Brexit - the next steps

[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 do you think that if a majority preferred to stay in the EU than supported any of the brexit options on offer that we should be forced down a path not supported by the public on the basis on a vote 2 and a half years ago on a nominal brexit rather than an actual one.

It is going to take years, if not decades, to heal the rifts and resentments caused by the 2016 vote. The only way to damp down that resentment is to ensure that what is finally enacted (deal, no deal or remain) is clearly supported by a majority of the electorate. Any other will simply further fuel resentment.

[JP]

When there is a general election the party that wins the vote forms the next government, that is the result if that vote is respected and under normal circumstances there will not be another for the next five years.

Not even near a comparison.

Stay in the EU should not be on any future ballot paper.

[ProfessorDavey]

Stay in the EU should not be on any future ballot paper.

So even if now a majority wanted to stay we should be forced to leave against the current will of the people - what a bizarre notion of democracy.

[JP]

So even if now a majority wanted to stay we should be forced to leave against the current will of the people - what a bizarre notion of democracy.

So in a general election do you think we should not let the vote winner take power for a year or two as in this time there may not be a majority for them to do so?

[jakswan]

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

I don't see how they can be exactly the same as treaties are different, I'll concede the point, I've little issue with immigration.

[jakswan]

So you are not a democrat.

I've never felt betrayed because of a democratic result.

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.

Nope it was always clear that was not going to happen.

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.

That might wash I doubt it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see how they can be exactly the same as treaties are different, I'll concede the point, I've little issue with immigration.

They are exactly the same, because the overarching issue is the single market which is 'owned' not by the EU or EFTA, but by the EEA. The rules apply in exactly the same manner to all EEA member states, regardless of whether they are EU or EFTA.

It worries me that you are so adamant that Norway/EFTA is the answer, yet you don't actually seem to understand what this means.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've never felt betrayed because of a democratic result.

So you would be OK then if there is a decision to hold a referendum with remain on the ballot paper and remain wins.

[ProfessorDavey]

So in a general election do you think we should not let the vote winner take power for a year or two as in this time there may not be a majority for them to do so?

General elections are time limited - so yes I wouldn't be comfortable with the notion of electing a government and not being clear when I would reverse that decision. And note that a mandate is needed to change things, not to keep them the same. So a government only retains a mandate to change things for a specific period of time. Most democracies define that period as 4/5 years. It is very unlikely we will have a final brexit position in place within 4/5 years of the June 2016 vote.

[jakswan]

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.

I think many rermainers do not take any responsibility for losing.I think a lot of the reasons for Brexit are that people did feel disenfranchised, when the establishment in quite a condescending way encouraged them to vote a certain many thought they would stick two fingers up. After that they told them that they didn't understand what they were voting for and were a bunch of racists, and now the establishment wants to try to justify asking again because they made the wrong decision last time.

I warn you it will be messy, it is more uncertainty and prolongs the division, lets get the question, what did you want that to be? May's deal can't be on the ballot, it's a transition only, you will have to ask the same question again.

What if you win by the same margin, well its 1-1, lets go again. What if leave win, we still don't know what the final deal will be, oh lets have another vote on that but remain has to be on the ballot.

Telling you are advocating removing peoples right to vote because you don't like them.

People voted for a variety of reason I wanted an end to political union, am I part of the 'far right' in your mind?

[jakswan]

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.

Agree with this my concern isn't over violence it is the potential for extremist political ideologies take hold. I did think UKIP were a bit toxic and the referendum was the way that the main parties got rid of them, because they are now an irrelevance, they could come back or something worse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-46424511/system-resistance-network-far-right-group-recruits-in-wales

[ProfessorDavey]

What if you win by the same margin, well its 1-1, lets go again.

Actually it already is 1-1.

But the reality is that a new referendum wouldn't be a re-run of a straight remain-hypothetical leave choice. It will be entirely different, it will be a vote to determine an actual deal not a hypothetical one. So it isn't the same as the previous two remain-hypothetic leave votes.

A good analogy is the moving house one. You might make a decision that you don't like where you live and want to move. However once you've made that decision you discover that there aren't any properties on the market that are better than the one you already live in (a real choice, not a hypothetical one) at that point should you be obliged to move due to your earlier decision. Of course you shouldn't be. If when faced with real choices you decide your current house is better after all, then you should stay.

[jakswan]

It is going to take years, if not decades, to heal the rifts and resentments caused by the 2016 vote. The only way to damp down that resentment is to ensure that what is finally enacted (deal, no deal or remain) is clearly supported by a majority of the electorate. Any other will simply further fuel resentment.

Say again, I'm liberal slightly right wing former LibDem member, April 1st, you want Norway, I want Norway, where is the problem?

[jakswan]

Actually it already is 1-1.

No, its
1. We vote to join - we join
2. We vote to leave - erm lets have another go.

But the reality is that a new referendum wouldn't be a re-run of a straight remain-hypothetical leave choice. It will be entirely different, it will be a vote to determine an actual deal not a hypothetical one. So it isn't the same as the previous two remain-hypothetic leave votes.

Again, a logical position,but what follows is that we should leave then vote not on the transitional arrangement but on the final deal.

A good analogy is the moving house one. You might make a decision that you don't like where you live and want to move. However once you've made that decision you discover that there aren't any properties on the market that are better than the one you already live in (a real choice, not a hypothetical one) at that point should you be obliged to move due to your earlier decision. Of course you shouldn't be. If when faced with real choices you decide your current house is better after all, then you should stay.

That is not a good analogy, it was made clear at the time, from the Government leaflet:-

Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.
But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that

[ProfessorDavey]

Say again, I'm liberal slightly right wing former LibDem member, April 1st, you want Norway, I want Norway, where is the problem?

The 1975 vote (which was pretty well a landslide) lead to simmering resentment over decades, largely because 'what we voted for changed' - yes it did, but it was a very gently transition over years and year. The change from what was promised in 2016 has happened over months - remember all those promises from the vote Leave side.

Sure Common market of 1975 changed over the 41 years to 2016, but the promised brexit has changed just as much in far less than 41 months - we have gone from the world of milk and honey, to a damage limitation where we should be happy if there are medicines available.

And no I don't want Norway.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, its
1. We vote to join - we join
2. We vote to leave - erm lets have another go.

FFS Jakswan - I think you need to get up to speed on the facts.

First you admit you have no idea of what Norway/EFTA actually means despite espousing it.

Secondly you claim that:

1. We vote to join - we join

We never voted to join. Heath took us into the common market in 1973 - there was no referendum. The referendum of 1975 was whether to remain in the common market - effectively identical to the 2016 referendum. the exact wording of the two referendums:

1975:
Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

2016
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

[jakswan]

So you would be OK then if there is a decision to hold a referendum with remain on the ballot paper and remain wins.

Me? Yes of course, I wanted an end to political union, I never felt Tusk etc is properly held to account. The Uk isn't perfect but our media do hold politicians to account, so its not that big an issue to me. I didn't buy the completely OTT doom and gloom forecasts which essentially said we would grow slower, and EFTA means the impact would be minimal. Lets not do that debate again though. 

I would be really concerned with UKIP or something worse appearing on the scene though.

[jakswan]

FFS Jakswan - I think you need to get up to speed on the facts.

First you admit you have no idea of what Norway/EFTA actually means despite espousing it.

Secondly you claim that:

1. We vote to join - we join

We never voted to join. Heath took us into the common market in 1973 - there was no referendum. The referendum of 1975 was whether to remain in the common market - effectively identical to the 2016 referendum. the exact wording of the two referendums:

1975:
Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

2016
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

FFS Davey keep your hair on, it does not materially change my point.

Vote 1 - Do you want to stay - Yes - we stayed
Vote 2 - Do you want to leave - Yes - erm lets have another go

I've admitted nothing I'm not debating an issue which I don't really care that much about so I conceded the point, I know you like to score points, I'm not doing this to score points.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would be really concerned with UKIP or something worse appearing on the scene though.

The best way to achieve that is to deliver either a super-soft brexit (which they wouldn't consider brexit) without a specific democratic mandate via a referendum, or to decide to remain without a specific democratic mandate via a referendum.

A democratic mandate for whatever is enacted via a specific referendum bursts their bubble. Don't get me wrong they will still rail against, but their credibility in doing so is massively reduced.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've admitted nothing I'm not debating an issue which I don't really care that much about so I conceded the point, I know you like to score points, I'm not doing this to score points.

You seem to care an awful lot about Norway/EFTA - it's largely all you've discussed recently. It isn't unreasonable to expect you to understand what that actually means, yet you don't.

[Gordon]

So in a general election do you think we should not let the vote winner take power for a year or two as in this time there may not be a majority for them to do so?

In a GE you are presented with manifestos from the competing political parties, you can vote for your preference and on your expectation as regards how specific political parties would cope with events, and you will have the option to support or vote against your choice in due course depending on your updated assessment of their competence - in effect you have the chance to change your mind based on the current situation as the next GE approaches as opposed to the situation just prior to when the last GE was held.

The 2016 EU referendum was a one-issue vote, where those who voted Leave did so, presumably, on the basis that they approved of the idea of Brexit since, in the absence of a risk assessment available or policy outline, nobody in 2016 knew what Brexit would actually entail: I certainly don't recall ' NI backstop' being bandied around two and a bit years ago. So now that more is known about Brexit it would be quite reasonable to check that the electorate still wanted to proceed on the basis of the information now available as opposed to what their feeling was when there was no information available to them.

One of those speaking in Westminster during the debate the other day commented that the sell-by date for 2016 referendum was long gone given details of 'the deal': as such, there is an argument for voting again since there is now enough information available so as to permit an informed decision regarding Brexit, as opposed an the uninformed decision taken in 2016. Even now, as MPs are about to vote, what form Brexit will actually take (if it goes ahead) remains unknown - and if this doesn't worry the Brexit enthusiasts it may be that they've moved from enthusiasm to zealotry.

[jakswan]

You seem to care an awful lot about Norway/EFTA - it's largely all you've discussed recently. It isn't unreasonable to expect you to understand what that actually means, yet you don't.

Non-sense.

[jakswan]

In a GE you are presented with manifestos from the competing political parties, you can vote for your preference and on your expectation as regards how specific political parties would cope with events, and you will have the option to support or vote against your choice in due course depending on your updated assessment of their competence - in effect you have the chance to change your mind based on the current situation as the next GE approaches as opposed to the situation just prior to when the last GE was held.

The 2016 EU referendum was a one-issue vote, where those who voted Leave did so, presumably, on the basis that they approved of the idea of Brexit since, in the absence of a risk assessment available or policy outline, nobody in 2016 knew what Brexit would actually entail: I certainly don't recall ' NI backstop' being bandied around two and a bit years ago. So now that more is known about Brexit it would be quite reasonable to check that the electorate still wanted to proceed on the basis of the information now available as opposed to what their feeling was when there was no information available to them.

One of those speaking in Westminster during the debate the other day commented that the sell-by date for 2016 referendum was long gone given details of 'the deal': as such, there is an argument for voting again since there is now enough information available so as to permit an informed decision regarding Brexit, as opposed an the uninformed decision taken in 2016. Even now, as MPs are about to vote, what form Brexit will actually take (if it goes ahead) remains unknown - and if this doesn't worry the Brexit enthusiasts it may be that they've moved from enthusiasm to zealotry.

This will apply to any Scotland independence vote as well I presume?

Scotland votes Leave, rUk does something you don't expect, another vote will be fine?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm rather entertained by this notion that we are choosing between Norway or Canada - with each supplemented by ++++, --- etc.

This is just a media construct largely driven by the notion that Norway and Canada as countries are ones we warm to.

The reality - we aren't talking about Norway at all, but:

Norway - Schengen
Norway + customs union (needed for NI)
Norway - single market as that required freedom of movement
Norway - EFTA as that isn't in the gift of the UK or EU

So we have Norway+---, which is effectively identical to ... err ... Turkey. So why don't we call it as it is - or is it perhaps not media and public friendly enough to suggest we want Turkey!

[ProfessorDavey]

Non-sense.

Which part:

That you haven't been banging on about Norway/EFTA - which I think a quick check of your recent post will prove to be the case.

Or that you don't understand Norway/EFTA - which again is demonstrably true as you clearly didn't realise that the Norway/EFTA situation on freedom of movement is identical to the EU. It matters not whether you care about migration, it demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about.