Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[baldgye]

The trouble is that she is a remainer trying to leave.

The trouble is that any deal would make us worse off, yet the house still believes we can get a deal to make us better off.

 

[Daz555]

Well, it is now official.

Donald Tusk has officially announced that a short extension to Article 50 will be conditional upon the Withdrawal Agreement being accepted.

That means there must now be a third vote on the Withdrawal Agreement before Friday next week, and it must be passed - otherwise it is No Deal.

-

Theresa May is meeting all opposition leaders in Downing Street tonight, presumably to spell out the fact that there will now certainly be No Deal unless they vote in favour of the deal.

Labour and other opposition MPs will now have to face facts and admit that it really is now either May's deal or No Deal.

Surely parliament can force the government to revoke.

 

[Touring Mars]

Surely parliament can force the government to revoke.

But can they?

Even if Parliament voted overwhelmingly to revoke Article 50, it is not clear how such a vote would translate into the necessary action(s) required to actually revoke Article 50.

The Government and the Prime Minister are steadfastly opposed to revoking Article 50, and the Prime Minister has already suggested that she could not even extend Article 50 for a long period (the insinuation being that she would rather resign than be forced into doing so), thus the only clear mechanism by which Article 50 can actually be revoked - by the Prime Minister - would be blocked.

The fact is, the UK only has until next Friday to revoke Article 50, and it is not clear how that will happen while Theresa May remains in charge - it is even less clear how it will happen if she resigns.

 

[baldgye]

Petition for No-Brexit passes the half a million mark.

Though it's worth noting that a petition for another referendum gained I think around 4 million signatures (I've read comments to that affect but can't find a direct link to the petition) before being largely ignored by Parliament.

It's now crashed!

But can they?

Why not?

The PM is pushing her deal and using the threat of no-deal to try and pressure MP's into voting for it. This has failed twice. MP's who want brexit are pushing for no-deal which has been voted against, twice. There isn't any reason why she cannot revoke Art.50 citing that she 'did her best' it trying to do the impossible and resigns.

I don't really buy into the notion of, no deal being a guarantee especially in light of the last few days

 

[Touring Mars]

Why not?

The PM is pushing her deal and using the threat of no-deal to try and pressure MP's into voting for it. This has failed twice. MP's who want brexit are pushing for no-deal which has been voted against, twice. There isn't any reason why she cannot revoke Art.50 citing that she 'did her best' it trying to do the impossible and resigns.

I don't really buy into the notion of, no deal being a guarantee especially in light of the last few days

I don't think you're quite getting my point - it is not just a question of 'why not?', it is a question of how revoking Article 50 can be done if the Prime Minister resigns. The PM has already made it clear why she will not revoke Article 50, but the question is what happens if there were to be a vote in Parliament that effectively orders the PM to revoke Article 50, against the will of the majority of her own MPs and the people who voted them in.

Revoking Article 50 was always going to be politically toxic, but my point is that it is now practically too late to set into motion an alternative process that would result in Article 50 being revoked by someone other than Theresa May.

 

[baldgye]

I don't think you're quite getting my point - it is not just a question of 'why not?', it is a question of how revoking Article 50 can be done if the Prime Minister resigns. The PM has already made it clear why she will not revoke Article 50, but the question is what happens if there were to be a vote in Parliament that effectively orders the PM to revoke Article 50, against the will of the majority of her own MPs and the people who voted them in.

Revoking Article 50 was always going to be politically toxic, but my point is that it is now practically too late to set into motion an alternative process that would result in Article 50 being revoked by someone other than Theresa May.

If the PM resigns it will be another first for British politics (assuming she doesn't take on a caretaker role) because they'll need to find a new leader within a matter of days.

While I agree it's political toxic to the Tories and Labour, No Deal is politically apocalyptic and would not only devastate the country but would in turn usher out the existing politicians and their establishment and replace them.


EDIT: I think that if she did resign, the most likely scenario would be that Art.50 is triggered, or at least that process is started. And if more time is needed the EU would call an emergency summit and agree to a short extension to allow us to complete that process. At the end of the day they are simply after resolution. And revoking Art.50 would give both sides the best deal.

 

[Famine]

Petition for No-Brexit passes the half a million mark.

Just another 16.9m to go until it passes the petition for Brexit then...


Apropos of the petition, here's the heatmap (from gov.uk) of signatories:

I'm sure there's some interesting conclusions to be drawn from comparing that map to expensive housing and pro-remain referendum areas.

Lightly related there is the fact that the pro-Brexit "gammonball run" is marching from Sunderland to London, while the anti-Brexit - or rather pro-second referendum - march on Saturday is going from Mayfair to Westminster.

 

[baldgye]

Just another 16.9m to go until it passes the petition for Brexit then...

From the same post;

Though it's worth noting that a petition for another referendum gained I think around 4 million signatures (I've read comments to that affect but can't find a direct link to the petition) before being largely ignored by Parliament.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
The whole Petitions portal is now down for maintenance.

Apropos of the petition, here's the heatmap (from gov.uk) of signatories:

I'm sure there's some interesting conclusions to be drawn from comparing that map to expensive housing and pro-remain referendum areas.

I did look at the heat-map, but it's a little meaningless, half a million people isn't much when spread across the whole of the UK.

 

[Famine]

From the same post;

Indeed, but that's still some 13.4m down on the pro-Brexit one we had in June 2016.

I did look at the heat-map, but it's a little meaningless, half a million people isn't much when spread across the whole of the UK.

It's 1% of the population, and we can see significant pockets in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Cambridgeshire and Cambridge, Oxford, Brighton, Canterbury and - of course - London.

Aside from Newcastle and Canterbury, these areas were heavily Remain in 2016, and overwhelmingly so in some parts. Brighton was 68.6%, Cambridge was 73.8% (South Cambridgeshire was 60.2%), Oxford was 70.3% and Edinburgh was 74.4%, while 28 of 33 London boroughs were Remain. Newcastle was Remain, but only at 50.7%, and Canterbury is the only exception (and surprisingly so, given the general affluence) at 51.0% Leave.

The correlation between Remain areas and the no-Brexit petition areas seems fair.

 

[baldgye]

It's 1% of the population, and we can see significant pockets in Edinburgh, Newcastle, Cambridgeshire and Cambridge, Oxford, Brighton, Canterbury and - of course - London.

Aside from Newcastle and Canterbury, these areas were heavily Remain in 2016, and overwhelmingly so in some parts. Brighton was 68.6%, Cambridge was 73.8% (South Cambridgeshire was 60.2%), Oxford was 70.3% and Edinburgh was 74.4%, while 28 of 33 London boroughs were Remain. Newcastle was Remain, but only at 50.7%, and Canterbury is the only exception (and surprisingly so, given the general affluence) at 51.0% Leave.

The correlation between Remain areas and the no-Brexit petition areas seems fair.

True enough.

EDIT: Apparently it was just under 750k before the servers crashed and was getting around 2k signatures every minute.

I think it's worth pointing out that rather than actually garner meaningful discussion in the house, the real affect of petitions like this is empowering MP's who are against Brexit and No-Deal and give them more political power.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think it's worth pointing out that rather than actually garner meaningful discussion in the house, the real affect of petitions like this is empowering MP's who are against Brexit and No-Deal and give them more political power.

If over 17 million people can vote for the UK to leave the EU and we end up not leaving the EU, it kind of makes petitioning the Government sound like a bit of a waste of time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If over 17 million people can vote for the UK to leave the EU and we end up not leaving the EU, it kind of makes petitioning the Government sound like a bit of a waste of time.

If over 16 million people can vote for the UK to stay in the EU and we end up leaving then it writes those 16+ million's views off entirely. I think the vote was very close and that it's easily arguable that the country should be asked once again now it knows what the options are. Admittedly they're all varying shades of disaster and embarassment... but yeah.

 

[baldgye]

If over 17 million people can vote for the UK to leave the EU and we end up not leaving the EU, it kind of makes petitioning the Government sound like a bit of a waste of time.

We end up not leaving the EU because it would make us worse off.

The public said have said that just over half think we should leave, so we tried. Turns out it’s a terrible idea.

It’s not as though the government has ignored them, far from it, they’ve been indulged to the point of hurting the economy.

 

[Touring Mars]

If over 16 million people can vote for the UK to stay in the EU and we end up leaving then it writes those 16+ million's views off entirely. I think the vote was very close and that it's easily arguable that the country should be asked once again now it knows what the options are. Admittedly they're all varying shades of disaster and embarassment... but yeah.

The thing is, being an EU member state is a binary choice - you are either in or out. Everything else, like future trade arrangements, is a separate question.

The EU referendum question in 2016 was not 'Please give us your opinions on how the future UK-EU relationship ought to be' - it was 'Should the UK be a member of the EU, yes or no.' The UK decided it was to be no.

By all means hold a second referendum on what our future relationship with the EU ought to be, but that should only be done in the context of the original referendum result i.e. as a non-member state.

Even as a non-member state, the UK could still enjoy full access to the Single Market if it chooses to, but the EU has steadfastly refused to discuss these possibilities until after the UK has left - the net effect of this has been to make more and more people (and MPs) reluctant to leave at all, because no-one has any idea what will happen, and it has also wrecked any chance the UK Government had of securing a deal because the up-front risks/costs are so high, and there is no guarantee of anything good in return.

The crux of the problem is that the Political Declaration is literally not worth the paper it was written on.

 

[baldgye]

The EU referendum question in 2016 was not 'Please give us your opinions on how the future UK-EU relationship ought to be' - it was 'Should the UK be a member of the EU, yes or no.' The UK decided it was to be no

On the basis that we would be better off.

We would not be. Something that has been categorically proven over the following two years.

 

[Touring Mars]

On the basis that we would be better off.

No.

That was the point of my post - it was not on the basis of anything other than EU membership.

Perceived economic advantage or otherwise was not on the ballot.

 

[Famine]

On the basis that we would be better off.

See, now, this is the problem with a vote: you can't dissect it like that.

A vote in an election for a candidate isn't a vote for some of their and their party's policies that you like, but not any others. It's a vote for that candidate, and it's a mandate. You can't vote for someone who, or whose party, has 19 completely rational policies and one utterly irrational one and then complain when they enact the irrational one right away because that's not why you voted for them. You voted for them, and gave them the mandate for all of their policies.

The 2016 Referendum question was about as unequivocal as it gets. It was:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
* Remain a member of the European Union
* Leave the European Union

There was no question about the mechanism, or the reasons, just straight up remain and leave.

I don't doubt for a second that lots of people very stupidly voted for leave, or that they were misled by a bus, or because they're racist. Similarly I don't doubt for a second that lots of people very stupidly voted for remain, or that they were swayed by a nationwide leafleting campaign, or because they're racist the other way. A lot of people on both sides very carefully considered their choice too, and a lot likely just went with their first reaction.

Ultimately it doesn't matter why people voted how they did, it only matters how they voted, because you cannot dissect votes.

We would not be. Something that has been categorically proven over the following two years.

Define "better off". Are we talking financial, ethical, legal, moral, wellbeing or something else? Personal, regional, national? Do we mean short-term, medium-term, long-term, extremely long-term?

To me it seems pretty reasonable that, in the short and possibly medium term, there'll be a financial shock to both the UK and the EU with some industries suffering more than others - and some regions which rely on those industries feeling wider effects. It's not clear at all what the longer-term financial consequences will be, and I can certainly see a case for both the UK being weaker by not being part of a trading bloc and stronger by not being exposed to toxic Mediterranean debt and small, Eastern European economies (and workers).

As for the other factors... who knows? Exiting the jurisdiction of the ECJ will bring positives and negatives, there's a case for adhering to European standards to be both positive (protective) and negative (nannying), our laws aren't really all that different from the EU's either way, our industries exposed to competition from Europe will be enhanced while those competing in Europe will be diminished, those who go to Europe for work will be harmed but those who lose out to Europeans coming here for work will benefit, and it's just possible that without the European bogeyman we'll have a happier population if only through relief. Although maybe they'll double-down on the Muslims. And once we've left, Nigel Farage can get the **** off out of the news.

At this point, I don't know whether we'll be "better off" outside the EU or partially in it (like, outside the Eurozone and Schengen, but in the customs union) as we've always been.

 

[baldgye]

I guess my reply is for both @Touring Mars @Famine

Ultimately it doesn't matter why people voted how they did, it only matters how they voted, because you cannot dissect votes.

Perhaps, and this is true for a general election. But this wasn't a general election, it was to get the opinion of the public as to advise Parliament on a decision.
The reasons perhaps don't matter but the 'facts' presented to the public and the way in which they were do (at least to me) matter. If I ask for your opinion on something, say "would you rather have an apple or orange?" And then spend months convincing you that apples are full of razor blades and naturally unpleasant, your answer would be coloured by that you wouldn't have been able to make a decision with accurate information.

Not only where the general public not given accurate information, but one side was found in breach of election law, laws designed to keep our democracy fair and balanced, laws that where broken.

Define "better off"

Financial.
This countries main export is services, London is the banking capital of the world. Brexit has done lasting long term damage to that.
I also don't see how, alone we can prosper anymore now than towards the end of the 1960s/70s when we joined. With globalisation forcing nations and people to be ever more connected and with our physical location there are no positives to being less connected to the EU. Unless we substantially lower our standards for hygiene and food to accept more expensive trade from further afield.

Until we fully leave the EU we cannot renegotiate deals and when we do, we are no longer a-part of the worlds largest and one of the most powerful economies in the world, giving us less ability to negotiate deals (of which there are over 700 currently). Given the state of the Brexit negotiations how do you think we'll manage, while our politicians flail about trying to make sure we have enough food, water, power and medicine (assuming the House doesn't utterly collapse from the fallout of no-deal (due to the PM's resignation, a new leader election and Labour imploding at the mere thought of winning a GE))? Then you have the NHS which will continue to suffer. I struggle to see any positives on the horizon.

And that's before we mention the fun-factory that is Northern Ireland, a geographical location and political issue that the British seemed to have totally forget about when they voted.


But I'm sure, as I was told pre-vote, that's all just project fear. Which I'm sure has nothing to do with many of Brexit's millionaire backers either moving abroad or moving their businesses abroad.

 

[novcze]

this situation reminds me of one song

"This Kingdom's not united
Just a complicated mess
Are we in Europe
Half in Europe
Not in Europe
We're soulless, spineless, directionless"



seriously, the UK is one of the strongest economy in the EU, everybody want to make business with you, so this situation is not appropriate to your position ...

 

[baldgye]

Reminds me of that bloke bulk buying from the supermarket


Edit: and it's down again

 

[TenEightyOne]

The 2016 Referendum question

Which was precisely that - a non-binding question three years ago. Parliament remains hamstrung over legislation that was enacted on a yes/no mandate in 2016. For the sake of sanity it's now time to offer the options to the people and give our representatives a firm, up-to-date mandate based on the things we've learnt in three years.

Yes, only with a deal. Yes, including no deal. No, revoke Article 50.

 

[baldgye]

Which was precisely that - a non-binding question three years ago. Parliament remains hamstrung over legislation that was enacted on a yes/no mandate in 2016. For the sake of sanity it's now time to offer the options to the people and give our representatives a firm, up-to-date mandate based on the things we've learnt in three years.

No! Brexit means Brexit!

Now, who's up for a 3rd vote for my deal no one wants?

 

[Touring Mars]

Which was precisely that - a non-binding question three years ago. Parliament remains hamstrung over legislation that was enacted on a yes/no mandate in 2016. For the sake of sanity it's now time to offer the options to the people and give our representatives a firm, up-to-date mandate based on the things we've learnt in three years.

You are forgetting the fact that triggering Article 50 was legally binding - a second referendum, non-legally binding public vote that is even less clear than the first one is not going to solve anything.

Yes, only with a deal. Yes, including no deal. No, revoke Article 50.

And how do you interpret the result of that?

Splitting the 'Leave' vote would guarantee that the 'Remain' option would win.

A fairer voter would respect the first result and offer a straightforward yes or no option on leaving either with a deal or without one.

 

[baldgye]

respect the first result

I still don't understand why this should be the case.
Vote Leave broke election law, they acted against the democratic values this country is based on.

 

[Touring Mars]

I still don't understand why this should be the case.
Vote Leave broke election law, they acted against the democratic values this country is based on.

Because there is no evidence that conclusively proves that anyone's vote was influenced by any particular campaign.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You are forgetting the fact that triggering Article 50 was legally binding

Which can be legally revoked at any time.

a second referendum, non-legally binding public vote that is even less clear than the first one is not going to solve anything.

With respect I doubt that any referendum could be less clear than the last one. No mandate was issued by that referendum that stated what people's idea of "Leave EU" actually was. Did it include trade, customs, movement? Giving people the choice to leave whatever, only leave with the agreed deal (and the inevitable backstop) or to revoke is far clearer. I'd say the lack of clarity offered by a simple Yes/No that covered a myriad of sub-variables is exactly the thing that's brought the British parliament to its knees.

And how do you interpret the result of that?

Splitting the 'Leave' vote would guarantee that the 'Remain' option would win.

It would seem clear that the two Leave boxes would add up to a single Leave vote. The mandate would then come from the majority, Deal or No Deal.

A fairer voter would respect the first result and offer a straightforward yes or no option on leaving either with a deal or without one.

People are seeing the real effects of leaving the EU versus the (literally) criminal promises that were made. A truly fair vote would allow people a say based on the mass of information they've received since 2016. Cooling-off periods are really part of EU law, so I can't see the ERG particularly going for that.

 

[Touring Mars]

Which can be legally revoked at any time.

Yes - but that doesn't negate the point that the decision to leave the EU was/is legally binding and that currently, under UK law, we leave the EU next Friday. Revoking Article 50 also cannot be legally revoked by just anybody - Parliament, for example, can't just click it's fingers and make it so. It would require a second referendum, and a second referendum requires a Parliamentary majority and a Government/PM willing to start the process. It's not going to happen before next Friday - and likely will not be possible before May 22nd either.

With respect I doubt that any referendum could be less clear than the last one. No mandate was issued by that referendum that stated what people's idea of "Leave EU" actually was. Did it include trade, customs, movement? Giving people the choice to leave whatever, only leave with the agreed deal (and the inevitable backstop) or to revoke is far clearer. I'd say the lack of clarity offered by a simple Yes/No that covered a myriad of sub-variables is exactly the thing that's brought the British parliament to its knees.

As I said above, the purpose of the referendum was not to establish on what terms the UK and the EU should be - the question was simply about membership.

It would seem clear that the two Leave boxes would add up to a single Leave vote. The mandate would then come from the majority, Deal or No Deal.

But by the same logic, Leave already has the mandate - so why should Remain be on the ballot paper again?

My point is, however, that in a referendum, the winner is the option with the most votes. But what happens if something like this happens:

Leave - No Deal: 30%
Leave - Deal: 22%
Remain - 48%

Leave gets 52% and Remain gets 48%, but Remain wins because it scored the most votes of the three options. Lumping the two Leave votes together would yield exactly the same result as the first vote and resolve nothing. It could be even more pronounced than that - Remain could still win with only 34% of the vote - though so could No Deal.

People are seeing the real effects of leaving the EU versus the (literally) criminal promises that were made. A truly fair vote would allow people a say based on the mass of information they've received since 2016. Cooling-off periods are really part of EU law, so I can't see the ERG particularly going for that.

The reasons for the failure of the Article 50 process are manifold - the fact that the options available are so unpalatable is a combination of UK ineptitude and the EU's commitment to ensuring that Brexit fails.

The entire Article 50 process has been presented by all sides as a false choice - in reality, there are more options available than either side would like to present. Theresa May say's it's her deal or no deal; the EU say it's either a bad deal or no Brexit - both are wrong. I cannot for the life of me figure out how the UK would not prosper with a Canada-style trade deal, for example.

But non-binary choices such as what direction the UK should take after Brexit cannot be made by referenda - the only sensible/meaningful second referendum votes would be:

1) Accept or reject the present deal (outcome would determine whether the UK leaves with or without a deal)

or

2) Revoke Article 50 - yes or no (outcome would either cancel Brexit altogether, or leave us where we are now i.e. No Deal by default)

...but option 1 is the only one that doesn't involve overturning the result of a previous referendum. The danger of overturning a previous referendum result is that it opens the door to overturning another one...

 

[Touring Mars]

It sounds like Angela Merkel is flexing her muscles in the EU war rooms tonight, as she is very unhappy at Macron's heavy-handed approach and his insistence on playing hard ball and only allowing the EU to offer a 2-month extension on the conditional that the Withdrawal Agreement is approved next week.

The outcome could well be that the EU will offer the UK a much longer extension (of 9 months) if May's deal fails again, thus staving off the possibility of a No Deal exit next week. The 'threat' of a long extension, however, is a double-edged sword - it would mean the UK having to take part in EU elections in May, but it would also make hard Brexiteers extremely angry and, ironically, more likely to vote for May's deal next week.

 

[baldgye]

FT seems to think that May is ready to pull trigger on No-Deal

 

[PzR Slim]

FT seems to think that May is ready to pull trigger on No-Deal

Paywall