Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

How many referendums would you have before you can be really sure what the people want? Best of three's perhaps... or five?! 

When more than half have voted one way....if it is reversed....don't you think there will be significant civil unrest and riots?!

But if this happens after a referendum, by definition more than half of voters would have voted to remain - and in a more recent vote.

Frankly I'm struggling to see how there is any way forward that wont risk significant unrest. The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum.

[jakswan]

But Sriram, this referendum was - legally - only advisory, not binding. In addition, its purpose was to manage the parliamentary Conservative Party.

No stop the rise of UKIP since LibDems and Labour all voted for it.

I doubt that there will be any rioting or disturbance in the event of a "Remain" result in any future poll.

I hope that doesn't happen but something worse than UKIP could emerge.

[jakswan]

And EU (and other EFTA state) citizens will be able to live and work in the UK, exactly as they do now. In other words no change to freedom of movement. How do you think that is going to go down with the majority of brexiteers.

Not true, freedom of movement of Labour you do not get citizenship in EFTA.

[jakswan]

The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum.

Leave the EU it is then!

[ProfessorDavey]

Leave the EU it is then!

How do you work that one out - we haven't had a vote on any specific brexit deal, and there are 2 on offer - May's deal and no deal.

If there is a referendum and one of those options gets a majority, then leave the EU it is then. But currently we have no idea whether there is a majority mandate in the country for either May's deal or no deal, compared to remaining in the EU.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not true, freedom of movement of Labour you do not get citizenship in EFTA.

Nor do you in the EU - stop talking non-sense.

[jakswan]

How do you work that one out - we haven't had a vote on any specific brexit deal, and there are 2 on offer - May's deal and no deal.

May's deal is transitional, so actually to properly follow your position.

The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum, so we have May's deal for the transition then negotiate the final deal and have a referendum on that. 

If there is a referendum and one of those options gets a majority, then leave the EU it is then. But currently we have no idea whether there is a majority mandate in the country for either May's deal or no deal, compared to remaining in the EU.

There is majority mandate to leave though so lets leave then we can have a vote the final deal.

[jakswan]

Nor do you in the EU - stop talking non-sense.

Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of European Union member states. It was given to the citizens of member states by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, at the same time as the European Community was gaining its own legal identity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of European Union member states. It was given to the citizens of member states by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, at the same time as the European Community was gaining its own legal identity.

'Historically, the main benefit of being a citizen of an EU country has been that of free movement. The free movement also applies to the citizens of European Economic Area countries[23] and Switzerland'

In other words the freedom to live and work is identical between all EEA member countries (i.e. both those in the EU and EFTA) - there is no difference in freedom of movement rights between Norway and the UK - except that Norway, along with all other EFTA countries, are in Schengen.

You continually imply that somehow being like Norway would allow us to restrict freedom of movement - it wouldn't, the rules would be exactly the same as those that currently apply to us as a member of the EU.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is majority mandate to leave ...

Noting your inappropriate use of the present tense.

Is there - there was two and a half years ago, but a huge amount has happened since then, not least demographic shift. How can you know there is majority mandate to leave now. You don't, but you could find out by holding a referendum at the point at which we are about to leave.

But you are being disingenuous - the nebulous notion of 'leave' is irrelevant now - we've moved way beyond that - the agenda now is the specific way we leave, the deal (or no deal) to leave. You cannot know whether any actual leave approach has a majority mandate, because no one has asked. We cannot make the most important decision in a generation, without being absolutely certain that the actual decision (in other words the mechanism of leaving) has a mandate and has a mandate at the point when it is being enacted.

Frankly you simply come across as scared of democracy - scared that if the people were allowed to make the final decision that they might not give the answer you want.

[jakswan]

'Historically, the main benefit of being a citizen of an EU country has been that of free movement. The free movement also applies to the citizens of European Economic Area countries[23] and Switzerland'

In other words the freedom to live and work is identical between all EEA member countries (i.e. both those in the EU and EFTA) - there is no difference in freedom of movement rights between Norway and the UK - except that Norway, along with all other EFTA countries, are in Schengen.

You continually imply that somehow being like Norway would allow us to restrict freedom of movement - it wouldn't, the rules would be exactly the same as those that currently apply to us as a member of the EU.

Exactly the same but different.

[jakswan]

Noting your inappropriate use of the present tense.

Is there - there was two and a half years ago, but a huge amount has happened since then, not least demographic shift. How can you know there is majority mandate to leave now. You don't, but you could find out by holding a referendum at the point at which we are about to leave.

So do we have a referendum every two years then?

But you are being disingenuous - the nebulous notion of 'leave' is irrelevant now - we've moved way beyond that - the agenda now is the specific way we leave, the deal (or no deal) to leave. You cannot know whether any actual leave approach has a majority mandate, because no one has asked. We cannot make the most important decision in a generation, without being absolutely certain that the actual decision (in other words the mechanism of leaving) has a mandate and has a mandate at the point when it is being enacted.

I agree which I why we should take May's deal, leave, then vote on two models EFTA or Free Trade.

Frankly you simply come across as scared of democracy - scared that if the people were allowed to make the final decision that they might not give the answer you want.

I've explained why I don't want to do this again, how I come across to you is irrelevant. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Exactly the same but different.

No exactly the same:

'Free movement of persons is one of the core freedoms of the European Internal Market. This area is covered by Article 28 of the EEA Agreement, Annex V on the Free Movement of Workers and Annex VIII on the Right of Establishment. Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation.'

[ProfessorDavey]

So do we have a referendum every two years then?

Where there are decisions that take a long time to negotiate and aren't in the gift of the government calling the referendum, then yes. There should be an initial vote to provide the government with the mandate to negotiate a position and then a second vote to ratify (or not) that position.

And I am being entirely consistent as I was arguing that the Scottish independence referendum should have been 2 stage, in exactly the same manner, way back in 2014 when brexit was merely a spark in Cameron's eye.

I agree which I why we should take May's deal, leave, then vote on two models EFTA or Free Trade.

But that provides no legitimacy to a mandate as it doesn't guarantee that the decision enacted has majority support of all the available and deliverable options. So you might end up with May's deal, or no deal, or EFTA or Free trade, but you will never know whether any would be more popular that the other available option, in other words to remain.

Whatever decision is made over the next few months we have to be sure that is commands majority support compared to the other available options, and that has to include remain.

Do you think it is democratically acceptable to leave with a free trade deal (if that is the most popular deliverable brexit option) if that is less popular at the time it is enacted than remaining. If cannot be.

[jakswan]

No exactly the same:

'Free movement of persons is one of the core freedoms of the European Internal Market. This area is covered by Article 28 of the EEA Agreement, Annex V on the Free Movement of Workers and Annex VIII on the Right of Establishment. Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation.'

EEA from article 28 of EEA agreement
Freedom of movement of workers, non-economic persons are allowed SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

This does not apply to EU citizens.

Not exactly the same. 

[jakswan]

Where there are decisions that take a long time to negotiate and aren't in the gift of the government calling the referendum, then yes. There should be an initial vote to provide the government with the mandate to negotiate a position and then a second vote to ratify (or not) that position.

And I am being entirely consistent as I was arguing that the Scottish independence referendum should have been 2 stage, in exactly the same manner, way back in 2014 when brexit was merely a spark in Cameron's eye.

I don't agree but you hold a logical position, the position is consistent with have a vote on leave - leave - have a vote on deal.

But that provides no legitimacy to a mandate as it doesn't guarantee that the decision enacted has majority support of all the available and deliverable options. So you might end up with May's deal, or no deal, or EFTA or Free trade, but you will never know whether any would be more popular that the other available option, in other words to remain.

We were all well aware that another deal would have to be done post leave.

Whatever decision is made over the next few months we have to be sure that is commands majority support compared to the other available options, and that has to include remain.

Nope, leave option had in it priced in that the deal was unknown.

Do you think it is democratically acceptable to leave with a free trade deal (if that is the most popular deliverable brexit option) if that is less popular at the time it is enacted than remaining. If cannot be.

Yes the democratically elected Parliament gave us the referendum, promised to enact the result and then an election with two biggest parties with leave in their manifesto.

[ProfessorDavey]

EEA from article 28 of EEA agreement
Freedom of movement of workers, non-economic persons are allowed SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

This does not apply to EU citizens.

Yes it does - the rules are set out by the EEA and apply to all EEA member states identically regardless of whether they are EFAT members or EU members.

The certain conditions are largely:

1. Restrictions that member states can choose to apply to citizen of states that have recently joined the EEA (either via EU or EFTA) - for example as many EU countries used when Poland and other eastern european countries joined.

2. That after 3 months if a person isn't working or have sufficient independent means to support themselves and their families that they can be removed. Many countries apply this yet the UK has chosen not to.

3. Special emergency provisions

But these apply identically to EU and Efta countries

[jeremyp]

What is your argument?

The will of the people has changed therefore we must have another vote.
Everything has changed so we must have another vote.

I don't agree with either argument, we will have to agree to disagree.

So you are not a democrat.

It would not be up to leavers to decide what to do if they won.

It should have been. We should have locked the Leave leaders in a room and made them tell us what version of Brexit would be used. The whole chaos that pertains now is directly related to the fact that all of the leading Leavers abdicated their responsibility and allowed a lukewarm Remainer to take charge.

"A once in a generation decision"

That wasn’t this government. We’ve had a general election since then. This government is under no obligation to keep the promises of previous ones, unless they have legal force.

[jeremyp]

All remainers do not support another vote.

All leavers do not support not having another vote.

[jeremyp]

Not true, freedom of movement of Labour you do not get citizenship in EFTA.

You don’t get citizenship under EU rules. You don’t need citizenship because you have the right to live and work in any EU country. The same would be true under EFTA rules.

[jeremyp]

But if this happens after a referendum, by definition more than half of voters would have voted to remain - and in a more recent vote.

Frankly I'm struggling to see how there is any way forward that wont risk significant unrest. The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum.

What I find interesting is that, when the second referendum was won, there was no civil unrest except possibly some racist attacks by remaindersleavers taking things too far. This was in spite of the fact that many Remainers were extremely angry about what happened. However, now that the possibility of another referendum is there, a major argument against it is that, if Brexit loses, some of them will riot. What does that say about the mentality of these people? Perhaps we should disenfranchise* them because they do not respect the rule of law, or democracy as practised in the UK.

*I use the word “disenfranchise” in the sense of not letting them vote, not in the sense of having a vote they might lose, which seems to be the modern meaning.

[jeremyp]

There is majority mandate to leave though so lets leave then we can have a vote the final deal.

You mean there was one in June 2016. Nobody knows what the majority mandate would be now, although, as discussed above, it seems to be in favor of remain, and is likely to get more Remain over time as on average, Leavers are leaving the voting population and Remainers are joining it.

[Nearly Sane]

What I find interesting is that, when the second referendum was won, there was no civil unrest except possibly some racist attacks by remainders taking things to far. This was in spite of the fact that many Remainers were extremely angry about what happened. However, now that the possibility of another referendum is there, a major argument against it is that, if Brexit loses, some of them will riot. What does that say about the mentality of these people? Perhaps we should disenfranchise* them because they do not respect the rule of law, or democracy as practised in the UK.

*I use the word “disenfranchise” in the sense of not letting them vote, not in the sense of having a vote they might lose, which seems to be the modern meaning.

There is, as you make clear, something a bit odd with someone arguing for democracy and then saying one of the issues might be some undefined random violence. The decision on what you chose, i.e. Vote on must be about what you think is best, and if you think that others would be excessively violent then you say blackmail is fine, and democracy is pointless.

[JP]

The vote to stay or leave has taken place and in this the people voted, and the result was to leave. The current government stood on a manifesto that stated they would leave both the single market and customs union. If there is another vote it can only be on the terms of leaving, as in deal or no deal.

Reneging, call it "more democracy" or whatever you wish, will cause untold damage lasting longer than any economic hit. I voted remain but I believe a vote is a vote. It is what I grew up with and it has always been most votes take it. If there is "more democracy" I would most definately vote leave.

[ProfessorDavey]

The vote to stay or leave has taken place and in this the people voted, and the result was to leave. The current government stood on a manifesto that stated they would leave both the single market and customs union. If there is another vote it can only be on the terms of leaving, as in deal or no deal.

Reneging, call it "more democracy" or whatever you wish, will cause untold damage lasting longer than any economic hit. I voted remain but I believe a vote is a vote. It is what I grew up with and it has always been most votes take it. If there is "more democracy" I would most definately vote leave.

So I presume you believe that once we've had a general election, or local election, that we should never have another one - because a 'vote is a vote'.

The whole point about democracy is that it is a process and we have the opportunity to change our minds. And actually having a referendum on the deal wouldn't be about changing our minds, because the electorate have never been asked whether they do or not not support the deal on offer.