding his hands up to this incident, and - oh...

Statement from Leave.EU Co-founder, Arron Banks:

"The Electoral Commission is a 'Blairite Swamp Creation' packed full of establishment 'Remoaners' that couldn't quite make it to the House of Lords, but managed to get their noses in the trough via appointment to public bodies like the Electoral Commssion.

"We view the Electoral Commission announcement as a politically motivated attack on Brexit and the 17.4m people who defied the establishment to vote for an independent Britain

The seeming trumpification of British politics is a real shame.

 

[nlogax]

Arron Banks is right up there - or down there? - with the very worst of them. See also, Dominic Cummings

 

[Bromley boy]

Leave.EU were a registered referendum campaign so were allowed to spend up to £700,000, so they went over 10% over budget and lied on their returns to cover up that overspend. That is on top of allegations of further, more serious, wrong doing which are being investigated by the police.

Britain Stronger in Europe were also allowed to spend up to £700,000. As a political party the Lib Dems were allowed to spend up to £4m. There's no evidence that either exceeded their limits but as they failed to acquire/retain receipts and invoices for all spending they had to be fined, otherwise parties and campaigns could overspend and then simply fail to acquire/retain receipts and invoices and get let off.

A 10% overrun by one particular campaign, and a far lower % than that of the total spent on the overall leave campaign which was some £16m.

It sounds like both sides made cock ups. What’s the saying? Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

The actual result of the referendum is irrelevant. The reason we are leaving the EU is because the previous PM said so after taking in to consideration the referendum result (he had no legal requirement to act on it), the current PM could overrule her predecessor if it's found the law was broken in the run up to the referendum although I think that would be very unlikely as once she's picked a path she's too stubborn to change her mind.

No, we are leaving because that is the democratically determined will of the majority of those who voted in the referendum.

No legal requirement to act on it perhaps, but most certainly an overwhelming moral and constitutional duty to implement it. Both sides fully expected the result to be implemented. There was no legal requirement to implement the result of the 1970s referendum either but you don’t seem to have a problem with that being acted upon.

Your position is therefore inconsistent because the only difference between the two votes is that you personally agree with the result of one and not the other.

Advertising and campaigning can certainly change people's views. Although, from what I saw of some of the vote leave adverts and campaigns it made me less likely to vote leave, opposed to more likely!

Indeed. I’m glad you finally agree with me that that bloody £350m per week quote has no relevance whatsoever.

Anyone who voted solely based on the contents of the two campaigns (both awful) without researching the matter for themselves and formulating their own opinion had no business voting at all in my view.

 

[northwichcat]

No, we are leaving because that is the democratically determined will of the majority of those who voted in the referendum.

No legal requirement to act on it perhaps, but most certainly an overwhelming moral and constitutional duty to implement it. Both sides fully expected the result to be implemented. There was no legal requirement to implement the result of the 1970s referendum either but you don’t seem to have a problem with that being acted upon.

Yet there is a legal requirement for political campaigns and parties to abide by the rules. Do you remember one of the reasons mooted for Theresa May calling the 2017 General Election? The Conservatives were being investigated for breaking the rules at the 2015 General Election and there was a risk of the Electoral Commission declaring election results for 5 constituencies, where the Conservatives won, invalid.

How is it right that a referendum result can be called the 'will of the people' when political campaigns and parties didn't abide by the rules but there's a risk of a MP (who would have to re-stand within 5 years anyway) being removed from their seats because the party they are a member of broke the rules?

There was no legal requirement to implement the result of the 1970s referendum either but you don’t seem to have a problem with that being acted upon.

The winning side got over 67% then.

If you've ever had any local referendums you might find getting over 51.8% might mean it's not simply a case of 'winner takes all.' We had an unofficial referendum here were 75% of residents were in favour of town centre pedestrianisation and only 25% of businesses were in favour, which gave well over 50% in favour. The fact that many businesses weren't in favour and some raised concerns meant the local council didn't act on the 'will of the people.' The next step was to come up with a compromised proposal that improved the town centre for pedestrians but didn't involve pedestrianisation.

Your position is therefore inconsistent because the only difference between the two votes is that you personally agree with the result of one and not the other.

I didn't get a say in one because it was before I was born so I'm in no position to comment on how well it was conducted. However, less than 1/3rd voted to leave so I very much doubt, even if some people were mislead, that it would have made any difference to the final result.

Out of interest in a typical 3 year period how many people would expect to die and how many people would turn 18 and is the total more or less than 1.3 million?

Indeed. I’m glad you finally agree with me that that bloody £350m per week quote has no relevance whatsoever.

What? I said advertising and campaigning does change people's views. The leave campaigns had a negative impact on me and made me less likely to vote leave but they must have had the opposite effect on others.

 

[Bromley boy]

How is it right that a referendum result can be called the 'will of the people' when political campaigns and parties didn't abide by the rules but there's a risk of a MP (who would have to re-stand within 5 years anyway) being removed from their seats because the party they are a member of broke the rules?

If any criminal activity has been alleged then it must most certainly be investigated.

If you look at any large scale election or referendum campaign in history you’d inevitably find some procedural impropriety somewhere.

In the grand scheme of things this overrun is pretty trivial and as we are (hopefully) agreed, both sides said and did things which were misleading.

It would have had a de minimis level of impact on the result. So it really doesn’t matter a jot.

If you've ever had any local referendums you might find getting over 51.8% might mean it's not simply a case of 'winner takes all.' We had an unofficial referendum here were 75% of residents were in favour of town centre pedestrianisation and only 25% of businesses were in favour, which gave well over 50% in favour.

Apples with oranges. A referendum on town planning issues is not the same as a nationwide referendum where the government goes to the electorate on a major constitutional issue.

No my position is consistent. Being caught breaking the rules is more serious than being unable to prove you didn't break the rules when there's no evidence to suggest you did and a criminal investigation is more serious than no criminal investigation.

I meant your position on the lack of a legal requirement to implement the referendum.

You have continually attacked the government’s decision to implement this referendum based on the fact it is not legally required to do so.

That was also the case in the 1970s, which you have no problem with being implemented (the majorities in the respective referenda are irrelevant to this point). That is the inconsistency.

What? I said advertising and campaigning does change people's views. The leave campaigns had a negative impact on me and made me less likely to vote leave but they must have had the opposite effect on others.

Yes but you also admit the claims made by leave had the opposite effect on you to what was intended - just as all the remain scaremongering did on me. I’m sure that’s the case for many other voters.

The overall point is that many, perhaps most, voters never really cared what either side said and voted according to their own views.

Hence what was said by both sides was largely irrelevant to the result, and doesn’t really matter.

 

[northwichcat]

Apples with oranges. A referendum on town planning issues is not the same as a nationwide referendum where the government goes to the electorate on a major constitutional issue.

One thing is similar though. Even though there's a majority for leaving, there were no details on how exactly we would leave at the time of the referendum. This means the government could unveil a final Brexit deal which many of the people who voted leave aren't entirely happy with and then where is the mandate from the majority of the people?

I meant your position on the lack of a legal requirement to implement the referendum.

You have continually attacked the government’s decision to implement this referendum based on the fact it is not legally required to do so.

That was also the case in the 1970s, which you have no problem with being implemented (the majorities in the respective elections are irrelevant to this point). That is the inconsistency.

I realised that after posting. It wasn't clear on first reading, I've changed my post now.

 

[Bromley boy]

I realised that after posting. It wasn't clear on first reading.

Well at least you are reading them in full now .

 

[EM2]

Hence what was said by both sides was largely irrelevant to the result, and doesn’t really matter.

Funniiy enough, a director of Vote Leave doesn't agree:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...lt-and-aftermath.132044/page-166#post-2877234

 

[Bromley boy]

One thing is similar though. Even though there's a majority for leaving, there were no details on how exactly we would leave at the time of the referendum. This means the government could unveil a final Brexit deal which many of the people who voted leave aren't entirely happy with and then where is the mandate from the majority of the people?

I would suggest we can both at least agree that any definition of “leaving” must mean leaving the EU itself.

It’s therefore surely common sense that this must also mean leaving the other organs of the EU, namely the common market and the customs union. Leave voters were certainly not voting to retain the status quo, nor were they voting for a continuing seat at EU’s table but with no voice on its governance.

The choice offered to the electorate was a very stark one: to remain, or to leave? To continue exactly as we are, or to go it alone? We have democratically chosen to go it alone, which means we need to “leave” in an actual sense (not a de facto or a de jure sense) and live that reality. Having done so, we can always vote on the matter again in future.

What we can’t do is ask for another plebiscite vote on the minutiae of the deal. It’s far to complex an issue to put to the electorate in anything but the most basic black and white terms.

It’s for the government to sweat the detail of what leaving actually means (you will note that Comrade Corbyn is also a staunch leaver (albeit for the wrong reasons)).

We are all in this together, for better or worse. I acknowledge you mentioned the impact on your employment situation. For the record, I do sympathise with that, despite your subsequent negative comments on the salary my job attracts.

Similarly I wasn’t particularly cheered to find out recently that my property is now worth £20k less than it was six months ago - both situations are perhaps due to the current Brexit uncertainty - but I still stand by my vote.

 

[Bromley boy]

I didn't get a say in one because it was before I was born so I'm in no position to comment on how well it was conducted. However, less than 1/3rd voted to leave so I very much doubt, even if some people were mislead, that it would have made any difference to the final result.

Out of interest in a typical 3 year period how many people would expect to die and how many people would turn 18 and is the total more or less than 1.3 million?

Thanks for pointing out that you have now changed this part of your post, and I will respond as follows:

The issue we are discussing is the relevance of the fact that neither vote A (1970s), nor vote B (2016), were legally binding referenda has to their implementation. We can agree that both votes were determined by simple majorities. As such, both were a binary yes/no vote, the size of the majorities being completely irrelevant.

We can also surely agree that, in both cases, the expectation of both government and voters was that the result would be implemented?

Therefore, my issue with your position is simply this: you’re apparently happy that the result of referendum A was implemented by the then government, despite not being legally binding. So why have you repeatedly suggested that, since referendum B also wasn’t legally binding, the government should be free to simply disregard it?

I fail to see the relevance of the fact vote A was cast before you were born. Surely you aren’t suggesting the results of all elections before you were born, before you attained voting age, or future elections after you’ve died, must be invalid simply because you didn’t get a say?

Similarly, what does the number of people dying/turning 18 in any given period have to do with anything? It’s surely self evident that every not citizen who ever lived/died/is yet to be born gets a say in every vote that was ever held.

I suggest the only difference is that you personally agreed with vote A, but not with vote B. Hence your positions are inconsistent.

Am I wrong? If so, please explain how, with similarly detailed reasoning.

Night