Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe a Norway style deal is going to be the least-bad option.

For some people - certainly it is the most acceptable brexit option for remainers.

But it perhaps the least acceptable model (possible of all) for those driven by concerns over freedom of movement. I can see that those people might actually prefer to be in the EU rather than be like Norway.

Why - well because Norway has to accept free movement from all EU countries but has no say in whether a new country can join. So look at Turkey, which was a big focus for the anti-migrant crowd. As a member of the EU we would have to allow free movement from Turkey if they join, but as a member we can veto Turkey joining. If we are like Norway we would still to allow free movement from Turkey if they join but would have no ability to block their entry.

So it certainly isn't clear to me that were we to put a clear choice to the electorate of Norway style EEA membership vs EU membership that there would be a mandate for the Norway model. And we cannot know, in reality as this choice has not bee put before the electorate.

[ProfessorDavey]

A referendum with more than two options? We'll be here till doomsday quibbling over the results...

I agree and unless we have AV we'd probably not get over 50% supporting any, plus there is a tendency for the middle option to be most preferred.

Hence my views on the way forward. The government (probably after a general election mandate) negotiates a clear brexit deal which is agreed on both sides (UK and EU) and can therefore be delivered. Once this is agreed (no fantasy have cake and eat it stuff) this is put to the electorate in a second referendum providing 2 choices.

1. The negotiated and agreed brexit deal
2. Remaining in the EU

So we would then be comparing what people are in favour of not having an unbalanced referendum of in favour one one side, and against on the other.

Providing the two options are completely clear, and are able to be delivered by the UK government, then the second referendum could be binding (like the AV vs FPTP referendum) rather than advisory (like the EU referendum).

It would then be clear that whichever settlement was taken forward was supported by a majority of the voting electorate - unlike now where it is entirely unclear that any 'real' post brexit settlement actually has support from the majority of the electorate.

[L.A.]

For some people - certainly it is the most acceptable brexit option for remainers.

But it perhaps the least acceptable model (possible of all) for those driven by concerns over freedom of movement. I can see that those people might actually prefer to be in the EU rather than be like Norway.

Why - well because Norway has to accept free movement from all EU countries but has no say in whether a new country can join. So look at Turkey, which was a big focus for the anti-migrant crowd. As a member of the EU we would have to allow free movement from Turkey if they join, but as a member we can veto Turkey joining. If we are like Norway we would still to allow free movement from Turkey if they join but would have no ability to block their entry.

So it certainly isn't clear to me that were we to put a clear choice to the electorate of Norway style EEA membership vs EU membership that there would be a mandate for the Norway model. And we cannot know, in reality as this choice has not bee put before the electorate.

The problem is that there isn't a good option. That was fairly obvious before the referendum but the electorate chose to ignore the obvious facts and believe the Brexiteer fantasies.

But we have to start from where we are and a Norway style deal with all it's shortcomings appears to be the only way out of the mess (even if it's a bit hard on xenophobes)

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is that there isn't a good option. That was fairly obvious before the referendum but the electorate chose to ignore the obvious facts and believe the Brexiteer fantasies.

But we have to start from where we are and a Norway style deal with all it's shortcomings appears to be the only way out of the mess (even if it's a bit hard on xenophobes)

But I cannot see how we can actually enact a Norway style EEA agreement without a direct mandate - no-one has voted for this and there is no mandate for it other than what it isn't, i.e. EU membership.

[jeremyp]

By stating in their information leaflet that they would implement the decision made by the public, they misled us.

No they haven't. All it needs is for Parliament to have a vote and to vote in favour of triggering article 50. Nobody has yet said it is not going to happen. I suspect, if a vote happened to day, most MPs would respect the result of the referendum.

Not many people would go to the trouble of checking out the legality of it. Perhaps they were assuming that remain would win. If they knew it was not legally binding they should have made it clear.

You mean the referendum? It was clear to me.

[L.A.]

But I cannot see how we can actually enact a Norway style EEA agreement without a direct mandate - no-one has voted for this and there is no mandate for it other than what it isn't, i.e. EU membership.

When we once again have a functioning government, we will activate Article 50 and send over a team from the Department of Brexit (or whatever the official title is to be) to negotiate a deal that parliament will vote on.

I don't suppose it will please everyone, but as long as it gets through parliament, that's the way it will be.

[ProfessorDavey]

You mean the referendum? It was clear to me.

And me, and anyone else who actually bother to make an effort to find out the facts.

The referendum was advisory - that was clear prior to the referendum and remains clear now.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy p

What spud said.


Because if remain and the PM lied to the public about the actions on outcome of the vote, they should explain.

What has this got to do with Remain? The Remain campaign never said anything about triggering article 50, why would it?

No one in government appears to be even mentioning the legal challenge.

They probably think it would come to nothing, or, they were planning to put the decision to parliament but expect it to pass.

Plus if the parliament votes it out, given many of their regions voted leave, it could be political death for any one of them  to not back the majority vote.

This is true, unless it becomes even more obvious in the next two months that leaving the EU is a really bad idea.

What's your answer to my question?

The reason I ask is because I think it is obvious that the PM should not be allowed to do anything illegal and therefore, if there is any doubt that his/her triggering article 50 unilaterally is legal, it needs to be clarified before he/she does. Otherwise there is the possibility of triggering article 50 and then finding out it is illegal after the fact. That would make the current chaos look like a picnic.

[jeremyp]

To me the fundamental problem is this:

Lets assume that the courts decided that the PM could not implement Article 50 without putting it to Parliament. If there were a free vote (or if pro EU Tories stuck their necks out) it would be defeated, but the referendum result would still be there as would the Brexiteers - so where too then?

It seems to me that such a result would lead to an even longer period of uncertainty and financial chaos.

If there was a free vote now, I would expect enough MPs to respect the referendum that it would not be defeated.

If there was a vote in say two months after companies start announcing their exit strategies, prices have gone up due to the pound's crash and people start losing their jobs and the vote defeats the referendum result, we would be back where we were on June 22nd.

Personally, if I were an MP, I would have no problem with voting to defeat the motion.

[ProfessorDavey]

They probably think it would come to nothing, or, they were planning to put the decision to parliament but expect it to pass.

That's right.

I think that politically it is recognised that triggering article 50 without parliamentary approval would be political suicide, so the notion of whether it is, or is not, a legal requirement is moot. The government will put it to a vote in parliament on the basis that to trigger when parliament would not approve would immediately trigger a vote of no confidence in the government. And it massively strengthens the hand of the government if they want to trigger to be able to point to a majority in favour in parliament.

[jeremyp]

Or even including more choices, e.g. Norway-style EEA vs remaining in the UK vs WTO w/o freedom of movement (for the xenophobes).

What if no one of the options got an absolute majority?

[L.A.]

If there was a free vote now, I would expect enough MPs to respect the referendum that it would not be defeated.

If there was a vote in say two months after companies start announcing their exit strategies, prices have gone up due to the pound's crash and people start losing their jobs and the vote defeats the referendum result, we would be back where we were on June 22nd.

Personally, if I were an MP, I would have no problem with voting to defeat the motion.

But where would we go from there? Another referendum, a GE?

There is no obvious way to extract ourselves from this mess.

[jeremyp]

But where would we go from there? Another referendum, a GE?

There is no obvious way to extract ourselves from this mess.

Yes there is. A general election that returned a pro-EU parliament would nullify the referendum. A general election that returned a pro article 50 parliament would reinforce the referendum.

Also, Prof Davey came up with a plan that would work whereby we trigger article 50, do the negotiating and then put the result to another referendum: "should we accept this deal or stay in the EU". It does require that the other EU members agree that article 50 is revocable.

[L.A.]

Yes there is. A general election that returned a pro-EU parliament would nullify the referendum. A general election that returned a pro article 50 parliament would reinforce the referendum.

I would say that is impossible. Labour are unelectable and the Tories are split on the EU.

Also, Prof Davey came up with a plan that would work whereby we trigger article 50, do the negotiating and then put the result to another referendum: "should we accept this deal or stay in the EU". It does require that the other EU members agree that article 50 is revocable.

As you say, that assumes that article 50 is revocable, which seems highly doubtful.

[jeremyp]

I would say that is impossible. Labour are unelectable and the Tories are split on the EU.

As you say, that assumes that article 50 is revocable, which seems highly doubtful.

I don't think so. The EU wants us to stay, they maybe talking hardball at the moment but behind closed doors they will be trying to make it possible for us to stay.

[L.A.]

I don't think so. The EU wants us to stay, they maybe talking hardball at the moment but behind closed doors they will be trying to make it possible for us to stay.

I suppose that will become obvious as things progress, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Aruntraveller]

I suppose that will become obvious as things progress, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm not entirely sure they do want us to stay - Merkel has already indicated as much. I think they are just fed up with the whniging Brits (and when I say Brits - I mean predominantly the English constituents thereof) and now think it is time to move on.

I can't say I blame them.

[L.A.]

I'm not entirely sure they do want us to stay - Merkel has already indicated as much. I think they are just fed up with the whniging Brits (and when I say Brits - I mean predominantly the English constituents thereof) and now think it is time to move on.

I can't say I blame them.

Maybe we could offer them Farage's head on a platter?

[Aruntraveller]

Maybe we could offer them Farage's head on a platter?

The taste of stale beer and fags on a silver platter - hmm tempting, but I think I'd still pass.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

I don't think so. The EU wants us to stay, they maybe talking hardball at the moment but behind closed doors they will be trying to make it possible for us to stay.

Ah yes!! But I think it is to the EU we should all be looking, our exit has sent shock waves through the EU, already we have had mutterings, if Britain can do it.

The Farage/Jack Knave plan is to bring the whole edifice crashing down, to wrestle power away from a so called elite ( who ever they are ).

In the EU it is not business as usual, they are all looking at us and asking, what next, what are we going to do, I would imagine that questions are being asked, how did we allow this to happen? why did all of Britain's problems land at the feet of the EU?

Mr Cameron has pulled a real fast one, it is not my fault, it is those EU johnnies, unemployment, well to many migrants are to blame, NHS in crisis, again that is the fault of migrants. ( My little dig at the Tories )

Cracks are appearing in the EU, how will the EU handle this, bend over backwards to help us, or will they blame us for all their ills, our leaving has given them a whole new headache, I think it is worth watching what is happening within the EU.

Gonnagle.

[L.A.]

Mr Cameron has pulled a real fast one, it is not my fault, it is those EU johnnies, unemployment, well to many migrants are to blame, NHS in crisis, again that is the fault of migrants. ( My little dig at the Tories )

Cameron took a huge risk and screwed-uo.  Presumably he thought he could settle the issue for a generation or more, but unfortunately (being a public school type)  he played it with a 'straight bat' while there were no depths that his opponents would not stoop to.

That's what happens when you play fair in a dirty game.

[Nearly Sane]

Cameron took a huge risk and screwed-uo.  Presumably he thought he could settle the issue for a generation or more, but unfortunately (being a public school type)  he played it with a 'straight bat' while there were no depths that his opponents would not stoop to.

That's what happens when you play fair in a dirty game.

Nonsense. The problem was that he did not seem to believe in it at all. There were many ludicrous claims by Remain as well. This idea of Cameron as honourable, when his  first actions following a vote resigning and not triggering Article 50 then meant that he had  lied on those, is astounding.

(BTW Do you think that all the other Articles are testing pished off at 50's fame? Article 1 will be shouting 'but I'm Numero Uno')

[SqueakyVoice]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/brexit-can-go-ahead-without-parliament-vote-article-50-government-lawyers-say

A round up of much of the speculation on this thread.

In summary
1 - Government lawyers believe article 50 can be triggered using the royal perogative
2 - there would still need to be a vote in Parliament before exit (to repeal the European Communities Act 1972)
3 - the French government's lawyers are advsing the French government that article 50 can be revoked
4 - joining the EEA would be difficult as there are 31 different vetoes that could stop the UK joining

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/05/brexit-can-go-ahead-without-parliament-vote-article-50-government-lawyers-say

A round up of much of the speculation on this thread.

In summary
1 - Government lawyers believe article 50 can be triggered using the royal perogative
2 - there would still need to be a vote in Parliament before exit (to repeal the European Communities Act 1972)
3 - the French government's lawyers are advsing the French government that article 50 can be revoked
4 - joining the EEA would be difficult as there are 31 different vetoes that could stop the UK joining

. 1 sounds so democratic

[Gonnagle]

Dear Lapsed,

Who luvs ya baby well I do old son It's nice that you are sticking up for Mr Cameron, public school type, playing a straight bat, I would imagine that Mr Cameron learned every dirty trick under the sun whilst at public school, in fact that is where most dirty tricks were invented!!

But thank you, I just had a wee listen to the Jam "Eton Rifles".

What chance do we have against a tie and a crest

It is also reminds me of our very own Wigs signature at the bottom of his posts

Gonnagle.