Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Guest MattP]

David Davis speech coming up now, hopefully he'll give us some more clarity on the timetable and the article 50 reversal question.

[Innovindil]

"Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve says the problem with triggering Article 50 is it is irrevocable."

 

Orly? 

 

Not quite nailed on, but there seems to be a growing concensus... 

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

"Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve says the problem with triggering Article 50 is it is irrevocable."

 

Orly? 

 

Not quite nailed on, but there seems to be a growing concensus... 

From what I've read it does appear revocable, even the author of it is quoted here as saying so -  http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/72965/what-is-article-50-of-the-lisbon-treaty-and-is-it-irrevocable

 

Quote

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who wrote Article 50, says the UK could choose to stay in the EU even after exit negotiations have begun.

"[Article 50] is not irrevocable. You can change your mind while the process is going on. During that period, if a country were to decide, 'Actually we don't want to leave after all,' everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time, they might try to extract a political price, but legally they couldn't insist that you leave," he says.

The Scottish cross-bench peer believes the country "might want to think again" when the terms of Brexit become clearer. 

Lord Kerr says he never envisaged the UK would make use of Article 50: "I thought the circumstances in which it would be used, if ever, would be when there was a coup in a member state and the EU suspended that country's membership."

 

It would be a nuisance if we had to go through the General Election route of doing this in 2020, but it's not impossible we'll have to do, at least parliament would be more representative of the people though after it.

 

[Innovindil]

The court decided that MPs must have a say on starting the formal process of Brexit via an act of parliament.

However, they also rejected arguments from the Lord Advocate that devolved administrations should also have a say.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to hold a Holyrood vote on the matter regardless of the ruling.

She said there remained a "clear political obligation" on the UK government to consult devolved administrations, adding that "it is becoming clearer by the day that Scotland's voice is simply not being heard or listened to within the UK".

 

Didn't take her long. Gets told unanimously by all 11 judges she doesn't get a say, stomps feet and says noone is listening to her but she'll say it anyway. 

 

I love it. I really, really do. 

[Guest MattP]

She knows we know she is bluffing, it's all hot air and the case for Scottish independence is collpasing.

 

Go ahead and call it Nicola, lose again and then start to come up with another change in circumstance you can throw up to bring forward referendum number 3 for the 2020-25 parliament.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

19 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

The court decided that MPs must have a say on starting the formal process of Brexit via an act of parliament.

However, they also rejected arguments from the Lord Advocate that devolved administrations should also have a say.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to hold a Holyrood vote on the matter regardless of the ruling.

She said there remained a "clear political obligation" on the UK government to consult devolved administrations, adding that "it is becoming clearer by the day that Scotland's voice is simply not being heard or listened to within the UK".

 

Didn't take her long. Gets told unanimously by all 11 judges she doesn't get a say, stomps feet and says noone is listening to her but she'll say it anyway. 

 

I love it. I really, really do. 

 

Its called representing her voters majority interest... she shouldn't be attacked for doing that. 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Its called representing her voters majority interest... she shouldn't be attacked for doing that. 

She should also remember though more Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom than voted to stay in the European Union.

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Its called representing her voters majority interest... she shouldn't be attacked for doing that. 

It's called trying to force her own views onto a power greater than her. She gets her say through her MP's, not by spitting her dummy out and threatening a second indyref that the majority of her country don't want. And she should definitely be attacked for that. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Call Sturgeons bluff. Put a referendum bill through parliament and watch them lose it and thus lose their mandate for Scotland staying in the EU. After that we can get on with out lives without that dreadful womens face on at me every other day.

[Guest MattP]

The biggest problem Sturgeon has (aside from the ridiculous oil predictions) is her reasoning for wanting Scotland to stay in the single market.

 

She can't exactly argue they need to go independent because of exports to the EU when at the same time she would be withdrawing them from an even more important tariff free market, the United Kingdom.

 

According to figures from the Scottish government, once you exclude oil & gas, then Scotland chalks up exports of £11.6bn to the EU per year. By contrast, its sales to the rest of the world were £15.2bn, while the rest of the UK accounted for a whopping £48.5bn. Even more seriously, last year, its exports to the EU fell by eight per cent, the worst result of any of the four countries in the UK. Its largest trade partner is the US, not any country in the EU. Its second largest trade partner is the Netherlands, but that is nearly all stuff that goes to Rotterdam for re-export. So the idea that Scotland is packed full of factories manufacturing things for France, Germany and Spain is a complete myth.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

From what I've read it does appear revocable, even the author of it is quoted here as saying so -  http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/72965/what-is-article-50-of-the-lisbon-treaty-and-is-it-irrevocable

 

 

This was mentioned as an issue on BBC Lunchtime News today - first time in a couple of months.

 

Their correspondent said it was being discussed at European level, with no clear conclusion reached - and the obvious possibility of a legal case.

 

However, any legal case could only establish whether the UK could revoke its triggering of Article 50 within the 2-year negotiating period. Such a decision could only be taken by the UK, and not the EU - and only before the 2-year negotiations (or any extension) expired).

 

This needs to be cleared up ASAP. Not only does it affect what might happen in 18 months time (IF there's a change in the consensus in the UK - big IF). It also affects the negotiating stance of the parties, big-time!

 

I've emailed Jon Ashworth, so with a bit of luck one of us might get some useful info....wouldn't bank on it, though. 

[Webbo]

If we changed our minds and decided to stay in the EU would find a way to revoke it. £10 billion a year and the chance to sell us all that stuff is all the legality they need.

[Strokes]

3 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Call Sturgeons bluff. Put a referendum bill through parliament and watch them lose it and thus lose their mandate for Scotland staying in the EU. After that we can get on with out lives without that dreadful womens face on at me every other day.

If she did win, we could get trump to quote for rebuilding Hadrians wall 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

If we changed our minds and decided to stay in the EU would find a way to revoke it. £10 billion a year and the chance to sell us all that stuff is all the legality they need.

 

 

Scenes in 18 months time when the European Court confirms that European law allows the UK to revoke Article 50.

Then the UK Supreme Court confirms that this is a decision for Parliament.

Then, by a margin of 1 vote, Parliament orders the Government to revoke Article 50. 

 

"Is that Tim Farron and Caroline Lucas carrying Ken Clarke shoulder high from the chamber, while an emotional Anna Soubry, Nicola Sturgeon and Martin McGuinness embrace, with Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson looking on from the gallery?" 

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

If she did win, we could get trump to quote for rebuilding Hadrians wall 

Rather get the Panamanians to build a big canal through Northumberland.

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Rather get the Panamanians to build a big canal through Northumberland.

That's a fair point, I've not seen many ginger swimmers.

[Thracian]

It's not impossible we'll end up in a civil war over this. The referendum was demonstrably in favour of our leaving the EU. Remainders are determined to block the process. Put simply the minority are trying to dictate to the majority vote in a democracy. It takes the piss and should be illegal.

 

Sturgeon is no less a piss-taker. She's lost one vote on Independence and would clearly be happy to have 100 votes until she gets her own way and then wouldn't dream of sanctioning any further vote.  

 

That's not democracy. It's bullying by the most vociferous.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Thracian said:

It's not impossible we'll end up in a civil war over this. The referendum was demonstrably in favour of our leaving the EU. Remainders are determined to block the process. Put simply the minority are trying to dictate to the majority vote in a democracy. It takes the piss and should be illegal.

 

[...]

 

That's not democracy. It's bullying by the most vociferous.

 

 

 

The truth is the diametrical opposite of what you say.

 

Very, very few Remainers are determined to block the process. Both Labour & Lib Dems have said they won't block the triggering of Article 50, which might well be irrevocable and which could otherwise only be revoked by the UK Parliament. Remainers simply want proper democratic scrutiny of the process, a democratic say over the priorities and a vote in parliament on the final deal (which May has already promised). 

 

The referendum was demonstrably in favour of our leaving the EU - and that should be honoured, unless there is an unexpected and massive turnaround in public mood before the 2-year notice period ends.

But the referendum was NOT demonstrably in favour of any particular terms for Brexit. It is only democratic for our democratically-elected representatives to have a say over the negotiating priorities and final terms of departure.

 

The anti-democratic bullies are those Brexiters who seek to use their narrow mandate for Brexit in order to impose particularly harsh terms for which they have no mandate whatsoever - and who object to parliamentary debate and scrutiny because they do not really care about democracy and are only interested in getting their way so as to impose their extremist terms on the 48.1% minority who opposed Brexit - and on a probable majority who would have opposed us leaving the Single Market.

[Thracian]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The truth is the diametrical opposite of what you say.

 

Very, very few Remainers are determined to block the process. Both Labour & Lib Dems have said they won't block the triggering of Article 50, which might well be irrevocable and which could otherwise only be revoked by the UK Parliament. Remainers simply want proper democratic scrutiny of the process, a democratic say over the priorities and a vote in parliament on the final deal (which May has already promised). 

 

The referendum was demonstrably in favour of our leaving the EU - and that should be honoured, unless there is an unexpected and massive turnaround in public mood before the 2-year notice period ends.

But the referendum was NOT demonstrably in favour of any particular terms for Brexit. It is only democratic for our democratically-elected representatives to have a say over the negotiating priorities and final terms of departure.

 

The anti-democratic bullies are those Brexiters who seek to use their narrow mandate for Brexit in order to impose particularly harsh terms for which they have no mandate whatsoever - and who object to parliamentary debate and scrutiny because they do not really care about democracy and are only interested in getting their way so as to impose their extremist terms on the 48.1% minority who opposed Brexit - and on a probable majority who would have opposed us leaving the Single Market.

Remainers want to Remain and will do all they can to bring that about whatever anyone says in public. And you're far too bright not to know that. 

 

Comment on what the more-than-a-million and multi-regional majority actually wanted from Brexit is entirely speculative along with any judgement about extremism/narrow-mindedness or anything else that might irritate those with a different but majority-opposed opinion.     

 

I'm genuinely loathe to say it but you seem exactly iike Sturgeon in that you'd seem to welcome another referendum and perhaps another and another until the Remain viewpoint won and then you'd never want another. Am I right? If not I'll happily withdraw the point but don't you see - and I say this as a disbeliever in democracy because even a majority can do the wrong thing - the stalling tactics are entirely designed to dilute the terms of our leaving the EU to the point where it hardly seems like we're leaving at all.      

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The anti-democratic bullies are those Brexiters who seek to use their narrow mandate for Brexit in order to impose particularly harsh terms for which they have no mandate whatsoever - and who object to parliamentary debate and scrutiny because they do not really care about democracy and are only interested in getting their way so as to impose their extremist terms on the 48.1% minority who opposed Brexit - and on a probable majority who would have opposed us leaving the Single Market.

Every poll we find now shows a comfortable majority for leaving the single market, one poll at yougov had less than 20% wanting to stay in it now, probable majority?!

 

What is the government trying to do that they have no mandate for? At a push the tax reforms threatened but that's more post Brexit policy than anything. 

[Barky]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Every poll we find now shows a comfortable majority for leaving the single market, one poll at yougov had less than 20% wanting to stay in it now, probable majority?!

 

What is the government trying to do that they have no mandate for? At a push the tax reforms threatened but that's more post Brexit policy than anything. 

Link to that poll?

 

According to this one from last week well over 60% are opposed to a hard brexit

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/16/public-split-what-kind-brexit-they-think-governmen/

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Thracian said:

Remainers want to Remain and will do all they can to bring that about whatever anyone says in public. And you're far too bright not to know that. 

 

Comment on what the more-than-a-million and multi-regional majority actually wanted from Brexit is entirely speculative along with any judgement about extremism/narrow-mindedness or anything else that might irritate those with a different but majority-opposed opinion.     

 

I'm genuinely loathe to say it but you seem exactly iike Sturgeon in that you'd seem to welcome another referendum and perhaps another and another until the Remain viewpoint won and then you'd never want another. Am I right? If not I'll happily withdraw the point but don't you see - and I say this as a disbeliever in democracy because even a majority can do the wrong thing - the stalling tactics are entirely designed to dilute the terms of our leaving the EU to the point where it hardly seems like we're leaving at all.      

 

I genuinely think your first point is groundless. I'm sure that it applies to a minority, but most Remainers now reluctantly accept Brexit and merely seek to influence the terms of exit.

 

I largely agree with your second point. There are different opinions and no clear mandate for any particular terms that you might prefer or that I might prefer. So, as a believer in democracy (despite its imperfections) parliamentary debate and scrutiny seems the way forward. As a "disbeliever in democracy" I'm not sure why you're complaining about the supposed undemocratic ways of Remainers! 

 

I said nothing about further referendums - again, you're making groundless assumptions. I know the Lib Dems favour a second referendum on the terms, but I really can't see that happening. It wouldn't be practical or advisable, surely? And neither the Tories nor Labour support it. Referendums take a lot of organisation. Any deal negotiated after 18 months will be super-complex - and there might not even be any deal to have a referendum on. A parliamentary vote on the terms seems a better idea.

 

I ended up, on balance, in the Remain camp, so regret - but accept - the referendum outcome. But I'm not as partisan as you think. A couple of weeks before the referendum, I genuinely thought that I might vote Leave due to dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the EU. I now expect Brexit to happen. I hold out a tiny hope that, in 18 months time, the mood of the nation might have changed drastically, which is why I keep raising the issue as to whether the UK can revoke Article 50 within the next 2 years. That's the only circumstance in which I can imagine Brexit not happening - if the public looks into the abyss over the next 18 months, changes its mind and Parliament is able to revoke Article 50 (still unclear whether this is even possible). Even that might require an early general election. If there is no dramatic public mood change, I assume that Brexit will happen and the debate is only over negotiating priorities and final terms.

[Barky]

19 minutes ago, Barky said:

Link to that poll?

 

According to this one from last week well over 60% are opposed to a hard brexit

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/16/public-split-what-kind-brexit-they-think-governmen/

And this one shows just 34% support for leaving the single market - a landslide.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/18/public-back-brexit-plan-think-eu-will-nix-it/

 

The government get a pasting in the detail there as well - practically no confidence in their handling of brexit and most are convinced it will have negative influence on jobs and wealth.

[Alf Bentley]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

Every poll we find now shows a comfortable majority for leaving the single market, one poll at yougov had less than 20% wanting to stay in it now, probable majority?!

 

What is the government trying to do that they have no mandate for? At a push the tax reforms threatened but that's more post Brexit policy than anything. 

 

I'll leave you and @Barky to debate current polls about the single market, though polls at the time of the referendum would be more relevant. Vote Leave clearly thought that leaving the single market was a vote-loser as (Gove apart) they spent months obfuscating about it, avoiding the issue and failing to give clear answers about it. Given how close the vote was, I'm confident that if they'd clearly proclaimed their desire to leave the single market, Remain would have won. Most Brexit supporters would still have voted Leave due to immigration and "taking back control", but just 2% switching to Remain would have changed the outcome.

 

The fact is that there has been no referendum or democratic debate about leaving the single market, just an announcement by May. There is no mandate to leave the single market - or to stay in it, for that matter.

So, it's a valid and important issue for parliamentary debate. 

[Guest MattP]

25 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'll leave you and @Barky to debate current polls about the single market, though polls at the time of the referendum would be more relevant. Vote Leave clearly thought that leaving the single market was a vote-loser as (Gove apart) they spent months obfuscating about it, avoiding the issue and failing to give clear answers about it. Given how close the vote was, I'm confident that if they'd clearly proclaimed their desire to leave the single market, Remain would have won. Most Brexit supporters would still have voted Leave due to immigration and "taking back control", but just 2% switching to Remain would have changed the outcome.

 

The fact is that there has been no referendum or democratic debate about leaving the single market, just an announcement by May. There is no mandate to leave the single market - or to stay in it, for that matter.

So, it's a valid and important issue for parliamentary debate. 

I've got Barky on ignore, not something I like to do but as soon as peope come out with the tiresome "Everyone who disagrees with me or votes is different is thick or of low intellect" - I can't be bothered with it.

 

Maybe they did think it was a vote loser, but in debates and interviews in front of millions of people, not just Gove, but Leadsom and Johnson (yes they were being pushed, but they still finally said it) also stated quite clearly that a vote to Leave meant leaving the single market, there was no obfuscation by the end, in addition to David Cameron and George Osborne, the only person I can think of who retained the belief we could stay in from leave was Dan Hannan and he never said we could during the actual campaign.

 

Do you really think that would have been enough to swing it? 2% looks little but it's well over a million votes in reality because of the turnout, even if all those people missed all the leave campaigners saying we would leave the single market I doubt it would have been enough to turn the result, anyway, we'll never know.

 

I can't remember another incident in politics where numerous people from across both sides of the argument explicity claimed something yet there can still be any doubt over it. Even more so when the European Union has now made it even clearer that the four freedoms still have to be adhered to if we wanted to stay in it. I do feel we are going around in circles on this and are never going to agree so I'll leave it at that.

 

Maybe the best thing to do is call a General Election, May can go to the public then saying she needs the mandate to take us out because she wants to control immigration, uphold the supremacy of our courts and to do our own trade deals with the World, then the parties who want to give up all that to stay in the single market can fight for it and we'll see what the result is.