EU Referendum - In/Out?

[gaggle64]

It probably won't be used to stop Brexit but it does force the Government to present it's negotiation plans to parliament before triggering Article 50, rather than waving their hands and promising it'll all be fine somehow.

[Rummy]

Yeah, I don't think it'll stop it(nor do I think it should without another referendum) but it'll hopefully give us some security on the final decision and terms. I've constantly found it strange that such a big decision may be made by just a single party/government.

 

BoE's due to make a report at 12:00pm today anyhow I think - wonder if this will affect anything there. GBP's already gone up a tiny bit, but that probably won't hold after Carney comes out again :p

[Agent Gibbs]

Yeah, I don't think it'll stop it(nor do I think it should without another referendum) but it'll hopefully give us some security on the final decision and terms. I've constantly found it strange that such a big decision may be made by just a single party/government.

 

BoE's due to make a report at 12:00pm today anyhow I think - wonder if this will affect anything there. GBP's already gone up a tiny bit, but that probably won't hold after Carney comes out again :p

 

Not directly but MP's could demand that they agree ont he condition of a further referendum and i really doubt a second one would be won by brexiters, a lot of people i know voted out have already changed their minds

[Blade]

As a legal geek this is an excellent decision by the judiciary. It really shows that the UK does have some form of separation of powers and that each three arms of the state - executive, legislature and judiciary do have checks and balances upon each other. In this case, the judiciary has stopped the executive from exercising art 50 without authorisation from the legislature.

 

In the UK, although our constitution is largely uncodified there is a long standing principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It is the UK Parliament that has the final say - that passes legislation. Some say that Parliamentary sovereignty has been somewhat eroded due to the supremacy of EU law but that is misleading.

 

The supremacy of EU law will only exist with the consent of Parliament and thats how it should be.

[gaggle64]

Politically it's worth noting how much it's favored the pro-"Hard Brexit" camp to be as light on detail as possible until now. Revealing their negotiating position to Parliament & public means admitting the harsh realities of "taking our country back" ie. this isn't going to be anywhere near as easy as they promised and are still promising. Being forced to reveal the detail means forcing the government to admit our collective position isn't as strong as many might imagine, no matter how many biscuits we sell.

 

I wonder if the government might trigger a snap election next year while polls still look good, before the reality sets in?

[Rummy]

Not directly but MP's could demand that they agree ont he condition of a further referendum and i really doubt a second one would be won by brexiters, a lot of people i know voted out have already changed their minds

 

I do agree with that, which is why I did say I don't believe the decision should be reversed without another referendum. Outcomewise I'd possibly be tempted to agree with yourself - but would it matter? We gave a vote to everyone who could on this matter; if they've changed their minds since then why not ask why? It won't make any new decisions any less legitimate, but maybe, just maybe, this situation and what they've seen come out of it educated some about the potential outcomes.

 

Pound's holding well though and BoE aren't all doom and gloom. Still take it all with a pinch of salt given the volatility of monetary policy(imo) and that Carney's giving some 'uncertain' answers on what might happen going forward. I think the reality of the Brexit hit/GBP drop just hasn't actually trickled all the way down the the working households as of yet though.

 

As a legal geek this is an excellent decision by the judiciary. It really shows that the UK does have some form of separation of powers and that each three arms of the state - executive, legislature and judiciary do have checks and balances upon each other. In this case, the judiciary has stopped the executive from exercising art 50 without authorisation from the legislature.

 

In the UK, although our constitution is largely uncodified there is a long standing principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It is the UK Parliament that has the final say - that passes legislation. Some say that Parliamentary sovereignty has been somewhat eroded due to the supremacy of EU law but that is misleading.

 

The supremacy of EU law will only exist with the consent of Parliament and thats how it should be.

 

I'm not too much of a legal geek but I'm certainly happy with the outcome - as I said it's such a big decision that I don't think it should be taken lightly and I'm glad to see that it still has to properly go through parliament.

 

Politically it's worth noting how much it's favored the pro-"Hard Brexit" camp to be as light on detail as possible until now. Revealing their negotiating position to Parliament & public means admitting the harsh realities of "taking our country back" ie. this isn't going to be anywhere near as easy as they promised and are still promising. Being forced to reveal the detail means forcing the government to admit our collective position isn't as strong as many might imagine, no matter how many biscuits we sell.

 

I wonder if the government might trigger a snap election next year while polls still look good, before the reality sets in?

 

I do agree with the first part - I think it's very unlikely the government will trigger a snap election without a decent amount of pressure from the opposition though. There's still a lot of shit sticking around Jeremy Corbyn but the fact he's won support again and could turn another election to their favour(even if not to a majority) might put them off. I think any of the people changing their mind on the referendum now seeing what it did to the GBP will be more keen on blaming the current government and switch over with their votes.

[Agent Gibbs]

Politically it's worth noting how much it's favored the pro-"Hard Brexit" camp to be as light on detail as possible until now. Revealing their negotiating position to Parliament & public means admitting the harsh realities of "taking our country back" ie. this isn't going to be anywhere near as easy as they promised and are still promising. Being forced to reveal the detail means forcing the government to admit our collective position isn't as strong as many might imagine, no matter how many biscuits we sell.

 

I wonder if the government might trigger a snap election next year while polls still look good, before the reality sets in?

 

Very true, right now they can promise the world and then admit the truth later blaming it on a spiteful Europe - this rulling means we know up front and i'd suspect it will not be of any benefit to those wanting to falsely claim brexit will be amazing.

 

Its funny only yesterday did i see my cousin (who's become increasingly right wing, perhaps due to neighbours from hell who unfortunately are provided a house on state handouts and are foreign) post a daily mail article on the town of Saville in Yorkshire - where the census revealed 49 of several thousand residents were white, the rest were made up of immigrants - mainly of arabic/indian decent

 

He shared it with the comment of "Brexit was meant to change this"

 

I don't have a facepalm gif that does that justice..........So Brexit, that severs us from Europe and prevents free movement of Europeans through Europe........will stop middleeastern immigrants who already come from outside the EU...............

 

And thats all neglecting the details that the example of Saville is scewed because it was a small industrial town with a small population that encoruaged immigration for factory workers from the industrial era to the 70s to provide a work force. Arguably its an immigrant town because it was expanded to be one

 

I really hope the Labour, SNP, Green and Tory remain MP's band together and make this as difficult as possible, blocking brexit or demanding a 2nd referendum - frankly the Tories will likely win the next election, they have nothing to loose only to gain

[EEVILMURRAY]

I think this is a whiny bitch attempt by the losing party I think. Kinda like what I'm doing at Tesco, except I'm doing it for fun. I've accepted the result. MP's should as well. Leave Won. Remain Lost. Asking to check to see if it's cool with them is pissing on democracy.

 

Come the next general election, if for example Labour won, would we need a vote by MP's to see if they're alright with it?

 

 

In the UK, although our constitution is largely uncodified there is a long standing principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. It is the UK Parliament that has the final say - that passes legislation. Some say that Parliamentary sovereignty has been somewhat eroded due to the supremacy of EU law but that is misleading.

 

The supremacy of EU law will only exist with the consent of Parliament and thats how it should be.

But if the EU passed a law on processing criminals or something and the British Government ignored it, surely they would be penalised?

[Blade]

I think this is a whiny bitch attempt by the losing party I think. Kinda like what I'm doing at Tesco, except I'm doing it for fun. I've accepted the result. MP's should as well. Leave Won. Remain Lost. Asking to check to see if it's cool with them is pissing on democracy.

 

Come the next general election, if for example Labour won, would we need a vote by MP's to see if they're alright with it?

 

 

 

But if the EU passed a law on processing criminals or something and the British Government ignored it, surely they would be penalised?

 

The question put forward to the court was a matter of constitutional law.

 

The legal question is whether the executive government can use the Crown's preogrative powers to give notice of withdrawal. The court in the proceedings is only dealing with a pure question of law. Nothing that the court has said has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of a withdrawal by the UK from the EU. Nor does it have any bearing on government policy, because government policy is not law. The policy to be applied by the executive government and the merits or demerits of withdrawal are matters of political judgment to be resolved through the political process.

[Ashley]

I think this is a whiny bitch attempt by the losing party I think. Kinda like what I'm doing at Tesco, except I'm doing it for fun. I've accepted the result. MP's should as well. Leave Won. Remain Lost. Asking to check to see if it's cool with them is pissing on democracy.

 

Come the next general election, if for example Labour won, would we need a vote by MP's to see if they're alright with it?

 

I think you'd find a lot of people do accept it's going to happen and this isn't an attempt to stop it, but an attempt to ensure it is done so in a transparent and considered way.

 

Before this Theresa May seemed to be hell-bent on doing whatever she wanted because of a minor majority (not a "clear majority" as keeps being banded around).

 

Hopefully this decision will just provide grounds for parliament to be able to have a say in how to shape our future relationship, rather than being shut out of it.

 

I doubt the majority of MPs would try and block Brexit outright (it would be career suicide), but instead will try and ensure it works in the best interest of all people, something the hardline Brexiteers seemed to be ignoring. The fact that the pound dropped after the Tory conference and each time Davis (Davies? It's bloody confusing we have a Tory David Davis and David Davies) has gave a statement about it, but it rose after the ruling today, shows that the market has a clear preference for how this kind of decision should be made - it should be considered and evaluated and try and reduce risk.

 

The problem is so far the Tories seem to be heading towards a hard Brexit (although they don't want us calling it that) and the best plan they have in place is a plan to do it well. And there's the fucking infuriating line that they don't want to "show their hand". MY FUTURE ISN'T A FUCKING HAND. THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY ISN'T A FUCKING POKER GAME. It's so disrespectful. Let's face it, there are many industries that will want access to the single market (or as close as we can get given that is tied to the four principles) and it is in the Tory manifesto.

 

By making the process more transparent it means the British public will have a better understanding of what our future holds and furthermore those that have chosen to live, study and work here (and contributing to society) should hopefully start getting a sense of what their future holds. Our government's handling of the whole situation has been deplorable, but then that is perfectly in line with May's record.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Ashley

[Agent Gibbs]

I think this is a whiny bitch attempt by the losing party I think. Kinda like what I'm doing at Tesco, except I'm doing it for fun. I've accepted the result. MP's should as well. Leave Won. Remain Lost. Asking to check to see if it's cool with them is pissing on democracy.

 

Id disagree with that last bit, i'd argue its at its very heart a democratic right that our elected government review any proposals )isn't that what what brexit was about? giving the power to parliament to decide what we do? not one central power?), rather than the unelected stand in leader in isolation get to decide on a private term deal with our first knowledge of it being when its in and unchangeable?

Giving the control of massive decisions to one single leader has not worked well in europe in the past, in this very country allowing Blair to defacto decide on war is vastly hated because the truth only cam out after

Bringing any negotiations before parliament allowing the elected MP's to decide on it is entirely democratic

They could even demand the terms be put up for referendum on if we accept and leave or shut up and stay, which again would be a democratic process.

Democracy at its heart is a group of people debating and deciding on a course of action, not allowing one person to decide for us, that an autocracy

[Blade]

The judgment basically confirms what the position is already. Infact it just reiterates Section 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 that the Crown cannot through the use if its prerogative powers increase or diminish or dispense with the rights of individuals or companies conferred by common law or statute or change domestic law in any way without the intervention of Parliament.

 

The Court believed that the matter of invoking art 50 by the government without the consent of Parliament would be contrary to the above centuries old principle.

[Agent Gibbs]

So its UNdemocratic to allow the PM under delegated powers to make this decision without parliamentary (ergo electeced public representatives) oversight? in more laymans terms

[Ashley]

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship

 

The European Parliament is to consider a plan that would allow British citizens to opt-in and keep their European Union citizenship – and its associated benefits – once the UK leaves the EU.

 

The proposal, which has been put before a parliamentary committee as an amendment, would grant the citizens of former member states the voluntary right to retain “associate citizenship” of the EU.

 

Associate citizens would be allowed to keep free movement across the EU as full citizens currently enjoy and would be allowed to vote in European Parliament elections, meaning they were still represented in Brussels.

 

This is exactly what I want (well, in the "making the best of a bad situation" kind of way). Doubt it will be simple or quick if it ever happens, but it would go a long way to helping people who don't want their rights removed who the government don't seem to give a fuck about right now.

 

Although you come to this and despair:

 

Brexit campaigners in Britain reacted with anger to the idea, arguing that it would discriminate against Leave voters and that it was “an outrage”.

 

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Pestneb]

That's interesting. I wonder how many wouldn't opt in to that though? If it is cost free (I presume it would be).

It doesn't affect me directly, as I'm dual citizen.

For me the worst Brexit consequence (if I weren't still an EU citizen) would have been travel related.

 

I'm a little concerned by a few noises coming out of the EU following the Brexit vote, but this is the first piece of civilised noise I have heard come from that camp recently.

 

With the recent news of the SNP demanding they have their say though, I have a feeling we'll end up in a worst of both worlds brexit, where we simply, in effect, simply become a muted member of the EU with no real say in it's direction but still suffering economically

(From what I gather the £ was over valued for some time, the referendum allowed the bubble to be popped and it is now sitting in it's correct adjusted place. If that is correct, I don't imagine that cancelling brexit would undo the biggest bit of economic damage.)

 

 

I think the biggest mistake in the referendum was the lack of voting options. The vote was geared to saying "no we want to stay".

If there was a "remain, but reject Camerons negotiations" option I probably would have ticked that. Equally I think there should have been a "Hard brexit, open up to the rest of the world and go it on our own" and a "soft brexit, keep trade open with europe and accept EU immigration" or something like that. It would have given the now government a better idea of what the people actually wanted. It would also have given both campaigns a chance to explain the pro's and cons of a more concrete proposal. Although I'm sure both would have enjoyed spreading fear, lies and mistruths instead of doing their job properly.

[Ashley]

I'd be happy to pay whatever I would have equivalently have been paying if we were still contributing to the EU (although how that would be administered is a big question, but I would pay).

 

It's going to affect my work (both jobs) quite significantly, which is my concern more than travel (although that's going to be a ball ache).

 

Although speaking of the £, I've currently got €300 waiting to be converted back if it picks up. If not I'll probably be in Italy and Greece again some point next year.

 

More options on the paper would have certainly made a more interesting result. I wonder which of the four (remain no change, remain w/ Cameron's adjustments, hard brexit, soft brexit) would have won out. Although it would have then been an even smaller % of the population making a decision that affects the rest than it currently is so the same kind of headache, but the lack of knowing exactly how the leave vote is split is problematic to all but the government it seems, as they seem to believe they wanted hard brexit.

 

And speaking of lies, did you see that crown prosecutors are considering complaints about lies in the leave campaigns. Wouldn't impact the result, but seeing certain people prosecuted would be quite delicious (although I highly doubt anything will come of it).

[Pestneb]

And speaking of lies, did you see that crown prosecutors are considering complaints about lies in the leave campaigns. Wouldn't impact the result, but seeing certain people prosecuted would be quite delicious (although I highly doubt anything will come of it).

 

I didn't but excellent. I think there are a few smaller lies from the remain side too tbh, but I do think both campaigns are the most appalling thing from the whole thing.

 

 

On the smaller groups thing... let's say hard brexit was 32%, soft brexit 20%, remain no change 40%, remain with camerons changes 8%. The brexit side still have 52% vs 48%.

 

Having said that, given the 48% who wanted to stay, I suppose a larger part of that would be pro soft brexit?

I think personally I wanted remain but no cameron negotiation changes, with a second choice of a hard brexit. I hated that neither of my choices were available.

Basically I felt the negotiated changes were unfair to the other member states while also isolating us in an organisation we were locked into (no way a second referendum would ever have come up).

If we kept the status quo I think it would have given us more politically wriggle room to make changes collectively with other member states, rather than asking for special favours.

 

As for hard brexit... any brexit comes with a cost, and I think the greatest "reward" comes from a full brexit. A soft brexit = paying a heavy cost for keeping a pretence of the status quo. But yeah. I think there were two main reasons for brexit (if I understand correctly). Sovereignty without external control (although arguably brexit alone doesn't acheive that... but I understand the EU was most overtly influential) and immigration (although that actually probably comes under sovereignty).

I think soft brexit is basically the worst option because the majority of leave would be disappointed, the majority of remain would be disappointed, and the UK would still be economically crippled (leave) and not 100% sovereign (remain). Worst of both worlds.

 

Longer term I can kinda see the UK rejoining the EU and adopting the euro within a decade of article 50.

[Jonnas]

European Parliament considers plan to let individual Brits opt-in to keep their EU citizenship

 

Wait, British citizens would still vote for the European Parliament? How so? Must the "soft" EU-citizenship be associated with another country's?

 

Letting them keep free movement makes more sense (it's the same with Norway and Switzerland), but even that comes with conditions (the first one being that free movement is a two-way street).

 

I know they're just "considering", but if they ever went through with it in a serious manner, I can't see those benefits coming without a cost for the Brits.

[Ashley]

Maybe UK people would get x MEPs based on size and vote... Online?

 

Elements of it may be eradicated and that might be one of them.

[Jonnas]

Maybe UK people would get x MEPs based on size and vote... Online?

 

Elements of it may be eradicated and that might be one of them.

 

Honestly, I'm just against the idea on principle. An EU where the UK is not a member should not have British representatives in its Commission. It's like if the Republic of Ireland was able to vote for representatives in the British Parliament.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Jonnas

[Eenuh]

Honestly, I'm just against the idea on principle. An EU where the UK is not a member should not have British representatives in its Commission. It's like if the Republic of Ireland was able to vote for representatives in the British Parliament.

 

As much as I want the UK to stay in the EU, I agree with you that it would not be right if people get to keep their EU privileges of free movement and votes, without there being something offered in return by the UK. It just wouldn't be fair, plus I am worried it might lead to other countries trying to get out and get similar deals. :/

[Ashley]

Would financial reimbursement be sufficient? It's all about the banjamin's after all.

[Jimbob]

Couldn't see any other thread for it, but it's done. The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill passed the House of Commons and House of Lords with no changes. Now, it's a waiting game to see exactly when Theresa May will invoke Article 50

[bob]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

[Agent Gibbs]

Couldn't see any other thread for it, but it's done. The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill passed the House of Commons and House of Lords with no changes. Now, it's a waiting game to see exactly when Theresa May will invoke Article 50

 

Can she wait say 30 years?