EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[northwichcat]

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.

Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Russia are all countries outside the EU, yet they all have very different relationships with the EU. For practical purposes Norway is as close as possible to being a member without actually being one. On the other hand Russia effectively works against the EU - if you saw the BBC program on Russia presented by Simon Reeve you'll have seen how import and export restrictions with the EU affect the lives of people in Russia. If not in summary it's been good for a few entrepreneurs but for most people it creates a lower quality of life.

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.

Wait are you admitting one of the remain campaign's 'scaremongering' predictions was correct? If you'll recall George Osborne said Brexit would cause that to happen but the Lib Dems advised against using that argument as many people want house valuations to come down so they can get on the property ladder, meaning it might have encouraged people to vote leave.

 

[northwichcat]

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?

As people from both sides have said both before and after the 2016 referendum they didn't expect the result to be the end of the matter if the result was close. UKIP and the English Democrats were all ready to start campaigning for a future referendum if the result was close but in remain's favour, as, in their opinion, a narrow win for remain would mean the referendum would need to be run again after a few years.

If 51.8% had voted remain and in 10 years time Turkey joined the EU would you want another referendum?

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?

I said as I wasn't born I am in no position to say how well that referendum was conducted but despite that the massive majority would mean even if was conducted badly it is unlikely to have affected which side won. As you've admitted the campaigning for this referendum was very poor but it seems as you got the result you wanted you don't want to believe that no-one decided which way to vote based on misleading information being circulated and want to get in to a debate about another referendum where the result didn't go the way you wanted instead.

I was too young to vote in the 1992 General Election but accept John Major won the right to govern the country for up to 5 years but wouldn't accept John Major or the Conservatives governing the country indefinitely because a poll to advise the government on the opinion of the public found that slightly more people would prefer the Conservatives governing the country to Labour.

 

[etr221]

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.

The referendum decision was that the country should 'Leave the European Union', rather than 'Remain a member of the European Union', no more and no less. While various ideas elaborating what this meant were put to the electorate as part of the referendum, none of these are binding, and neither they, nor any consideration of what the intentions of voters were, extend that decision.

As membership of the EU is a legal fact, distinct from the implications of being a member, any leaving implementation that does no more than change that - 'leaving in name only' or purely de jure - does conform with the referendum decision. As does one that cuts all cooperation, trade, travel and communication with EU. If part of the implementing agreement legislation says 'the UK is no longer a member of the EU', then it conforms...
(whereas one that leaves the UK nominally in, but opting out of everything, would not)

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)).

As you say... and the details - in fact everything except 'the detail' that we are no longer a member - is down to the government, and whatever agreements they manage to make.

The referendum made a decision as to where we should not be be, not where we should be.
The Brexit express will be leaving: the time has been fixed, but nothing else not the destination, the route, the stock, the crew or the fare. And we'll be on it. It might go somewhere good, bad or indifferent, where it's intended to or somewhere completely different, end its journey in a wreck, or by failing half down the platform. And Mrs May says we'll be on it: it's her decision - and hers alone - that we should be. But neither, she, nor anyone else, know what comes next.

 

[Bromley boy]

Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Russia are all countries outside the EU, yet they all have very different relationships with the EU. For practical purposes Norway is as close as possible to being a member without actually being one. On the other hand Russia effectively works against the EU - if you saw the BBC program on Russia presented by Simon Reeve you'll have seen how import and export restrictions with the EU affect the lives of people in Russia. If not in summary it's been good for a few entrepreneurs but for most people it creates a lower quality of life.

I don’t see how any of this relates to the part of my post you quoted, stating that leaving the EU must mean leaving the EU itself and its major institutions.

Wait are you admitting one of the remain campaign's 'scaremongering' predictions was correct? If you'll recall George Osborne said Brexit would cause that to happen but the Lib Dems advised against using that argument as many people want house valuations to come down so they can get on the property ladder, meaning it might have encouraged people to vote leave.

Not at all. Some economic uncertainty was always inevitable - we haven’t had the economic apocalypse and the punishment budget which George Osbourne, lying through his teeth, told us would be necessary.

 

[Bromley boy]

As people from both sides have said both before and after the 2016 referendum they didn't expect the result to be the end of the matter if the result was close. UKIP and the English Democrats were all ready to start campaigning for a future referendum if the result was close but in remain's favour, as, in their opinion, a narrow win for remain would mean the referendum would need to be run again after a few years.

If 51.8% had voted remain and in 10 years time Turkey joined the EU would you want another referendum?

And it doesn’t have to be the end of the matter, we can have another referendum to rejoin in 20 or 30 years (hopefully the EU will either have collapsed or reformed since then).

The version of (what is now) the EU we voted to remain in during the 1970s is very different to what it is now. Therefore it’s quite right that we had another vote on continued membership.

But that doesn’t change the fact we need to implement the 2016 vote. Calls for another referendum before leaving are simply remainers trying to frustrate democracy (“wrong” answer in 2016 so want to ask the question again and again until the stupid working class oiks get it right - we wouldn’t want house prices in Islington to fall now would we).

I said as I wasn't born I am in no position to say how well that referendum was conducted but despite that the massive majority would mean even if was conducted badly it is unlikely to have affected which side won.

You can’t possibly make that statement.

What people were voting for in the 1970s was an economic trading block, membership of which made a lot more sense for the U.K. than belonging to the bloated, anti democratic, self serving monolith people voted to leave in 2016.

You haven’t really addressed my previous post - in a simple majority vote the size of the majority is irrelevant.

As you've admitted the campaigning for this referendum was very poor but it seems as you got the result you wanted you don't want to believe that no-one decided which way to vote based on misleading information being circulated and want to get in to a debate about another referendum where the result didn't go the way you wanted instead.

But misinformation was circulated by both sides - therefore many may equally have been duped into voting remain because of all the scaremongering (I know quite a few remain voters like this).

You are also still not adddessing the inconsistency in your position - why should the government be free to disregard the result of the 2016 vote when it was fully intended that the result would be implemented, when the 1970s vote was implemented.

I was too young to vote in the 1992 General Election but accept John Major won the right to govern the country for up to 5 years but wouldn't accept John Major or the Conservatives governing the country indefinitely because a poll to advise the government on the opinion of the public found that slightly more people would prefer the Conservatives governing the country to Labour.

That’s not a good analogy at all. What does a general election (held at roughly fixed intervals) have to do with a referendum, the result of which is by its nature “indefinite”?

 

[Bromley boy]

The referendum decision was that the country should 'Leave the European Union', rather than 'Remain a member of the European Union', no more and no less. While various ideas elaborating what this meant were put to the electorate as part of the referendum, none of these are binding, and neither they, nor any consideration of what the intentions of voters were, extend that decision.

As membership of the EU is a legal fact, distinct from the implications of being a member, any leaving implementation that does no more than change that - 'leaving in name only' or purely de jure - does conform with the referendum decision. As does one that cuts all cooperation, trade, travel and communication with EU. If part of the implementing agreement legislation says 'the UK is no longer a member of the EU', then it conforms...
(whereas one that leaves the UK nominally in, but opting out of everything, would not)

But, as I said in my previous post, it’s not a great leap to see that people who voted to leave weren’t voting for things to remain exactly as they are in all but name.

The Brexit express will be leaving: the time has been fixed, but nothing else not the destination, the route, the stock, the crew or the fare. And we'll be on it. It might go somewhere good, bad or indifferent, where it's intended to or somewhere completely different, end its journey in a wreck, or by failing half down the platform. And Mrs May says we'll be on it: it's her decision - and hers alone - that we should be. But neither, she, nor anyone else, know what comes next.

“The Brexit express”, I like it. An excellent analogy for a railway forum!

“ALL ABOARD”

 

[northwichcat]

I don’t see how any of this relates to the part of my post you quoted, stating that leaving the EU must mean leaving the EU itself and its major institutions.

You seem to think we voted for more than we actually did. The question on the ballot paper was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" Having a Norway style deal fulfills the requirement of leaving the European Union, as does not trading with the EU a la Russia. You can't complain if we get a Norway deal that it's not what we voted for, we would leave the EU and that's all we voted to do. Even at the 2017 General Election none of the parties were very specific on what type of Brexit we should get, all they were saying was things like the best kind of deal for Britain. You've said you're against any further referendum on the leaving terms so you have to accept that whatever terms the Conservatives decide on are the terms we'll leave the EU on. If you want remainers to accept the referendum result as a final binding agreement to mean we can leave on any terms we choose, then you need to be able to accept the type of Brexit we get may not be the type you are expecting or want. You want hard Brexit but if you get soft Brexit then you still get exactly what you voted for.

But that doesn’t change the fact we need to implement the 2016 vote. Calls for another referendum before leaving are simply remainers trying to frustrate democracy

Again remember that if you don't get the type of Brexit you want and complain, then you'll be the one frustrating democracy. No trading deal with the EU is Brexit as is a Norway style deal, you obviously don't want a say as to what type of arrangement we have.

Not at all. Some economic uncertainty was always inevitable - we haven’t had the economic apocalypse and the punishment budget which George Osbourne, lying through his teeth, told us would be necessary.

So George Osborne said house prices would go down if we voted leave, we voted leave and you're saying your house price has gone down but you refuse to accept George Osborne was correct on that matter. George Osborne said what he would do but he was removed from his position before he could do anything. Philip Hammond has put aside a large amount of money as a post-Brexit emergency fund we know Hammond, in general, is less likely to implement emergency measures when things go wrong than Osborne was.

 

[northwichcat]

But misinformation was circulated by both sides - therefore many may equally have been duped into voting remain because of all the scaremongering (I know quite a few remain voters like this).

You are also still not adddessing the inconsistency in your position - why should the government be free to disregard the result of the 2016 vote when it was fully intended that the result would be implemented, when the 1970s vote was implemented.

How hard is it for you to understand that the spreading of false and misleading information will likely have affected the way some people voted but not the way everyone voted?

Given you implied you voted in the 1970s referendum where a massive majority voted to remain, perhaps you'd like to give a comprehensive list of all the misinformation that was spread ahead of that referendum for the benefit of those of us who weren't around then? If you can come up with 50+ points then maybe there's some comparisons which can be made between the two referendums, if not I'll presume you can't justify your own arguments.

 

[etr221]

But, as I said in my previous post, it’s not a great leap to see that people who voted to leave weren’t voting for things to remain exactly as they are in all but name.

Maybe or maybe not: all they did was put an X in the box. Nobody else knows what they thought they were voting for: what they did vote for was to Leave the EU. But as what 'Leave' actually meant was never defined, beyond a change from 'UK is a member' to 'UK is not a member', if it is isn't what they thought it meant, they can't really complain: the government will have delivered what they voted for.

“The Brexit express”, I like it. An excellent analogy for a railway forum!

“ALL ABOARD”

As long as enjoy the ride - so far all that's been fixed is the departure time...

 

[mmh]

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.

The result is far from irrelevant, but there being no legal requirement to act on the referendum is irrelevant! The Government said "the Government will implement what you decide". For any party, particularly the same one, to go back on that would be political suicide. Nothing to do with an individual's stubbornness or not, Labour in power would be doing exactly the same. Pointless pondering what any of the other parties would do in power as they're not going to be.

 

[mmh]

Maybe or maybe not: all they did was put an X in the box. Nobody else knows what they thought they were voting for: what they did vote for was to Leave the EU. But as what 'Leave' actually meant was never defined, beyond a change from 'UK is a member' to 'UK is not a member', if it is isn't what they thought it meant, they can't really complain: the government will have delivered what they voted for.


As long as enjoy the ride - so far all that's been fixed is the departure time...

I know one thing, if you'd told me in 2016 that two years later remain supporters would still be arguing that people didn't know what the word "leave" meant I'd have said there was no chance, and sadly I'd have been very wrong.

 

[radamfi]

Do people think the Swiss government squelched on the freedom of movement referendum? Would a Norway-style Brexit be squelching less or more than the Swiss?

 

[northwichcat]

The result is far from irrelevant, but there being no legal requirement to act on the referendum is irrelevant! The Government said "the Government will implement what you decide". For any party, particularly the same one, to go back on that would be political suicide. Nothing to do with an individual's stubbornness or not, Labour in power would be doing exactly the same. Pointless pondering what any of the other parties would do in power as they're not going to be.

David Cameron said in the lead up to the 2015 election

So the choice at this election is clear: Labour and the Liberal Democrats won’t give you a say over the EU. UKIP can’t give you a say. Only the Conservative Party will deliver real change in Europe – and only the Conservatives can and will deliver an in-out referendum.

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.

That strongly implies if you want to leave the EU only the Conservatives can fulfill your wish and Labour and the Lib Dems will keep you in the EU regardless, while UKIP aren't big enough to do anything. However, it should be noted a lot of what the Conservatives promised in the lead up to the 2015 election wasn't delivered and they no longer have any plans to deliver it.

 

[mmh]

Squelch? It's for Switzerland to decide the relationship they want with the EU.

I'm afraid I have about the same interest in Swiss politics as I do their railways - none.

 

[northwichcat]

I know one thing, if you'd told me in 2016 that two years later remain supporters would still be arguing that people didn't know what the word "leave" meant I'd have said there was no chance, and sadly I'd have been very wrong.

We know what it means - no longer being a member of the EU. However, unfortunately a number of people from the leave camp seem to suggest the referendum result means we can't have a Norway style agreement with the EU and the closest relationship we can have is a Canada style agreement - we never voted for that and the government doesn't have any mandate to reject a soft Brexit if it's in Britain's best interests. I'm not saying it is in Britain's best interests, a Norway style deal removes some of the good points of the EU while retaining some of the bad points but it shouldn't be an option the government rejects based on the referendum result alone.

 

[mmh]

David Cameron said in the lead up to the 2015 election



That strongly implies if you want to leave the EU only the Conservatives can fulfill your wish and Labour and the Lib Dems will keep you in the EU regardless, while UKIP aren't big enough to do anything. However, it should be noted a lot of what the Conservatives promised in the lead up to the 2015 election wasn't delivered and they no longer have any plans to deliver it.

Yes, only the Conservatives proposed and only the Conservatives would have given a referendum on EU membership. Arguably it was only offered because the leadership thought the electoral threat from UKIP was greater than it really was, but it was offered, and empatically stated it would be acted upon. Regardless of whether they personally agree with it having been done, no Conservative leader is going to go back on that, they would be handing themselves their own P45.

 

[mmh]

We know what it means - no longer being a member of the EU. However, unfortunately a number of people from the leave camp seem to suggest the referendum result means we can't have a Norway style agreement with the EU and the closest relationship we can have is a Canada style agreement - we never voted for that and the government doesn't have any mandate to reject a soft Brexit if it's in Britain's best interests. I'm not saying it is in Britain's best interests, a Norway style deal removes some of the good points of the EU while retaining some of the bad points but it shouldn't be an option the government rejects based on the referendum result alone.

People who voted leave did not vote for leaving in name only, and any agreement which retains freedom of movement of labour won't be acceptable to them, so anything mentioning Norway is out.

It seems really difficult for Remainers to accept that yes, leave does mean leave.

 

[cactustwirly]

People who voted leave did not vote for leaving in name only, and any agreement which retains freedom of movement of labour won't be acceptable to them, so anything mentioning Norway is out.

It seems really difficult for Remainers to accept that yes, leave does mean leave.

It's also very difficult for the 'Leavers' to accept one cannot have one's cake and eat it.

We cannot have a soft Irish border and leave the customs union.
Without the customs union, we would not have a manufacturing industry and thousands of jobs will be lost (especially jobs at certain factories in Ellesmere Port & Luton)
In order to trade with the EU, we would still have to accept EU laws.

At the end of the day the leave campaign underestimated the complexity of leaving the EU, and therefore promised things which are undeliverable.
Therefore to get a good deal for the UK, compromises will need to be made.

 

[radamfi]

Squelch? It's for Switzerland to decide the relationship they want with the EU.

I'm afraid I have about the same interest in Swiss politics as I do their railways - none.

There are strong parallels. The Swiss voted narrowly to restrict freedom of movement. There was a 3 year time limit to put the referendum result into practice. Ending free movement was deemed impractical so there has been a watered down implementation that the EU broadly accepts. Note, Swiss referendums are binding so even under this scenario it was not considered practical to end free movement. The UK referendum is not binding so there is arguably even more room to "squelch."

 

[northwichcat]

People who voted leave did not vote for leaving in name only, and any agreement which retains freedom of movement of labour won't be acceptable to them, so anything mentioning Norway is out.

It seems really difficult for Remainers to accept that yes, leave does mean leave.

You've proved my point. Norway is not a member of the EU, it does not have MEPs and it is not part of the EU Customs Union. Norway choose to accept freedom of movement because they didn't want to pay the full price of access to the single market, the EU didn't force them to accept one over the other. The Leave camp were promoting a Norway style deal to try and get those who liked some elements of the EU but not others to vote leave, then when they got a shock narrow win in the referendum, they start claiming a Norway style deal is not properly leaving the EU and anyone from the remain side suggesting it didn't understand what leave meant. So the leave camp were liars and hypocrites and expect people who voted remain to keep silent - fat chance!

 

[EM2]

I know one thing, if you'd told me in 2016 that two years later remain supporters would still be arguing that people didn't know what the word "leave" meant I'd have said there was no chance, and sadly I'd have been very wrong.

There are Leave supporters of the same mindset.

People who voted leave did not vote for leaving in name only, and any agreement which retains freedom of movement of labour won't be acceptable to them, so anything mentioning Norway is out.

It seems really difficult for Remainers to accept that yes, leave does mean leave.

Again, there are Leavers that would have us believe that a Norway deal or a Switzerland deal would be the kind of arrangement that would be beneficial to the UK. Mr Farage is one.

 

[mmh]

It's also very difficult for the 'Leavers' to accept one cannot have one's cake and eat it.

We cannot have a soft Irish border and leave the customs union.

It's high time the EU stopped claiming the Irish border is an insurmountable hurdle. It isn't, and besides which the UK and Ireland's relationship has little to do with the EU and pre-dates our membership.

Without the customs union, we would not have a manufacturing industry and thousands of jobs will be lost (especially jobs at certain factories in Ellesmere Port & Luton)
In order to trade with the EU, we would still have to accept EU laws.

Fear-mongering. Every country which trades with the EU accepts the same conditions. Why would the EU not want to trade with the UK? It's a big export market for multiple EU members. Spite?

At the end of the day the leave campaign underestimated the complexity of leaving the EU, and therefore promised things which are undeliverable.
Therefore to get a good deal for the UK, compromises will need to be made.

 

[cactustwirly]

It's high time the EU stopped claiming the Irish border is an insurmountable hurdle. It isn't, and besides which the UK and Ireland's relationship has little to do with the EU and pre-dates our membership.



Fear-mongering. Every country which trades with the EU accepts the same conditions. Why would the EU not want to trade with the UK? It's a big export market for multiple EU members. Spite?

So how would you solve the Ireland border issue?

I'm not fear mongering, those are the hard facts!
Most of the UK manufacturing industry, is the manufacturing of parts (like engines for Ford cars).
If these parts were subject to tariffs, then it won't be finacially viable to make these in the UK.

Also, the Nissan, Toyota, Vauxhall factories operate on 'just in time' for the delivery of parts from Europe.
If these were delayed by customs checks, then it would delay the manufacture the cars.
The cars would also be subject to export tariffs.
Manufacturers such as Vauxhall (who have just been bought by Peugoet) may decide to relocate to Germany or France instead.

 

[mmh]

I was too young to vote in the 1992 General Election but accept John Major won the right to govern the country for up to 5 years but wouldn't accept John Major or the Conservatives governing the country indefinitely because a poll to advise the government on the opinion of the public found that slightly more people would prefer the Conservatives governing the country to Labour.

Yet you would accept indefinite EU membership because a poll found a majority of the public in 1975 agreed with staying in organisations vastly different from the EU of 40 years later?

 

[northwichcat]

Fear-mongering.

Perhaps you can arrange with Unite to speak to the 650 workers who have recently lost their jobs at Vauxhall Ellesmere Port. You obviously know something that Unite and PSG haven't told them. :roll:

 

[northwichcat]

Yet you would accept indefinite EU membership because a poll found a majority of the public in 1975 agreed with staying in organisations vastly different from the EU of 40 years later?

Oh dear, another Leaver who can't make proper arguments who wants to start going on about a 1970s referendum to divert attention away from their illogical, nonsense arguments. :roll:

 

[mmh]

Perhaps you can arrange with Unite to speak to the 650 workers who have recently lost their jobs at Vauxhall Ellesmere Port. You obviously know something that Unite and PSG haven't told them. :roll:

Do you not think Vauxhall having been bought out by a company that promised no job cuts then started cutting them has more to do with that than anything else? Have either PSG or Unite said they were related to a yet-to-happen Brexit?

 

[northwichcat]

Do you not think Vauxhall having been bought out by a company that promised no job cuts then started cutting them has more to do with that than anything else? Have either PSG or Unite said they were related to a yet-to-happen Brexit?

Yes Len McCluskey has, saying Vauxhall needed the same post-Brexit government backing that was given in the North East.

 

[mmh]

Yes Len McCluskey has, saying Vauxhall needed the same post-Brexit government backing that was given in the North East.

That's not saying the jobs gone are down to Brexit, rather making the point (which I agree with) that industry needs government support.

A little searching found this from a couple of weeks ago:

Reuters
April 20, 2018 16:02 CET

FRANKFURT -- PSA Group wants 3,700 job cuts at Opel in Germany by 2020 and a process of contract buyouts and early retirement has already resulted in a reduction of about 2,000 positions, Opel's works council chief, Wolfgang Schaefer-Klug, said.

"Around 2,000 have already agreed to leave, and we will likely see a further 2,000 people accept packages," Schaefer Klug said at a press conference on Friday.

So I'd argue it's not Brexit after all then.

 

[Howardh]

It's high time the EU stopped claiming the Irish border is an insurmountable hurdle. It isn't,

Care to clear this hurdle for us? After all, everyone else has tried ans so far failed.

After you....