Merged Now What?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It stands yes. For now anyway.

No, it stands in perpetuity. There may be another decision someway down the line that makes Scotland independent but it won't be an overturning of the previous result. Of course the result of that was 'do nothing' which is much easier to implement

The very need for the reality to be massaged to the voting public, because it will be a whole lot worse than the supporters expect it to be is strongly indicative of just how legitimate the results really are (not very). The British politics needs some soul-searching, it needs to regroup and it needs to get its' feces together.
A new election would likely be the least bad decision to take. If a pro-Brexit party wins the day it has a clear mandate to invoke article 50, come hell or high water. If a think again platform wins the day, it has a clear mandate to ignore the referendum (or at least organize a new one). I'm sure we can count on British media to make sure this question is front and center in the election campaign.

While I agree with an election in principle I don't think it will happen. And the question for that election should be how does the UK go forward outside the EU, not do we implement the referendum result. Otherwise what was the point of the referendum? The results are legitimate in any legal or political sense and the expected outcomes were communicated clearly to the people. There was at no point any indication that a vote to Leave would be a vote to think about leaving or to have an election where we asked again.

It's basically a do-over, but if one believes the will of the British people is indeed to quit the EU, the pro-Brexit side should win anyway. It's a legitimate request, seeing as the victory was indeed narrow and that it immediately became painfully obvious the winning side utilized unusually high levels of deception, levels rare even for the likes of Latin America, whereas the defeating side was obviously right with their warnings. Results obtained by deception can not be easily said to be legitimate, and a 52-48 split that was obtained by deception is also less than convincing. As I've said before, decisions like these really need a bar higher than 50% plus one vote, regardless of participation, and this referendum just barely cleared that bar.

It was clear the winning side were lying BEFORE the result and people still voted for it anyway. Same in Indyref. Same in every election. There was no fraud or improper conduct here as far as we can see.

Again trying to change the rules AFTER the result would be illegitimate, undemocratic and all the other words people are bandying about to describe a result they didn't like.

The main problem with running a do-over in a General Election is that as it stands none of the parties are FOR leaving the EU (and GE's also cannot and should not be about one issue and one issue only). So we would need to bodge together some hasty manifestos with a plan and then run a GE - personally I'd rather we focused on the plan a bit more than winning an election. It's possible that we get a hung parliament. It's possible we need to completely re-jig our political parties to actually get diversity of opinion. It could and likely would just add even more uncertainty. If the Tories formed a minority government can they push ahead and Leave even if Parliament wouldn't approve it? Or do we just keeping tossing the hot potato around and never leave even though the majority of the country voted for it?

Note: if the bar was 60% to vote leave, Boris Johnson would be basking in glory right now. He would have managed to extort the EU to give an even better deal for the UK, he would likely win the Prime Minister seat and obtain even more support, all without being proven a liar and facing the pesky catastrophe of article 50 and what naturally follows from it. With the results as they were there is no victor, only losers.

McHrozni

Yes, if it had been planned properly it would have been better. If DC had listened to Nicola Sturgeon (what listen to someone with a Scottish accent? Not for us Etonians. Not fit to polish our shoes. Wot Wot.) and simply included a clause that all 4 home nations need to agree to it he could have flicked the Vs to Boris, kept his job, and increased his popularity on the back of blaming the porridge wogs. He would also have effectively crushed any hope of Scottish independence in my lifetime.

He's screwed the pooch (or more aptly ********** the pig) on this one.

 

[The Don]

from the BBC news ticker

Former Tory defence secretary Liam Fox will pitch himself as the Brexit candidate, but not the divisive Brexit candidate. He'll contrast that with Boris Johnson, whom he'll argue would be divisive because of his role in the EU campaign.

Liam ******* Fox ?

If Liam Fox thinks he's a unifier - and that people will forget about his "little friend" then I think he's delusional

 

[catsmate]

A derail I suppose, but the UK's economy is driven largely by services followed by manufacturing. I'm certain both of these will take a massive hit as a result of Brexit. Redundancies and relocations have already been announced.

I don't wish it to happen, but I expect to see the UK slip down this league ladder rather steadily.

Yep, my employers are eliminating 850+ positions in the UK and probably a lot more. It's just not worth putting up with the uncertainty.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

from the BBC news ticker



Liam ******* Fox ?

If Liam Fox thinks he's a unifier - and that people will forget about his "little friend" then I think he's delusional

Drag out someone to take the hit and then put Bojo in for the election when things have settled down a bit?

 

[catsmate]

No, you're wrong. It is government policy, the settled will of the people, and there is no viable opposition to enacting the referendum result.

No. As I pointed out previously the actual experts say the exact opposite. I suggest you read the HoL report. I'll quote part of it:

Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed?
We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final.
Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.”

Professor [Derrick] Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis:

There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yep, my employers are eliminating 850+ positions in the UK and probably a lot more. It's just not worth putting up with the uncertainty.

Yep. While its OK to say 'we have 2 years until anything changes' manufacturers will act now to ensure they have continuity on Day 1 of non-EU UK. Would be neglectful not to do so.

Also a great time to execute moves that they were toying with anyway and blame the Brexit for it.

 

[catsmate]

I can think of a couple of reasons. The first is that even though the process may take up to 2 years (or more if unanimous agreement is reached), starting the process signals to the world that a decision has been made and that the UK will exit. Even if this is damaging for the EU, it's less damaging than uncertainty.

I would expect a formal invocation of A50, or an EU Commission declaration that they've deemed it invoked, would trigger a market slide that'd make last Friday look like a blip.

A more Machiavellian view is that why not start the process while the UK is in disarray - gives more chance for the EU to get what they want.

But the EU has the power anyway; the UK is so dependent on access to the single market for financial (and other) services.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. As I pointed out previously the actual experts say the exact opposite. I suggest you read the HoL report. I'll quote part of it:

Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed?
We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final.
Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.”

Professor [Derrick] Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis:

That's not really what Mike argued against but I'd be interested to know what these legal opinions are based on if its not actually in the treaty. Is the presumption that if it isn't explicitly disallowed then its allowed?

 

[catsmate]

Okay, I didn't realize there was such a great difference between the two.
It's Q3/Q4 2016 - does that do?

I may be picking nits but:
UK/European autumn/fall ≠ USAian autumn/fall
Third quarter = July through September ≠ anyone's autumn/fall

 

[kevsta]

I would expect a formal invocation of A50, or an EU Commission declaration that they've deemed it invoked, would trigger a market slide that'd make last Friday look like a blip.

I am certain that privately the EU are well aware that actual (as opposed to preliminary "what if") market fallout will absolutely re-start their own (currently hibernating) debt crisis with a vengeance, and will be privately working behind the scenes to avoid this, as much as possible.

 

[The Don]

I would expect a formal invocation of A50, or an EU Commission declaration that they've deemed it invoked, would trigger a market slide that'd make last Friday look like a blip.

Possibly, maybe even probably - so why are the EU apparently so determined to get the process started quickly ?

But the EU has the power anyway; the UK is so dependent on access to the single market for financial (and other) services.

Not according to the Brexit campaign - according to them the UK will be able to negotiate an exit on the UK's preferred terms (as soon as we work out what they might be )

 

[McHrozni]

No, it stands in perpetuity. There may be another decision someway down the line that makes Scotland independent but it won't be an overturning of the previous result.

Usually that is understood as that decision no longer standing. Alas, if you want to classify it that way I will not object.

While I agree with an election in principle I don't think it will happen. And the question for that election should be how does the UK go forward outside the EU, not do we implement the referendum result. Otherwise what was the point of the referendum? The results are legitimate in any legal or political sense and the expected outcomes were communicated clearly to the people. There was at no point any indication that a vote to Leave would be a vote to think about leaving or to have an election where we asked again.

I thought that was obvious for the past couple of years: the point of the referendum was to decide an internal struggle of the Tory party, not to decide whether the UK should remain in the EU or not. That battle has apparently been decided, but there is no need for the UK to suffer another disaster as a result.

The expected outcomes were communicated clearly, but many people chose to disregard what every respectable expert told them. Now that it has been demonstrated to them the experts were right and the redneck-equivalents were wrong, people may have changed their minds. It is entirely legitimate to call for a confirmation of the result that may have changed as events unfolded.

Again trying to change the rules AFTER the result would be illegitimate, undemocratic and all the other words people are bandying about to describe a result they didn't like.

No one is talking about changing the rules after the result. The result is that the Prime Minister was given a task by the voters he is unable or unwilling to perform, so he did the right thing and stood down. A new election is one of the more legitimate and democratic ways forward from this point on. If that election overturns the result of the referendum, so be it. If it doesn't the question of whether to inflict even more damage to UK or not is also answered in a fairly democratic and proper way.

If the split was, say, 60-40 for Leave, if areas within Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Leave and so on, I'd suggest a different solution. But as it is it is clear that if you wish to preserve the UK as such, the paper-thin margin of this referendum, based on lies as it was, will not suffice.

The main problem with running a do-over in a General Election is that as it stands none of the parties are FOR leaving the EU (and GE's also cannot and should not be about one issue and one issue only). So we would need to bodge together some hasty manifestos with a plan and then run a GE - personally I'd rather we focused on the plan a bit more than winning an election. It's possible that we get a hung parliament. It's possible we need to completely re-jig our political parties to actually get diversity of opinion. It could and likely would just add even more uncertainty. If the Tories formed a minority government can they push ahead and Leave even if Parliament wouldn't approve it? Or do we just keeping tossing the hot potato around and never leave even though the majority of the country voted for it?

This is why I said a general election is the least bad solution, not the best solution out there. If none of the winning parties are willing to go through with the Brexit, and the voters are informed about it and still vote for them, the hot potato problem does not occur. Again it's not the best solution, but the Brits in general and Brexitards (ha! I'll use this term from now on) in particular should've thought of that before they started settling petty internal party scores with something that could potentially doom their country to irrelevancy.

He's screwed the pooch (or more aptly ********** the pig) on this one.

There were many, many mistakes made on this question by various groups across the UK. Clearly no one expected the Brexitard side to win, especially not the Leave camp. If that's not a signal you need to start fixing mistakes, what is?

McHrozni

 

[lionking]

Yep. While its OK to say 'we have 2 years until anything changes' manufacturers will act now to ensure they have continuity on Day 1 of non-EU UK. Would be neglectful not to do so.

Also a great time to execute moves that they were toying with anyway and blame the Brexit for it.

Just as an example, how many wholly British owned car manufacturers are there in the UK? 10? Yes there is massive car manufacturing infrastructure in the UK, mainly funded by European corporations. But how many will stay when upgraded plants are necessary in the tariff-happy UK?

Again, I hope I'm wrong, but there will surely be an exodus of manufacturers. The UK won't survive by selling bonds and insurance.

 

[kevsta]

the groundwork is being laid, the narrative established.

https://next.ft.com/content/8f2aca88-3c51-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a

I do not believe that Brexit will happen

There will be howls of rage, but why should extremists on both sides dictate how the story ends?
Gideon Rachman

 

[angrysoba]

That will not be a UK referendum. The previous two weren't, and rightly so.

I know. I was thinking of all the constituent bits of Scotland. The Highlands, the Orkneys.

 

[The Don]

Just as an example, how many wholly British owned car manufacturers are there in the UK? 10? Yes there is massive car manufacturing infrastructure in the UK, mainly funded by European corporations. But how many will stay when upgraded plants are necessary in the tariff-happy UK?

Again, I hope I'm wrong, but there will surely be an exodus of manufacturers. The UK won't survive by selling bonds and insurance.

Volume manufacturers, zero.

The largest are Morgan, McClaren and Caterham - all of them niche manufacturers.

 

[catsmate]

Possibly, maybe even probably - so why are the EU apparently so determined to get the process started quickly ?

To push as much of the uncertainty onto the UK.

Not according to the Brexit campaign - according to them the UK will be able to negotiate an exit on the UK's preferred terms (as soon as we work out what they might be )

Ah, but the rest of us live in the real world, not BJ's fantasy-land.

 

[Craig B]

I know. I was thinking of all the constituent bits of Scotland. The Highlands, the Orkneys.

I know you were. Very well, we saw that in Ireland in the period 1912-1914 during the discussion of the Home Rule Bill, when Unionists "played the Orange card". Even a century later we're still living with the mess resulting from that unionist mischief making.

 

[MikeG]

No. As I pointed out previously the actual experts say the exact opposite. I suggest you read the HoL report. I'll quote part of it:..........

Huh? I didn't say it couldn't happen legally. I said it couldn't happen. It is going to happen. It's a done deal, settled. There isn't a chance of the conservatives suddenly ignoring the referendum result, and they are the only people who count in this process.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Just as an example, how many wholly British owned car manufacturers are there in the UK? 10? Yes there is massive car manufacturing infrastructure in the UK, mainly funded by European corporations. But how many will stay when upgraded plants are necessary in the tariff-happy UK?

Again, I hope I'm wrong, but there will surely be an exodus of manufacturers. The UK won't survive by selling bonds and insurance.

I believe the number is 4. Bristol Morgan Caterham and MacLaren. And those combined don't even build 5,000 cars a year I would guess. Its hard to keep track there might be more but the 5000 figure would still stand. Can't remember if Ariel, AC, Nobel and a few others are British owned or just British HQ.

The largest plant is Nissan (~500k/year) with Toyota, Honda, Vauxhall, Mini and Jaguar also major builders.

I can't help but think at least one of those will be gone even before the UK formally exits the EU.