An open letter to Nigel Farage

[jeremyp]

Michael Heseltine was on tv this morning. He said that the withdrawal negotiations should be done by those who wanted to withdraw in the first place. Hence, the negotiators for exit should be Messrs Johnson, Gove and Farage. When their negotiations are complete, their proposals should be put to the nation in a second referendum.

It can't be done. Negotiations won't even start until we have committed to leave.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Don't know. Optimally you'd want to complete the negotiations and have the vote, and only if it was a "yes" hit the Art 50 button to set Brexit in train without further ado. Presumably the response would be, "but we can't negotiate in the first place without Art 50 being invoked" but given the trauma to all parties I'd have thought some practical solution could be devised.

Don't think you can have formal negotiations without Article 50. The problem with any 'practical' solution is that it would seem likely to be a illegal one. In addition, I am not sure that dependent on the results of negotiations, it would not trigger other referendums as a change to the overall treaty with other members.

[Bubbles]

I think he also mentioned that the deal whenever it is sorted, will need the approval of the commons, and the vast majority there (at the moment) favour remain, so they can just reject it?

I think they can reject it, because it isn't actually binding.

But I think they think it's political suicide for someone to do.

The scary thought is it could whip up an ugly scene with the leave supporters who might riot, there  is rather a lot of them, just to be ignored.

I thought we didn't do " revolution " in the UK, but I'm not so sure anymore. 

The danger then is the next election we might find a real " nutter " getting voted in because people want a leader that will hit back and represent them rather than ignore them and do what they want anyway

Plus our relationship with the EU seems buggered now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36630326

I'm sure her comments about it not having a need to be nasty has its roots somewhere.

Plus would the EU be prepared to work with us if we renage on a diplomatic vote?

I think we would lose even more respect in Europe.

Not sure what the answer is, but I'm not sure that's it 

[Bubbles]

Don't think you can have formal negotiations without Article 50. The problem with any 'practical' solution is that it would seem likely to be a illegal one. In addition, I am not sure that dependent on the results of negotiations, it would not trigger other referendums as a change to the overall treaty with other members.

Yes it's a bit like " which came first, the chicken or the egg"

I also read once they trigger it, that's it.

It's unreversable

[jeremyp]

Yes it's a bit like " which came first, the chicken or the egg"

I also read once they trigger it, that's it.

It's unreversable

We can't have negotiations until we trigger article 50. Once we do that, leaving is irreversible. If Parliament fails to ratify whatever agreement the negotiators come up with, we are still out, but we are out without a trade deal with the EU.

[Gordon]

We can't have negotiations until we trigger article 50. Once we do that, leaving is irreversible. If Parliament fails to ratify whatever agreement the negotiators come up with, we are still out, but we are out without a trade deal with the EU.

It seems that way, so somebody has to find a legal and democratic way to stop Article 50 being activated.

[Nearly Sane]

It seems that way, so somebody has to find a legal and democratic way to stop Article 50 being activated.

Govt writes a letter. There isn't an issue.

[Bubbles]

This would need to be done before Article 50 was activated since it isn't known if the EU would be prepared to negotiate any arrangements prior to Article 50 being activated - without Article 50 they might be more inclined to let us wallow in our self-inflicted mess.

Leaving aside the issue of Scotland for now, I'd have thought the only way to rescind this madness would be via an appropriate democratic processes, such as a General election where one or more of the parties stood on a manifesto of voiding the referendum - I think Michael Heseltine suggested something along those lines - which if they won enough seats would be a democratic mandate to stop Article 50 dead in its tracks.

Of course, given Labour's continued implosion, this would probably requite a split of the Tory party into two, so that the current Tory pro EU element could combine with the other pro EU parties to stop Brexit - if they got enough seats.

Or something like that.

The trouble is the political parties are a mess ATM and the danger is someone like Hitler rides in on the reasons and fears that got us the Brexit in the first place.

I think it's worrying for us to have an election in the present vacuum.

Tying it up with the EU could trigger something worse, especially if people feel their original vote is being sabotaged.

It's a right mess.

[Gordon]

Tying it up with the EU could trigger something worse, especially if people feel their original vote is being sabotaged.

You mean like us in Scotland!

[BeRational]

Could we not just rename the whole thing Scotland, and then stay in?

[Bubbles]

We can't have negotiations until we trigger article 50. Once we do that, leaving is irreversible. If Parliament fails to ratify whatever agreement the negotiators come up with, we are still out, but we are out without a trade deal with the EU.

Yes I know.

Once we start article 50 we are stuck with whatever crappy deal we can get.

The only thing I can think is they see what trade deals can be negotiated outside the EU.

But we might not be able to do that either, as we are bound by the EU.

We could negotiate with countries outside the EU I suppose if the EU cut us some slack.

It might help a bit.

See if we can

[jeremyp]

It seems that way, so somebody has to find a legal and democratic way to stop Article 50 being activated.

The legal way to stop article 50 from being activated is to not trigger article 50. There is no legal obligation for any government to act on the referendum result.

The democratic way to stop it would be to have another referendum but that shouldn't happen without overwhelming evidence that the People would vote the other way. Another democratic way would be for the next PM to call a general election and then have "triggering article 50" as a manifesto issue.

[Bubbles]

You mean like us in Scotland!

No I actually meant that it might act as a incentive for people to vote for racist elements in England.

I find that worrying.

I'm sure you don't want to be attached to that either.

We need to sort this mess out, before we can look at Scotland.

A rushed  independence isn't good either, especially ATM.

[Bubbles]

The legal way to stop article 50 from being activated is to not trigger article 50. There is no legal obligation for any government to act on the referendum result.

The democratic way to stop it would be to have another referendum but that shouldn't happen without overwhelming evidence that the People would vote the other way. Another democratic way would be for the next PM to call a general election and then have "triggering article 50" as a manifesto issue.

The leaders of the EU already seem pissed off with us

The leaders of the EU’s institutions, notably Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, are taking a hard line against the British.

On Friday, Juncker bluntly told a defeated David Cameron over the phone that, as the British decision was crystal clear, the prime minister should get on with triggering article 50 to launch negotiations as soon as possible. Sharing this view is Martin Schulz, the president of the European parliament, who has voiced outrage that the Conservative party “is holding the continent hostage”.



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/brexit-key-european-players-angela-merkel-eu

All what you are suggesting takes time and I've got a horrible feeling we haven't got the sympathy of the rest of the EU for that to work.

It's like being pushed off a cliff.

[jeremyp]

The leaders of the EU already seem pissed off with us

All what you are suggesting takes time and I've got a horrible feeling we haven't got the sympathy of the rest of the EU for that to work.

It's like being pushed off a cliff.

I was just stating the facts as they related to a question that was asked.

Yes, the EU leaders are pissed off. We've just kicked them in the bollocks. However, ultimately, they want us in the EU.

[Gordon]

We need to sort this mess out, before we can look at Scotland.

A rushed  independence isn't good either, especially ATM.

Some of us Scots think otherwise.

[Bubbles]

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/

[Bubbles]

Some of us Scots think otherwise.

It's bad timing ATM.

Some Scots might not think so, but it is.

 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

Just for the record and I will post this on all the threads concerning Brexit, why? It has to be shouted loud and clear.

This whole debacle, this absolute mess, this catastrophe lies at the feet of the Conservative Party, this EU Referendum was a party political stunt, it never had the thoughts and wishes of the people of Great Britain uppermost.

We now have a nation divided, the Scots are shouting Independence, Northern Ireland are also talking about joining the Republic and both those countries are now wondering about border controls.

Our Capital city ( London ) voted overwhelmingly to remain the rest of England voted to exit, we now have a nation totally divided, our nation is in turmoil because of Tory infighting.

Our Prime Minister ( a Tory ) has washed his hands of the whole mess, we are now left with Tories who don’t have a clue about a way forward.

I have often said that ( long before we even considered a EU Referendum )  the Tory party is the most unchristian, unBritish party we have.

Time for the Conservative Party to disband, give them their marching orders, we a fed up with a party that plays politics, that plays with the life’s of every citizen of Great Britain, they have forfeited the right to stand in our House of Commons, the only thing that mattered to a Tory was the Conservative Party the rights of a British citizen came second, they are a boil on the backside of Great Britain, time to lance that boil.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

It can't be done. Negotiations won't even start until we have committed to leave.

Anything can be done with sufficient will of the participants. If the rule is, "no negotiations until Art 50 is invoked" then it's not beyond the wit of man for the Council of Ministers to decide that the European Parliament should pass emergency legislation for "Art 50 light" whereby serious negotiations can occur but cannot be implemented until "Art 50 heavy" is invoked. The "should Art 50 heavy be invoked" would then be the question for the final referendum, or perhaps a manifesto issue at a general election. 

[Bubbles]

This is an interesting link and is a Americans guide to Brexit

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/american-guide-to-brexit-uk-leave-vote-eu-britain


It reckons the sun said the Queen approves of us leaving Europe.

Not heard that before.

(It's standing outside, looking back in.

Always interesting to see ourselves as others see us.)

 

This made me smile, especially the picture of Boris Johnson

Conservative MPs will get a list of names down to two, then the 150,000 members of the party will have the final say. Whether the MPs allow Cameron to stay in power until October, or force the process to begin earlier, remains to be seen. The former mayor of London, Boris Johnson – a charismatic but shifty politician who has, it appears, successfully bet his career on backing the leave side – is the favourite.

He does look shifty in that photo, lol.

The Americans seem to have such a "quaint " picture of us.

It's like being portrayed as living in Trumpton.

And here is Mr Johnson, the shifty looking mayor from London ........

[Bubbles]

jeremy,

Anything can be done with sufficient will of the participants. If the rule is, "no negotiations until Art 50 is invoked" then it's not beyond the wit of man for the Council of Ministers to decide that the European Parliament should pass emergency legislation for "Art 50 light" whereby serious negotiations can occur but cannot be implemented until "Art 50 heavy" is invoked. The "should Art 50 heavy be invoked" would then be the question for the final referendum, or perhaps a manifesto issue at a general election.

Article 50 lite

I like it.

But you have to convince those grumpy people in the EU 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Don't think you can have formal negotiations without Article 50. The problem with any 'practical' solution is that it would seem likely to be a illegal one. In addition, I am not sure that dependent on the results of negotiations, it would not trigger other referendums as a change to the overall treaty with other members.

Rules can be changed. My sense is that the out vote is still very "protesty" - if a specific package of arrangements are on the table post negotiation when potential leavers could actually see what thy'd be voting for that seems to me to be a much better basis on which to decide in or out.

As for other members, yes it might but would that be such a bad thing? I quite like the idea of several Member States causing the whole thing to be re-made along more democratic, free-market based lines. As things stand though, the current situation - UK out so it can't change anything, the rest of the EU carrying on as before - seems to me to be the worst answer of all. 

[Jack Knave]

Vey interesting piece from the Guardian comments section today:

"If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
"

I don't think Boris ever wanted to win. It was just a gesture for his leadership ambitions.

[floo]

If Boris does win I hope he is taken, kicking and screaming if necessary, to a decent barber!