Brexit - the next steps

[jeremyp]

One thing I hadn't realized is that in the event of no deal, the EHIC health insurance scheme would lapse.  OK, you can get private health insurance, but that often doesn't cover existing conditions.  So people who have had a serious illness wouldn't be able to travel?   Madness.

Yep. Of course. What else would happen?

Another thing, that came as a surprise to my parents (both voted for Brexit) is that the rules that stop mobile phone operators from fleecing us with roaming charges when we are abroad will go away.

[jeremyp]

The politicians were mandated to apply, (expected to apply whatever the result of the referendum was to extricate the UK from membership of the EU or not), all of it not bits of it, the result of the 2016 referendum and a large number of them are still doing their best to renege on that mandate.

Yes, because they know it's a stupid mandate made by people who were lied to.

it makes your reference to Edmund Burke irrelevant

No it doesn't. MPs don't have to agree with the referendum result. Just because people voted for something (we still don't know exactly what), doesn't mean it has to be implemented.

[jeremyp]

Interesting point, that we get to vote again about our MP, and Boris seems keen on another election now.  But apparently the referendum was a holy and sacred relic, that can never be repeated.

Repeated again you mean. The referendum was already a repeat.

[Robbie]

Many prominent politicians believed in some issues with which many disregarded.

(Mgt Thatcher is an example - capital punishment.)

No more from me on Brexit right now, others have said better than I could say. I love reading the posts!

[Nearly Sane]

Repeated again you mean. The referendum was already a repeat.

I think there is a reasonable argument that the move from the EEC to the EU makes the 2016 a referendum on a different if related subject to the 1975 one.

[jeremyp]

I think there is a reasonable argument that the move from the EEC to the EU makes the 2016 a referendum on a different if related subject to the 1975 one.

The point is that the referendum in 2016 happened in spite of the fact that we had already had one referendum on what is now the EU. That gives the lie to the idea that we can't have a third one. The EU may not have changed much in three years but the British people have.

[Nearly Sane]

The point is that the referendum in 2016 happened in spite of the fact that we had already had one referendum on what is now the EU. That gives the lie to the idea that we can't have a third one. The EU may not have changed much in three years but the British people have.

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make, I just don't think it is a very good obe given that it doesn't seem as if the 2016 referendum was a repeat since the question had changed.

[ProfessorDavey]

So in effect, a mandate.

ippy

You do understand what a mandate is, do you Ippy.

A mandate provides authorisation for something to be done, it doesn't require that it is done. The point is that without a mandate that thing shouldn't happen, with a mandate it is allowed to happen but not required to happen.

So currently there is a mandate to leave the EU, which allows it to happen but does not require it to happen. However there is no mandate for a no-deal exit so that should not happen unless a mandate is provided. I would also argue that there is no mandate for any particular brexit deal so they also shouldn't happen without a specific mandate either.

That mandate could come via a general election (although I think that is a poor option for a single issue of major constitutional importance) but of course as no party gained an overall majority (let alone 50% of the vote) the 2017 general election does not provide that mandate. The alternative would be a mandate for either no deal or a particular deal via a referendum. But without either any particular brexit (deal or no-deal) has no mandate.

[Gordon]

Should be an interesting week coming up: if a last minute deal emerges it seems likely to include elements of May's deal that were rejected before, but since Brexit enthusiasts are desperate for some form of Brexit it might stand a chance now, though it seems there may be an attempt next Saturday to ensure that if Johnson's deal is to be approved it would be on the basis that it is subject to a confirmatory referendum.

If not then I'm gleefully looking forward to the Benn Act taking effect: ideally Johnson will fail to write a letter, the Scottish Court of Session will do it for him and they'll then decide to put him in jail - I do hope they choose Barlinnie (we can but dream).

   

[Gordon]

More on what next week might bring, and noting that a 2nd referendum may be gaining support.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/12/support-grows-for-new-brexit-poll-amid-fears-pm-plan

[jeremyp]

Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make, I just don't think it is a very good obe given that it doesn't seem as if the 2016 referendum was a repeat since the question had changed.

The question hadn't changed but the name or the organisation had, as well as some of the rules - rules that the UK was party to drafting and that the UK ratified.

[ippy]

Should be an interesting week coming up: if a last minute deal emerges it seems likely to include elements of May's deal that were rejected before, but since Brexit enthusiasts are desperate for some form of Brexit it might stand a chance now, though it seems there may be an attempt next Saturday to ensure that if Johnson's deal is to be approved it would be on the basis that it is subject to a confirmatory referendum.

If not then I'm gleefully looking forward to the Benn Act taking effect: ideally Johnson will fail to write a letter, the Scottish Court of Session will do it for him and they'll then decide to put him in jail - I do hope they choose Barlinnie (we can but dream).

I'll settle for leaving the EU, while at the same time not wanting to declare war on the EU, most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.

In a way I'd like to see the authorities trying to jail Boris for not going along with Benn's surrender act or assuming they did manage to jail him enjoy seeing the 'Pentonville Five' like result that I feel would be sure to follow without violence involved hopefully

In reality if Boris doesn't sign that surrender note I can't see him being put into jail, even then that's assuming they manage to get him to the prison gates.   

It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.

Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.

Regards, ippy.   

[Nearly Sane]

I'll settle for leaving the EU, while at the same time not wanting to declare war on the EU, most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.

In a way I'd like to see the authorities trying to jail Boris for not going along with Benn's surrender act or assuming they did manage to jail him enjoy seeing the 'Pentonville Five' like result that I feel would be sure to follow without violence involved hopefully

In reality if Boris doesn't sign that surrender note I can't see him being put into jail, even then that's assuming they manage to get him to the prison gates.   

It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.

Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.

Regards, ippy.   

Lots of drivel

[wigginhall]

Strange analogy with a rugby game, which, as far as I know, are never reversed.  However, political decisions frequently are.  Obvious example, clause 28, passed in 1988, repealed in 2003, and in fact, in Scotland in 2000.  It's a cornerstone of parliamentary politics that one parliament cannot bind the next.  And as we are seeing recently, MPs frequently change their mind.  Otherwise, we would be operating under Lord Palmerston's edicts.

[Stranger]

I'll settle for leaving the EU, while at the same time not wanting to declare war on the EU, most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.

It's impossible to "leave the EU as was promised" because the promises were fantasies and lies.

In a way I'd like to see the authorities trying to jail Boris for not going along with Benn's surrender act or assuming they did manage to jail him enjoy seeing the 'Pentonville Five' like result that I feel would be sure to follow without violence involved hopefully

In reality if Boris doesn't sign that surrender note I can't see him being put into jail, even then that's assuming they manage to get him to the prison gates.   

I would normally refer to this kind of language ("surrender" and the other nonsense that's going around, like "traitors") as infantile but it's more serious than that. This is about a trading partnership we entered into voluntarily and have benefited greatly from. We are not at war and there can be no "surrender". It's irresponsible as well is idiotic.

It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.

We can't "separate ourselves from the EU for good and all", they're our largest trading partner and we need to have a comprehensive trade deal with them.

All this and you still can't give any actual, rational, down-to-earth reasons as to what is so bad about the EU it's worth all this risks to be rid of it. I listened to Dame Sally Davies (Chief Medical Officer for England until 1st October) the other morning saying that a no-deal would put people's lives at risk.

This isn't a silly game, this is people's lives and livelihoods. You appear to be being every bit as fanatical and irrational as the religious posters you so often criticise here - worse in some ways, I've rarely seen the religious people here advocate things that put people's lives at risk.

[Gordon]

It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.

Since when did democracy get rationed?

[wigginhall]

Since when did democracy get rationed?

That's a good point.  You had your share of democracy in 2016, and there's none left!

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.

Doesn't work. Both sides were told the rules before the game, and those were the rules that were applied. For an analogy with Brexit to work you'd have to say something like, "But the Scots were also told that any player with a "Mc" in his name would be awarded an extra try after the final whistle". When it turned out that no such additional tries were awarded, you presumably would argue that the result should stand in any case as the Scots "voted" to proceed with the game.

Do you remember my supercar worth £0.5m that I sold to you for £1k, but when it turned up it was a bag of rust and then I took the position that I should keep the money because you "voted" to pay it to me? How would you argue differently given that you take exactly that view on the referendum that was sold on a bogus prospectus too?         

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.

Terrible analogy as, no doubt, there will be future matches between the 2 nations that Scotland might win in which case today's result would be reversed by a future match.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good ...

So if you think the result of the 2016 referendum means we should leave the EU for good then surely you should also think that the result of the 1975 referendum meant we should stay in the EU for good. Otherwise you are being hypocritical and cherry picking the democratic results you think are final and for ever and those that aren't.

The reality is that no democratic result can be final and for ever, because if it were then democracy would be dead as you would never be given the chance to change your mind, or even for a future electorate comprising very different people to change decisions that their parents of grandparents generation might have made.

[jeremyp]

most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.

What exactly was promised?

It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum

No it isn't. What is outrageous is careering blindly into the disaster of no deal just because slightly over half of the people who voted on one day in 2016 voted for leave.

so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.

Democracy is not having a vote and then leaving it set in stone. Why do the electorate that existed in 2016 have precedence over the electorate that exists today? Or the one that existed in 1975?

Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.

That's just bollocks.

[jeremyp]

Strange analogy with a rugby game, which, as far as I know, are never reversed.

Actually, they are. In the quarter finals of this World Cup, Ireland will now meet the All Blacks. Strangely, no one is saying that the result of the last meeting between those two sides should count this time.

[SteveH]

I notice that Brextremists have started to refer to a no-deal exit as a "clean break", which sounds nice and - well - clean, and avoids the negativity of "no-deal". This kind of deceitful political euphemism is what George Orwell railed against. He must be turning in his grave.

[Nearly Sane]

I notice that Brextremists have started to refer to a no-deal exit as a "clean break", which sounds nice and - well - clean, and avoids the negativity of "no-deal". This kind of deceitful political euphemism is what George Orwell railed against. He must be turning in his grave.

Isn't 'Brextremists' a similar use of language?

[Roses]

I notice that Brextremists have started to refer to a no-deal exit as a "clean break", which sounds nice and - well - clean, and avoids the negativity of "no-deal". This kind of deceitful political euphemism is what George Orwell railed against. He must be turning in his grave.

Spinning in it more like!