Looks like a second referendum is out of the question. I wrote here several weeks ago that it seemed to me there was not enough time for one. Now here is the constitutional reasoning:
Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.
The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.
It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.
Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.
They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.
I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?
It is still the most likely scenario - Parliament can suspend article 50 and make time. Not sure how they get the year from - May called a general election and we didn't have to wait a year for it. Where there's a will and all that.
Subject to the 27 unanimously agreeing.
Well, parliament can then revoke article 50 without anyone's agreement.
Looks like a second referendum is out of the question. I wrote here several weeks ago that it seemed to me there was not enough time for one. Now here is the constitutional reasoning:
Steven Swinford at the Telegraph says the government has legal advice that effectively rules out a second referendum.
The advice states that Britain will be legally obliged to take part in European Parliament elections in May of next year if it extends Article 50 and subsequently send British MEPs to Brussels.
It warns that there will be a “high risk of a successful legal challenge” if the UK refuses to take part in the elections because doing so will be breaching people’s rights as EU citizens.
Ministers who have seen the advice argue that this means that July 2nd, the start of the next five-year session of the European Parliament, is a “hard” deadline for extending Article 50.
They say it will take at least a year to complete preparations and hold a second vote, making it technically impossible to have another EU referendum.
I've been struck for a while how the political class doesn't seem to have any time-critical perspective, as if 29.3.19 was just a set of figures. Sad to see from this that it wasn't just the Brexit-loonies who had this affliction. Didn't Umunna, Soubry and co. realise this?
It is still the most likely scenario - Parliament can suspend article 50 and make time. Not sure how they get the year from - May called a general election and we didn't have to wait a year for it. Where there's a will and all that.
Subject to the 27 unanimously agreeing.
Well, parliament can then revoke article 50 without anyone's agreement.
Yes - but it has to be in good faith i.e. we've changed our minds.
Not revoke - play silly buggers in parliament for a few more months, then invoke again. The EU would then quite rightly say f*ck off.
OK, stop and ask yourself: starting from today, what is the earliest date you could see parliament voting through a bill for a second ref? Bearing in mind that as I also predicted, they all want to go off on their Christmas skiiing hollibubs, leaving the country to stew. Bear in mind too that before submitting the referendum Bill, she needs to have a majority not just for the referendum, but the questions to be asked.
So it's already impossible in the real world to have a referendum before 29.3.19.
The previous arguments from the People's Vote side is that the EU would readily agree to extend Article 50 to accommodate a referendum. In principle I agree with that, but as I understand that, the problem is the new term of the European Parliament, to which we will have elected and sent representatives by July 2nd.
It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
That has obviously wound up "Howzat1967". He quite rightly demands to know whether Jean-Claude has even read the Lisbon Treaty. Go you, Howzat1967, you stick it to him.
Country is sleep walking to utter disaster because racist Brexit morons fell for the lies and deceptions of right wing lunatics in the Tory party and Corbyn and the Labour Party completely failed to do their job.
This BBC 'Reality Check' piece sets out the processes and timescales that would be involved in preparing for another referendum - even if it began now and some 'corners' could be 'cut':
Only going two ways now. Mays deal or no deal. I think the referendum has gone and no politician will revoke A50
I’m not so sure, but that being said I’m not sure on any particular outcome.
The first thing that needs to happen is that May’s WA needs to be defeated, if that has to be W/C 14/01 then so be it, but the sooner the better.
Once that happens then you would hope that there would be parliamentary consensus for something other than hard Brexit, absolutely insane that we’ve gotten ourselves into this position however.
And bear in mind this is entirely because no one has managed to explain to the electorate WHY we are in the EU.
The government pamphlet was denounced by the right wing media as lies and propaganda before they had been sent to the printers so most voters seemed to put them in the bin instead of reading it. Not that it was the most compelling document in the world.
Ironically, the greatest argument to convince the public that they shouldn't have voted for Brexit is to force them to deal with the consequences of voting Brexit. Unfortunately there are two issues with this:
1) when we eventually rejoin the EU (which we will, albeit after a period of penance caused by our self harm), we will be joining on worse terms than we have guaranteed previously. These worse terms will still be better than having ever left on any kind of realistic deal. These terms we will lose are being lost thanks to the votes of people who won't live long enough, or are wealthy/financially secure enough, to deal with the consequences of their selfish idiocy.
2) the consequences of Brexit will fall on the whole population and Britons abroad, even though less than a quarter of that figure actually wanted to Leave (and again, their Leave vote was contingent on their ignorance of the relationship between the UK and the EU).
This could have been avoided if Cameron had legitimised the 2016 vote by making it subject to the scrutiny of electoral law as strong or even stronger than the election of MPs and included minimum turnout and vote winning threshold (2 thirds is normal for such sweeping constitutional changes). We should not be leaving on the basis of a referendum that was written on the back of a fag packet in between games of tennis and where the campaigns that secured the most votes were criminal cartels whose main objectives were to defraud the voters and corrupt our democracy.
It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
Yes - May has run the clock down sufficiently to avoid a referendum.
It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
I’m not sure that the government has to want a referendum in order for there to be one? Parliament has, essentially, positioned itself as the main arbiter of what happens. It is entirely possible (though not necessarily likely) that the day after May’s WA is defeated that someone tables a motion to withdraw A50 and/or call a second referendum. If that motion can command a majority (and by this point it would be that or leaving with no deal in two months) then that’s what will happen regardless of what May thinks.
It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
Yes - May has run the clock down sufficiently to avoid a referendum.
Our best hope is EEA.
As I understand - we can’t just join the EEA, we’d need to be part of EFTA (or do some sort of Switzerland type deal, which is impossible in 2 months). Joining EFTA means convincing the four member countries that they should let us in, which will be a pretty hard sell.
Country is sleep walking to utter disaster because racist Brexit morons fell for the lies and deceptions of right wing lunatics in the Tory party and Corbyn and the Labour Party completely failed to do their job.
Festive moderation on a one horse open sleigh
Red, please refrain from this sort of generalisation as you know it doesn’t apply to all Brexit voters and is unnecessarily atagonistic
The French running financial deficits has been the definition of the Gallic shrug since WW2.
GA so when the US goes into recession what is the advantage for a single nation which has just cast itself adrift from frictionless trade with the world's 2nd largest economy?
Brexit is wrapped around global trade. I spent 15yrs of my career in finance driving new international business. After 2yrs of Brexit I have yet to hear one compelling business case. Where are these new deals to be done in a global recession. If the US catches a cold we still sneeze. It was a reason the Single Market was created.
This pantomime noise is deafening.
For 60yrs, 1/3rd of Tories under Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron & May have hated the EU. The ERG bid was another day at the office. It failed.
A vote of no confidence in May achieves? These attacks are puerile. HMG will block the debate. Want an Election? Go for it. Let's see the DUP lose their £1bn.
This debate goes beyond personalities and party labels to factional "ghettos" resembling gangs fighting for terrority as a tsunami of global irrelevance sits offshore.
The Commons forest of strutting indignants continue their "what about me" cries like passengers fighting for a place in a lifeboat.
What about me in Scotland, N Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, middle England, the shires, the Tory whip & remain, the ERG, the Labour whip & remain, the Lib Dems, the people's vote and ...Denis Skinner. What about WTO, Norway, Norway +, Norway ++, Canada, Canada +, what about Facebook?
Still no viable solution in sight. The issues remain.
Cameron was last elected on the back of those who, had never voted Tory, condemned a LibDem coalition, but rejected Labour by favouring UKIP.
The 2016 result was the voice of people who argue they were not being heard. In a democracy voices must be heard.
They gave a bloody nose to the entire political system - nobody listened.
To those "believing" leaving the EU meant leaving a Customs Union repeating the argument does not validate such assertion.
Parliament stated the referendum was advisory.
HMG stated it would trigger Article 50 to leave the EU. It did.
If No deal was the agreed path why did the Tories elect May as PM?
Why did HMG then seek a renewed mandate via a General Election?
Two main parties stated they would effect Brexit. Neither stood on a mandate of leaving the CU. HMG policy enshrined in the WA and Labour's 6 criteria today reference a CU.
"No deal" revisionists in Davis & Johnson led the EU negotiations. Where at any point did they state they were negotiating WTO terms?
The ERG do seek a No Deal Brexit but as 110 (per leadership bid) out of 650 MPs they are 17% of elected representative. No Deal is a minority view for 3 reasons
1. There is no mandate for No Deal
2. WTO "non discrimination" requires border controls or specific EU sanction
3. Democratic freedom carries the responsibility of the governance of law.
The UK has a peace accord with Eire requiring an open border between the countries. It is binding under international law. You may wish to trifle with the law. HMG has no such freedom.
Anglo Irish conflicts arising from English colonial rule were an open wound for decades. The terrorist acts on our doorstep were horrific as was the savagery of colonial rule. If we move on from the former it I'll behoves us to renege on the accord which brought an end to the latter.
The lack of interest in trying to reconcile the complexities of this negotiation borders neglect. Would their critics explain how they believe EU should behave in this matter and on what basis they have such expectancy?
In negotiation you understand the goals, fears & ambitions of the other party. Such understanding appears beyond the comprehension of many.
We are leaving. The EU need do nothing.
References to despotic EU demands on Italy, Greece, Spain & Portugal ignore such challenges arise to members of the Eurozone where weak financial disciplines directly impact a common currency. Each has a duty to meet the criteria they signed up to.
The EU is a flawed democracy, MEPs have questionable expense allowances but is that why we are leaving the EU? The UK democratic process is also a flawed. We know every democracy on the planet is flawed. What is this democratic nirvana of which some speak?
The EU administration has a duty to protect the rules, regulations & laws of the European Union in which the UK has fully participated for 40yrs in the pursuit of the common interests of mutual benefit, relative prosperity and relative peace.
To argue the referendum went beyond commercial interest is valid yet even the scantiest review of history will recognise the creation of the EU goes far beyond economic disciplines.
Many on here movingly allude to their visits to the War Cemeteries of Normandy where so many British men & woman fell in the defence of democracy.
Visit a French Resistance Museum in Brittany to view the sacrifice of British Agents & local farmers ensnared at a local farmhouse fighting to their death so hundreds of colleagues could escape or walk around any French village and read the memorials to men, women & children as whole families died under the imposition of one country's nationalistic fervour.
Such experiences are a microcosm of large parts of mainland Europe where divisions spawned two World Wars. I suggest some need to be more measured as to where they point their fingers of elitism, federalism and privilege.
The EU is there to give voice. It is there to enable debate in the common interest. Across 440mn people there will be many different and yes some very strident voices arguing to the extreme. It is the nature of democracy for those voices to be heard and challenged.
Yet today we are proposing division. We are running away from the debate. We have chosen to acclaim xenophobic politicians who in our name proclaim nationalism.
Much has been made of the comments made by Merkel and Macron yet they have largely merely served to explain the legal consequence of the UK decision.
Where the UK offers confusion & obsfucation EU clarity serves to explain for example my legal status. I know where I will stand.
The UK Parliament triggered Article 50 in response to the referendum result. The UK chose this path. It is for the UK to resolve.
Will the EU be damaged? Undoubtedly but to blame them for the consequences of our actions is akin to a drunk driver blaming the victim of any ensuing collision. It reflects the fantasy evident in so much of the public debate.
If the political establishment were an animal so rabid is its behaviour you would put it down. So bereft of any evident integrity it is hard to identify a single avenue worthy of support.
We face a crisis yet our focus is merely to denigrate, heap opprobrium on and almost celebrate the failure of a flawed individual pursuing a flawed agreement trying to make sense of a flawed strategy initiated by a flawed society in a flawed democracy.
We are broken. We have no cause to celebrate. This is how society has evolved on our watch.
A new referendum will resolve nothing. Every nuance will be open to debate. It will offer no further clarity. Crucially referenda offer no accountability beyond a collective political establishment which has already failed.
The 2016 referendum has rewritten the political landscape. It unwittingly may have sponsored the final chapter of a United Kingdom.
There is one course. This has to come back to the people via a General Election.
Each politician will have to confirm their position on the EU to their constituency party. The possibility for a new centrist party exists. I believe Brexit will win but we have the right to demand clarity on its terms.
It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
I’m not sure that the government has to want a referendum in order for there to be one? Parliament has, essentially, positioned itself as the main arbiter of what happens. It is entirely possible (though not necessarily likely) that the day after May’s WA is defeated that someone tables a motion to withdraw A50 and/or call a second referendum. If that motion can command a majority (and by this point it would be that or leaving with no deal in two months) then that’s what will happen regardless of what May thinks.
Referendum will probably be the subject of a legal challenge should one actually be voted for. As @PragueAddick has said. Its too late. EEA looks iffy to me so Im sticking with it being Mays deal. She will go down in history as one of our villians. I can see effergies of the woman on a bonfire every 29th March.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We cant temporarily revoke A50. If we revoke it then we remain. We can beg for an extension but all 27 need to agree that. Referendum is dead.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
Comments
Not revoke - play silly buggers in parliament for a few more months, then invoke again. The EU would then quite rightly say f*ck off.
OK, stop and ask yourself: starting from today, what is the earliest date you could see parliament voting through a bill for a second ref? Bearing in mind that as I also predicted, they all want to go off on their Christmas skiiing hollibubs, leaving the country to stew. Bear in mind too that before submitting the referendum Bill, she needs to have a majority not just for the referendum, but the questions to be asked.
So it's already impossible in the real world to have a referendum before 29.3.19.
The previous arguments from the People's Vote side is that the EU would readily agree to extend Article 50 to accommodate a referendum. In principle I agree with that, but as I understand that, the problem is the new term of the European Parliament, to which we will have elected and sent representatives by July 2nd.
How are your accurate predictions coming along?
That has obviously wound up "Howzat1967". He quite rightly demands to know whether Jean-Claude has even read the Lisbon Treaty. Go you, Howzat1967, you stick it to him.
There's no way Jean-Claude could possibly come back from that huge take-down. Is there?
Oh. There is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46426380
The first thing that needs to happen is that May’s WA needs to be defeated, if that has to be W/C 14/01 then so be it, but the sooner the better.
Once that happens then you would hope that there would be parliamentary consensus for something other than hard Brexit, absolutely insane that we’ve gotten ourselves into this position however.
The government pamphlet was denounced by the right wing media as lies and propaganda before they had been sent to the printers so most voters seemed to put them in the bin instead of reading it. Not that it was the most compelling document in the world.
Ironically, the greatest argument to convince the public that they shouldn't have voted for Brexit is to force them to deal with the consequences of voting Brexit. Unfortunately there are two issues with this:
1) when we eventually rejoin the EU (which we will, albeit after a period of penance caused by our self harm), we will be joining on worse terms than we have guaranteed previously. These worse terms will still be better than having ever left on any kind of realistic deal. These terms we will lose are being lost thanks to the votes of people who won't live long enough, or are wealthy/financially secure enough, to deal with the consequences of their selfish idiocy.
2) the consequences of Brexit will fall on the whole population and Britons abroad, even though less than a quarter of that figure actually wanted to Leave (and again, their Leave vote was contingent on their ignorance of the relationship between the UK and the EU).
This could have been avoided if Cameron had legitimised the 2016 vote by making it subject to the scrutiny of electoral law as strong or even stronger than the election of MPs and included minimum turnout and vote winning threshold (2 thirds is normal for such sweeping constitutional changes). We should not be leaving on the basis of a referendum that was written on the back of a fag packet in between games of tennis and where the campaigns that secured the most votes were criminal cartels whose main objectives were to defraud the voters and corrupt our democracy.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
Our best hope is EEA.
As I understand - we can’t just join the EEA, we’d need to be part of EFTA (or do some sort of Switzerland type deal, which is impossible in 2 months). Joining EFTA means convincing the four member countries that they should let us in, which will be a pretty hard sell.
Red, please refrain from this sort of generalisation as you know it doesn’t apply to all Brexit voters and is unnecessarily atagonistic
That's a comfort.
GA so when the US goes into recession what is the advantage for a single nation which has just cast itself adrift from frictionless trade with the world's 2nd largest economy?
Brexit is wrapped around global trade. I spent 15yrs of my career in finance driving new international business. After 2yrs of Brexit I have yet to hear one compelling business case. Where are these new deals to be done in a global recession. If the US catches a cold we still sneeze. It was a reason the Single Market was created.
This pantomime noise is deafening.
For 60yrs, 1/3rd of Tories under Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron & May have hated the EU. The ERG bid was another day at the office. It failed.
A vote of no confidence in May achieves? These attacks are puerile. HMG will block the debate. Want an Election? Go for it. Let's see the DUP lose their £1bn.
This debate goes beyond personalities and party labels to factional "ghettos" resembling gangs fighting for terrority as a tsunami of global irrelevance sits offshore.
The Commons forest of strutting indignants continue their "what about me" cries like passengers fighting for a place in a lifeboat.
What about me in Scotland, N Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, middle England, the shires, the Tory whip & remain, the ERG, the Labour whip & remain, the Lib Dems, the people's vote and ...Denis Skinner. What about WTO, Norway, Norway +, Norway ++, Canada, Canada +, what about Facebook?
Still no viable solution in sight. The issues remain.
Cameron was last elected on the back of those who, had never voted Tory, condemned a LibDem coalition, but rejected Labour by favouring UKIP.
The 2016 result was the voice of people who argue they were not being heard. In a democracy voices must be heard.
They gave a bloody nose to the entire political system - nobody listened.
To those "believing" leaving the EU meant leaving a Customs Union repeating the argument does not validate such assertion.
Parliament stated the referendum was advisory.
HMG stated it would trigger Article 50 to leave the EU. It did.
If No deal was the agreed path why did the Tories elect May as PM?
Why did HMG then seek a renewed mandate via a General Election?
Two main parties stated they would effect Brexit. Neither stood on a mandate of leaving the CU. HMG policy enshrined in the WA and Labour's 6 criteria today reference a CU.
"No deal" revisionists in Davis & Johnson led the EU negotiations. Where at any point did they state they were negotiating WTO terms?
The ERG do seek a No Deal Brexit but as 110 (per leadership bid) out of 650 MPs they are 17% of elected representative. No Deal is a minority view for 3 reasons
1. There is no mandate for No Deal
2. WTO "non discrimination" requires border controls or specific EU sanction
3. Democratic freedom carries the responsibility of the governance of law.
The UK has a peace accord with Eire requiring an open border between the countries. It is binding under international law. You may wish to trifle with the law. HMG has no such freedom.
Anglo Irish conflicts arising from English colonial rule were an open wound for decades. The terrorist acts on our doorstep were horrific as was the savagery of colonial rule. If we move on from the former it I'll behoves us to renege on the accord which brought an end to the latter.
The lack of interest in trying to reconcile the complexities of this negotiation borders neglect. Would their critics explain how they believe EU should behave in this matter and on what basis they have such expectancy?
In negotiation you understand the goals, fears & ambitions of the other party. Such understanding appears beyond the comprehension of many.
We are leaving. The EU need do nothing.
References to despotic EU demands on Italy, Greece, Spain & Portugal ignore such challenges arise to members of the Eurozone where weak financial disciplines directly impact a common currency. Each has a duty to meet the criteria they signed up to.
The EU is a flawed democracy, MEPs have questionable expense allowances but is that why we are leaving the EU? The UK democratic process is also a flawed. We know every democracy on the planet is flawed. What is this democratic nirvana of which some speak?
The EU administration has a duty to protect the rules, regulations & laws of the European Union in which the UK has fully participated for 40yrs in the pursuit of the common interests of mutual benefit, relative prosperity and relative peace.
To argue the referendum went beyond commercial interest is valid yet even the scantiest review of history will recognise the creation of the EU goes far beyond economic disciplines.
Many on here movingly allude to their visits to the War Cemeteries of Normandy where so many British men & woman fell in the defence of democracy.
Visit a French Resistance Museum in Brittany to view the sacrifice of British Agents & local farmers ensnared at a local farmhouse fighting to their death so hundreds of colleagues could escape or walk around any French village and read the memorials to men, women & children as whole families died under the imposition of one country's nationalistic fervour.
Such experiences are a microcosm of large parts of mainland Europe where divisions spawned two World Wars. I suggest some need to be more measured as to where they point their fingers of elitism, federalism and privilege.
The EU is there to give voice. It is there to enable debate in the common interest. Across 440mn people there will be many different and yes some very strident voices arguing to the extreme. It is the nature of democracy for those voices to be heard and challenged.
Yet today we are proposing division. We are running away from the debate. We have chosen to acclaim xenophobic politicians who in our name proclaim nationalism.
Much has been made of the comments made by Merkel and Macron yet they have largely merely served to explain the legal consequence of the UK decision.
Where the UK offers confusion & obsfucation EU clarity serves to explain for example my legal status. I know where I will stand.
The UK Parliament triggered Article 50 in response to the referendum result. The UK chose this path. It is for the UK to resolve.
Will the EU be damaged? Undoubtedly but to blame them for the consequences of our actions is akin to a drunk driver blaming the victim of any ensuing collision. It reflects the fantasy evident in so much of the public debate.
If the political establishment were an animal so rabid is its behaviour you would put it down. So bereft of any evident integrity it is hard to identify a single avenue worthy of support.
We face a crisis yet our focus is merely to denigrate, heap opprobrium on and almost celebrate the failure of a flawed individual pursuing a flawed agreement trying to make sense of a flawed strategy initiated by a flawed society in a flawed democracy.
We are broken. We have no cause to celebrate. This is how society has evolved on our watch.
A new referendum will resolve nothing. Every nuance will be open to debate. It will offer no further clarity. Crucially referenda offer no accountability beyond a collective political establishment which has already failed.
The 2016 referendum has rewritten the political landscape. It unwittingly may have sponsored the final chapter of a United Kingdom.
There is one course. This has to come back to the people via a General Election.
Each politician will have to confirm their position on the EU to their constituency party. The possibility for a new centrist party exists. I believe Brexit will win but we have the right to demand clarity on its terms.
No matter the outcome we are diminished.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
Suppose there is a referendum and the mandate is a firm "remain".
What happens then if the EU only allow us to revoke Article 50 provided we significantly increase our annual contribution?
Would we be obliged to accept any EU demands because it is the "will of the people"?