BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[mheslep]

MEP Nigel Farage gave his "You're not laughing now, are you" speech at the EU Parliament five days after the Brexit vote.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Politico has a piece by David Korski, deputy director of the policy unit in David Cameron’s government, entitled Why We Lost The Brexit Vote. It's quite in depth, and it does not start with the narrative "The Leave crowd were a bunch of stupid, irredeemable deplorables whom we should surely be able to steamroller" but rather why the Leave crowd felt the way they did, what policies and narratives fed into this, and what might have been done differently.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Brexit court defeat for UK government: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Government are planning to appeal.

Theresa May was saying that referendum gave her right to use royal prerogative to initiate Article 50. High court says that only parliament has that right. This is a very interesting situation as majority of parliament were against Brexit in any form.

It's very clear that the UK population is not happy with the status quo of the EU situation, and the EU certainly needs reform, but it's also clear that the referendum does not give Theresa May a mandate to choose what it means.

Nick Clegg (ex Liberal Democrat leader), Tony Blair (ex Labour Prime Minister) and George Osborne (ex Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer) have all recently said that first referendum did not define what "Brexit" meant, in particular whether it mean "hard" Brexit, leaving the single European market, or "soft" Brexit, where many things stay the same including single market (incurring membership fees) and freedom of movement. They therefore say that people should have another chance to vote for whatever specific proposals the government wishes to make.

It's difficult to see how that would work. If the options were a three-way choice of "hard Brexit", "soft Brexit" or "no Brexit", it's clear that "no Brexit" would win. I'm not even sure that a repeat of the original referendum "Brexit" or "No Brexit" would give the same result as before now that many of the complications (and lies) have been revealed.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Brexit court defeat for UK government: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Government are planning to appeal.

Theresa May was saying that referendum gave her right to use royal prerogative to initiate Article 50. High court says that only parliament has that right. This is a very interesting situation as majority of parliament were against Brexit in any form.

It's very clear that the UK population is not happy with the status quo of the EU situation, and the EU certainly needs reform, but it's also clear that the referendum does not give Theresa May a mandate to choose what it means.

Nick Clegg (ex Liberal Democrat leader), Tony Blair (ex Labour Prime Minister) and George Osborne (ex Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer) have all recently said that first referendum did not define what "Brexit" meant, in particular whether it mean "hard" Brexit, leaving the single European market, or "soft" Brexit, where many things stay the same including single market (incurring membership fees) and freedom of movement. They therefore say that people should have another chance to vote for whatever specific proposals the government wishes to make.

It's difficult to see how that would work. If the options were a three-way choice of "hard Brexit", "soft Brexit" or "no Brexit", it's clear that "no Brexit" would win. I'm not even sure that a repeat of the original referendum "Brexit" or "No Brexit" would give the same result as before now that many of the complications (and lies) have been revealed.

It is also interesting that the BBC is putting it's pro Brexit stance from the start.Norman Smith insists that most MP's will vote for Brexit now where did he get that idea from.He surely would not be trying to put the the idea into MP's minds before any potential vote would he.The organisation is no longer impartial and has more effect on the outcome of events than it should.
Given the fact that as you mention the majority of parliament were against Brexit in any form he does not even bother to mention that this could be important.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But did not Parliament authorize the referendum? What is the legal argument here - that when Parliament authorized the referendum they did not intend to be bound by the results?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The referendum was not a legally binding result, just an expression of the opinion of the UK public, although David Cameron had said that he would respect the results.

I think the position is that in general, undoing legal changes made by parliament (in this case to join the EU) requires an act of Parliament.

In addition, as previously mentioned, the referendum was on leaving the EU, i.e. "Brexit", but as this covers a very wide range of options, it is not considered acceptable for Theresa May to assume that the referendum gives her permission to choose which option.

 

[Buckleymanor]

But did not Parliament authorize the referendum? What is the legal argument here - that when Parliament authorized the referendum they did not intend to be bound by the results?

Yes thirty years ago was this a case of miss sold can people who believed rightly that we would remain a member of the EU be recompensed for al the financial losses we incur.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But did not Parliament authorize the referendum? What is the legal argument here - that when Parliament authorized the referendum they did not intend to be bound by the results?

Referenda in the UK are typically not legally binding, they are mass opinion polls. Obviously the risk of going against the result is for the MPs who voted that way to get replaced come election time, but there's nothing illegal or improper about it. This specific case was a different legal argument as to whether or not the prime minister is allowed to declare article 50 without an act of Parliament. May has been arguing that the referendum gives her the right to declare it, the court disagreed reiterating that there's no legal basis for the UK to leave the EU without it being passed by parliament.

To use a US analogy: it's as if the Democrats ran an opinion poll on a policy and Obama tried to pass it without authorisation from congress.

As to what will happen now it's early days but there's a lot of speculation that Brexit will go ahead but parliament will slow down the process in an effort to properly define the goals. E.g Does Brexit mean leaving the single market and EU or just leaving the EU and negotiating EEA membership?

 

[Buckleymanor]

What is legally binding is that once a referendum is held and the government of the day acts upon the result say by joining the EU the laws that are passed and the advantages obtained by this process become incorporated in law through parliament.
As this takes an act or act's of parliament to implement it therefore follows that it should take another act of parliament to abolish these obtained advantages and not some ancient prerogative carried out by May without any input or act's from parliament.
The whole thing is going to get very messy like trying to remove an egg from an omelette.

 

[rootone]

Looks like Treeza. (ahem , the honorable member for MaidenHead), her plan is kick it into the long grass and hope that eternally long legal debates about the correct procedure makes people bored with it.
Ultimately though if A50 is not invoked, then the EU could do an A7 on the UK = they are expelled anyway due to continually demanding to be a special case and disagreeing with the club's rules.

 

[gleem]

A leaked http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/there-is-no-plan-for-brexit-leaked-memo-says/ar-AAkiVZA?li=BBnbcA1 indicates that there is no plan or exit strategy for Brexit. The memo notes that the complexity of an exit may require an adiditonal force of 30,000 civil servants to work out the details and money for this additional staff is not currently being acted on.

 

[DrGreg]

A leaked http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/there-is-no-plan-for-brexit-leaked-memo-says/ar-AAkiVZA?li=BBnbcA1 indicates that there is no plan or exit strategy for Brexit. The memo notes that the complexity of an exit may require an adiditonal force of 30,000 civil servants to work out the details and money for this additional staff is not currently being acted on.

However it's now known not to have come from Central Cabinet but from an external consultancy firm who say "This was a note intended primarily for internal audiences. It was not commissioned by the Cabinet Office, nor any other government department, and represents a view of the task facing Whitehall. This work was conducted without access to Number 10 or input from any other government departments."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948

 

[Buckleymanor]

Here is a task that Whitehall faces which could potentially send us back in the UK to the dark ages if not done properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38026875

 

[Jonathan Scott]

It appears that the main thing which Boris wants is to remain a member of the single market without paying the fees.

There's obviously only one way out of this situation...

Set up a "British Economic Community" and invite all those European countries to join it.

 

[Buckleymanor]

So long as Boris can keep up and bring the right notes to the Community meetings

 

[mheslep]

Here is a task that Whitehall faces which could potentially send us back in the UK to the dark ages if not done properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38026875

Was the period just prior to the UK membership in the EU the dark ages? Do all countries not in the EU reside in the dark ages?

 

[Buckleymanor]

Of course not but are you inclined to imagine a more enlightened future without the co-operation and employment of the brightest and best or do you not understand the meaning of potential.

 

[rootone]

It appears that the main thing which Boris wants is to remain a member of the single market without paying the fees.

What a brilliant idea, I must see if my landlord would be amenable to a similar arrangement.

 

[mheslep]

Of course not but are you inclined to imagine a more enlightened future without the co-operation and employment of the brightest and best or do you not understand the meaning of potential.

My conception of an enlightened future: complex, contentious issues do not draw an apocalyptic response.

 

[Buckleymanor]

My conception of an enlightened future: complex, contentious issues do not draw an apocalyptic response.

Well tell me why I get the impression that you have not taken on board most of the important issues and implications of Brexit and continue to bury your head in the sand.
It looks like government have concerns about it and have coincidently made an announcement hope it does not turn out to be little and late.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38044015

 

[phinds]

Here is a task that Whitehall faces which could potentially send us back in the UK to the dark ages if not done properly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38026875

The Dark Ages? Seriously? What was the state of education in the area that is now the UK back in the Dark Ages?

I agree w/ you that it is a serious issue but hyperbolic overstatement is not helpful.

 

[Vanadium 50]

re you inclined to imagine a more enlightened future without the co-operation and employment of the brightest and best

Perry Mason would say "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"

I think it has not been established that the "brightest and best" are in Brussels, nor that if that were true that the proper reaction to that is meek acceptance of rule by one's betters. I think Progressivism would be better served if it dropped the argument "We're smarter than you - heck, we're just plain better than you. Accept our benevolent rule!"

 

[Buckleymanor]

Perry Mason would say "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"

I think it has not been established that the "brightest and best" are in Brussels, nor that if that were true that the proper reaction to that is meek acceptance of rule by one's betters. I think Progressivism would be better served if it dropped the argument "We're smarter than you - heck, we're just plain better than you. Accept our benevolent rule!"

I agree it's not by any means established that the brightest and best come from Brussels. what is established is that there are "brighter and better people" .
It matters that these people no matter where they come from can move.
Shooting these people and yourself in the foot by not allowing these people into yours or any ones country by imposing immigration controls is just plain daft.
It's nothing to do with "We are smarter than you" it's more to do with you are smarter than us come and work here.
Sorry you can't get a visa because immigrants are not allowed.

 

[russ_watters]

The Dark Ages? Seriously? What was the state of education in the area that is now the UK back in the Dark Ages?

I agree w/ you that it is a serious issue but hyperbolic overstatement is not helpful.

Yeah, I've said it a thousand times - hyperbole is counterproductive to one's point.

 

[rootone]

Theresa May is now talking of a 'transitional deal' - this in response to question from leaders in UK commerce and industry,
What that appears to mean is that some new trading arrangement will be put in place ahead of formally declaring article 50 intention to leave.
I can't see how this would be accepted by the EU other 27.
It's a bit like somebody saying to their partner, "I definitely will be leaving you but not sure when, Are we still good for sex until I make my mind up".

 

[Buckleymanor]

Yeah, I've said it a thousand times - hyperbole is counterproductive to one's point.

Seems like the most guilty of hyperbole don't get a mention or criticism by some.
Quote.
"No surprises, when it comes to the big picture, the prime minister was abundantly clear (again) that she won't be pushed into giving more details of her plans for how we leave the EU and life afterward. That was despite the fact that she took to the stage moments after the CBI President who could not have been any clearer in making the organisation's demand for more information".
Probably heard that statement a thousand times too.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The Leave side has always effectively maintained that we could have our cake and eat it, that is opt out of EU law and membership fees but continue to enjoy at least most of the benefits, which is simply not possible in practice, as Boris Johnson has been recently told by multiple European politicians. Any realistic government plan, regardless of the details, is therefore clearly going to be unpopular with a majority of the public, as it cannot satisfy the conflicting requirements of many of the Leave supporters, and certainly cannot satisfy the Remain supporters.

It appears that the only way for the government to avoid having to back down on its commitment to the referendum is to try to force through some change which would be opposed one way or another by a clear majority of the population, claiming justification from the referendum result. The attempt to invoke Article 50 under Royal Prerogative (defeated in the High Court but being appealed in the Supreme Court) clearly demonstrates this approach, making it clear that the government doesn't even trust Parliament to support it.

What is needed is a list of options for open discussion and debate.

 

[phinds]

What is needed is a list of options for open discussion and debate.

I think the best thing to do would be to make Trump the Emperor of the UK and let HIM deal with Europe (he is SUCH a great deal maker, just ask him) and we'd get rid of him. A win all the way around

 

[mheslep]

Well tell me why I get the impression ...

Beyond my finite abilities.

 

[mheslep]

... that is opt out of EU law and membership fees but continue to enjoy at least most of the benefits, which is simply not possible in practice,...

Has anyone ever referenced the examples of Norway, Switzerland? Norway, Switzerland.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Has anyone ever referenced the examples of Norway, Switzerland? Norway, Switzerland.

I don't recall anything being said about Switzerland, but during the campaigns it was pointed out that although Norway is not an EU member, it still pays substantial fees to be a member of the single market (specifically the European Economic Area, EEA), and for the UK the equivalent fees are a large part of the total EU membership cost. Also, Norway and Switzerland have similar agreements about immigration and free movement to the EU countries, partly as a condition of belonging to the single market. So the Norway model would be a very "soft" Brexit - avoid some EU laws, but still pay to be in the single market and still allow freedom of movement.

 

[mheslep]

So the Norway model would be a very "soft" Brexit - avoid some EU laws

The wiki suggests Norway's membership in the EEA and EFTA obliges it to be "subject to roughly 21% of EU laws", and that the Norwegian parliament reserves the power to refuse any significant EU legislation, though it rarely does so. My guess is that the EU and the UK have at least that much in common legislatively.

...and still allow freedom of movement.

Several EU countries have instituted border checks or barriers in the past year - Hungary, Austria, Sweden. And Schengen participant Switzerland was about to implement same ...

 

[Buckleymanor]

Has anyone ever referenced the examples of Norway, Switzerland? Norway, Switzerland.

Too many shandies or just having a double.

 

[Buckleymanor]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/21/comment-reader-ft-gone-viral-nails-remainerleaver-brexit-row/A comment from the FT made me smile which is rare these days.

 

[rootone]

Both of those countries have never been in the EU,
Norway because it's economy is 95% based on large oil reserves, Switzerland because of it's historic private banking. (Switzerland also declared itself 'neutral' in WW2" for the same reason.)
However both are signed up to Schengen, which is the free travel area and because of this they have partial access to the markets.
They pay for this access and must comply with EU law while having no say in the making of laws.
The exit argument in the UK definitely does not want schengen, does not want the Euro, and does not want to pay for benefits of the common market.
(Incidentally UK was opted out of Schengen anyway whilst still a member, so had no obligation to allow fully free travel of other EU citizens.