Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[aaronjb]

Here's my guess at what will happen (I have no basis for this other than pessimism):

Gov't will withdraw article 50, beg the EU to stay in.
We will lose all of our "rebates" and voting rights.
Tory government will collapse.
Corbyn will be elected, but will be PM in name only with all control coming from the EU.
Jobs for all!
Free money!
Socialist utopia!
etc

[LC0112G]

1. The vote must be a minimum threshold and an explanation of what happens if it is 48%:52% say. maybe if it was a minimum of 70% and that wasn't achieved then Britain goes ahead with Brexit BUT with a cross party steering group to ensure buy in from all parties. Anyone who thinks that is wrong? Well what happens if there is a war? Do some parties say we aren't interested we vote against war as the enemy land on our beaches?. This latter point sums up what has gone wrong so far but then Cameron started the rot with his lack of clarity on what people were voting for plusses and minuses and a minimum threshold.

There was no threshold on the original referendum, and I doubt there would be one on any new referendum. If there were, then it would be more likely the other way - the status quo rules unless 60/66/70/whatever percent want it changed. The status quo is that we are currently in.

2. Stay as we are needs explaining as I doubt we would keep the opt outs plus the UK would be a cowed version of its previous self despite outwardly being welcomed back warmly.   

Stay as we are means exactly that. If we are legally allowed to withdraw Art50, then everything reverts to as it would have been had we never invoked in the first place. We never left, so there would be no welcome back.

3. A cast iron legal guarantee to offer the public a vote in x years time (say 15) so that in the (in my view likely event) of the EU failing to reform that we could get out. A lot of older people , myself included, voted out because they could not see any reform, only greater federalisation with ultimately having to take the euro etc. The timing of the vote was questionable but it was possibly the ONLY opportunity ever to vote on "EU" having joined a "common market" That legal guarantee might make Junckers successor think hard about change having just averted disaster in terms of losing the British cash cow and the ensuing trade friction and years of distrust on both sides of the channel.

In the UK, Parliament is soverign. No parliament can bind a future one to do (or not do) anything. If one parliament passes a law, then the next one could revoke it. However the EU rules would remain so Art 50 would still be there and if parliament decided to do so it could invoke it again at any time in the future.

One option might be to pass a law which stated no future EU treaty changes could be agreed by the government without the agreement of parliament and a public referendum. The government can be bound by parliament. This would effectively freeze the EU as it currently is. No additional QMV, no EU army etc. Wouldn't be very popular in Brussels though.

[Sir Tigger KC]

It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. 

In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. 

[LC0112G]

It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. 

In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. 

On what basis do you believe that?

We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.

I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.

The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

If we have a second referendum and vote 'to leave' again we will be in exactly the position we are currently in. Some form  of luke warm Brexit.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

The fact that any of the points raised in this thread are being considered goes to show what a total f*uck up the handling of Brexit has been.

I was told............ they sell more to us than we sell to them so we have the whip hand. It doesn't seem like that to me.

[LC0112G]

If we have a second referendum and vote 'to leave' again we will be in exactly the position we are currently in. Some form  of luke warm Brexit.

HMG only ever had the unilateral ability to either remain, or Hard Brexit. Anything else requires the agreement of Brussels and the EU27. That agreement appears unlikely. If a second referendum simply asks the questions that HMG actually has the power to deliver, then MP's will have no wiggle room. Yes some will vote against on principle, but the majority won't defy a second public leave vote.

The problem with the original question is that 'leave' means different things to different people. Some think it means Hard/WTO, others EEA/EFTA/Canada/Japan, and yet others various flavours of Soft/Warm. If you ask the public do you want a Hard Brexit in Jan/Feb, and they say yes, then we just allow the clock to tick on till March 29th and we're out. Anything else requires HMG to either negotiate an extension to the Art50 deadline, or HMG to withdraw the Art50 invocation.

I don't see how we'll end up in exactly the same position, provided the question asked is actually possible for HMG to deliver.

[Doctor Gollum]

No mention of being able to withdraw/revoke Article 50 is contained within Article 50.

Sure we can rejoin, as per Article 49, but only once we have left.

Ergo, in 9 months time we're out. Really can't see what else there is to debate

[STEMO]

No mention of being able to withdraw/revoke Article 50 is contained within Article 50.

Sure we can rejoin, as per Article 49, but only once we have left.

Ergo, in 9 months time we're out. Really can't see what else there is to debate

Oh......there's always something to debate.......to death 

[LC0112G]

No mention of being able to withdraw/revoke Article 50 is contained within Article 50.

Equally it doesn't state cannot be revoked. Either everyone agrees it means the same thing, or the ECJ decide.

Sure we can rejoin, as per Article 49, but only once we have left.

Yes. If we leave then Art49 to re-join. If we revoke Art50 and therefore don't leave....

Ergo, in 9 months time we're out. Really can't see what else there is to debate

See above.

[Sir Tigger KC]

It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. 

In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. 

On what basis do you believe that?

We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.

I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.

The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed.

I never said that the revocation of A50 and the rebate etc are directly linked. 

As you say A50 can or can't be revoked and if there is a dispute it would end up at the ECJ.  But do you really think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions?   

Even if they didn't attach conditions, it would be down the line that we'd come under pressure to conform and I think the same would have happened had we voted to remain. In any case the commission has said it will end rebates for all countries, but we'd have come under intense pressure to relinquish it at the next round of budget talks in any case. 

[LC0112G]

It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. 

In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. 

On what basis do you believe that?

We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.

I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.

The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed.

I never said that the revocation of A50 and the rebate etc are directly linked. 

As you say A50 can or can't be revoked and if there is a dispute it would end up at the ECJ.  But do you really think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions?   

The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.

Even if they didn't attach conditions, it would be down the line that we'd come under pressure to conform and I think the same would have happened had we voted to remain. In any case the commission has said it will end rebates for all countries, but we'd have come under intense pressure to relinquish it at the next round of budget talks in any case. 

I accept that, with the reservation that ultimately it doesn't matter what the commission want, governments agree EU funding budgets. We'd need a strong govt negotiating our side. I'd put Boris/Mogg in charge with instructions to behave like Maggie T would have.  Good training for when he become PM.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

It might be legally possible to withdraw the A50 notice, but I think the idea that we could do so and carry on as if nothing had happened is fanciful to be honest. 

In fact I believe that just a vote to remain at the referendum would have had consequences for the rebate and the various opt out's and vetoes that we have secured over the years. 

On what basis do you believe that?

We either can or can't withdraw Art50. If we try to, and someone/somewhere objects then ultimately the ECJ will have to decide if Art50 is or is not revocable.

I don't see how the ECJ can link that point of EU law to something else like opt-out's, rebates or vetoes. Yes, the EU27 may or may not want to negotiate future terms, but that's not linked to a decision on revoking Art50, and could only happen assuming the ECJ rules Art50 can be revoked. Once they've ruled that, then it's a normal negotiation.

The next EU budget agreement is in 2020 AIUI, so that's the next point where things like rebates will be discussed.

I never said that the revocation of A50 and the rebate etc are directly linked. 

As you say A50 can or can't be revoked and if there is a dispute it would end up at the ECJ.  But do you really think that the commission wouldn't try to attach conditions?   

The commission have no authority to place conditions on the ECJ. The Court rules on points of EU law. The treaty is there in black and white (electrons), and the commission cannot modify it without everyone agreeing to a new treaty. The court will decide what Art50 means as written.

Even if they didn't attach conditions, it would be down the line that we'd come under pressure to conform and I think the same would have happened had we voted to remain. In any case the commission has said it will end rebates for all countries, but we'd have come under intense pressure to relinquish it at the next round of budget talks in any case. 

I accept that, with the reservation that ultimately it doesn't matter what the commission want, governments agree EU funding budgets. We'd need a strong govt negotiating our side. I'd put Boris/Mogg in charge with instructions to behave like Maggie T would have.  Good training for when he become PM.

Gawd help us.

One is a clown, a buffoon. The other is out-of-touch toff, the product of inbreeding over countless generations.

I'd rather Theresa......not that she is going to sort things out.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Retaining the status quo, realistically wont be an option. The EU is well down tis chosen road of federalisation. The UK has always been in the slow lane on this road (although ultimately would at some point arrive at the same destination). If we changed our minds and remained, I don't see how it would be possible for the UK to be the problem child / constant objector / slow lane nuisance etc.
They would laugh at us and back us into a corner where we were obliged to stfu and get on with it the same as everyone else.
Our bluffed would have been well and truly called and we bottled it. We would have no bargaining power at all.
At the moment, I think the most likely scenario is that Boris will be PM by Christmas. But a week is a long time in politics.

[LC0112G]

Retaining the status quo, realistically wont be an option. The EU is well down tis chosen road of federalisation. The UK has always been in the slow lane on this road (although ultimately would at some point arrive at the same destination). If we changed our minds and remained, I don't see how it would be possible for the UK to be the problem child / constant objector / slow lane nuisance etc.
They would laugh at us and back us into a corner where we were obliged to stfu and get on with it the same as everyone else.
Our bluffed would have been well and truly called and we bottled it. We would have no bargaining power at all.

What you are effectively saying is that you don't trust the current lot of politicians to stand up to the EU if we remain, yet these are the same lot that are supposed to negotiate with the EU for a soft brexit deal, or failing that negotiate with the RoW for trade deals after a Hard Brexit. So heads they win, tails we lose?

The number one bargaining power we have is that we are a net contributor to the EU budget. Maggie T knew that. We just need someone to say No and stick to their guns.
 

At the moment, I think the most likely scenario is that Boris will be PM by Christmas. But a week is a long time in politics.

If Boris is as bright as many politcos say, then he won't want such a poisoned chalice just yet. No one will, which is why I reckon TM is safe till (very close to) the next general election. The Tories don't want a GE just yet because they may lose, and Corbyn is a bigger fear to them than the EU.