Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

This all could have been so much simpler. Right off the bat, go with the Norway option of EFTA. Negotiations could have focused on small print rather than all this fething faffing about. I’ll try to assume that the EU would have actually been up for negotiation on that rather than just stonewalling like the difficult bastards they are. This would have solved most of the immediate issues. Then, while in EFTA, build alliances with the others and then negotiate as a group for a better deal down the line. As the eu goes deeper, efta can go back. Hell, I can see some other members bailing further down the line.

It kills me that I can type this and the civil service and the government can’t seem to grasp this. For all that supposed expertise, and all that money,

I'm sure the civil service knew this from even before the referendum vote but the civil service works in the direction they're given by government.

But consider this. How long after the vote did you come round to the idea of thinking the Norway model was an acceptable position? You've admitted that you initially were dismissive of the idea and believed the "rule by fax" propaganda spread about it and that it was only by doing your own research into how it actually operates that changed your mind. Now, how many of the people that voted in the referendum will have done the same and come to the same conclusion as you? Some of them might have done research and decide the Norway model was not acceptable as it meant we were still paying in, for example. And many will have not gone away and done the research at all and so will just believe whatever is written about EFTA membership in the media they consume.

Also consider that the Norway model violates many of the red lines set out by May, which were based on the arguments and promises put forth by the leave campaign in the referendum. If the referendum result, based on those arguments and promises, is the will of the people then the Norway model does not meet the requirements to be an actual solution to what those people want.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Sue the EU where, exactly? In their own court? That’ll work.

Even worse, we would be suing ourselves. We're part of the EU.

The idea is through and through nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norway is not in the customs union. This allows it to negotiate its own separate trade deals but also requires border checks. also, Norway is subject to ECJ oversight, and must accept free movement of people.

All of this means that the Norway solution violates two of May's red lines, and also violates the Good Friday agreement.

Those red lines were a huge mistake, doubled by triggering Article 50 when she did.

Parliament really failed the people on that occasion. They should have taken more note of the narrowness of the vote, and insisted on a period of reflection and calm to sort out some proposals.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

This all could have been so much simpler. Right off the bat, go with the Norway option of EFTA. Negotiations could have focused on small print rather than all this fething faffing about. I’ll try to assume that the EU would have actually been up for negotiation on that rather than just stonewalling like the difficult bastards they are. This would have solved most of the immediate issues. Then, while in EFTA, build alliances with the others and then negotiate as a group for a better deal down the line. As the eu goes deeper, efta can go back. Hell, I can see some other members bailing further down the line.

It kills me that I can type this and the civil service and the government can’t seem to grasp this. For all that supposed expertise, and all that money,

I'm sure the civil service knew this from even before the referendum vote but the civil service works in the direction they're given by government.

But consider this. How long after the vote did you come round to the idea of thinking the Norway model was an acceptable position? You've admitted that you initially were dismissive of the idea and believed the "rule by fax" propaganda spread about it and that it was only by doing your own research into how it actually operates that changed your mind. Now, how many of the people that voted in the referendum will have done the same and come to the same conclusion as you? Some of them might have done research and decide the Norway model was not acceptable as it meant we were still paying in, for example. And many will have not gone away and done the research at all and so will just believe whatever is written about EFTA membership in the media they consume.

Also consider that the Norway model violates many of the red lines set out by May, which were based on the arguments and promises put forth by the leave campaign in the referendum. If the referendum result, based on those arguments and promises, is the will of the people then the Norway model does not meet the requirements to be an actual solution to what those people want.

I've said it several times and I will say it again. Why does everyone seem to imply EFTA wants the UK back in?

Yes, they were a founding member but left for greener pastures with a middle finger. As a Swiss poster mentioned they will have to run a referendum in order to allow the UK back in and I can tell you now Swiss politics can be quite toxic.

If the EFTA option was seriously being considered the whole of the foreign service should be starting a charm offensive with every EFTA country right now.

I suspect the EU has a contingency plan written for us, and will make us sign it at the 11th hour to prevent a no deal. They won't extend the transition into their next financial planning period.

I wouldn't be surprised if they let us just fall into a no deal, we don't deserve anything else. Then once reality has slapped enough people I the face we can actually focus on the details and sort a deal.

The EU would much rather keep the UK in the EU, but failing that would rather the UK joins EFTA than some special magical arrangement which isn't workable, or even worse, Hard Brexit.

I still think the most sensible solution would be to back off and just stay in the EU. On the face of it it would seem to solve most of the problems, even if it was a poison pill for Parliament.

The EU does not want to be dealing with this crap in another 2 years though, is the problem.

Article 50 is not irrevocable. The UK can simply change its mind unilaterally and remain in the EU.

This might actually be the best thing, but I think it would have to follow a second referendum.

As for the danger of the UK changing its mind again in two years, the EU has a clause to allow members to leave, so it's got to be open to members leaving. Italy might, for example. There's also a danger of members being kicked out. Poland and Hungary would be the first candidates for this, but I think it's unlikely

In the UK's case I think if we changed our mind again now, we would be very unlikeley to change it again in another two years. Everyone knows that demographic changes are moving the swing-ometer about 1% to Remain every year.

If we were to stay in the EU (looking like a real possibility if I’m honest) then we would need to take a long hard look at how we’ve been playing the system (which is, to be frank, terribly) and change tact. Our fishing quotas and Drunker getting the top job are all down to political ineptitude in our part. My worry is, after all is said and done, every bridge will have been burnt. Maybe they already have.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If we were to stay in the EU (looking like a real possibility if I’m honest) then we would need to take a long hard look at how we’ve been playing the system (which is, to be frank, terribly) and change tact. Our fishing quotas and Drunker getting the top job are all down to political ineptitude in our part. My worry is, after all is said and done, every bridge will have been burnt. Maybe they already have.

The UK got through almost everything they wanted from the EU. Rebates, opt-outs, the common market as a very British brainchild, the eastwards expansion, the lack of a common banking authority and many others.

No one got this kind of special treatment at all stages of membership. So yes, the UK is (used to be?) very good at working the system from the inside.

This is true.

The distribution of the UK fishing quotas isn't an EU prerogative. It's been done by the UK government in order to benefit big business.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If we were to stay in the EU (looking like a real possibility if I’m honest) then we would need to take a long hard look at how we’ve been playing the system (which is, to be frank, terribly) and change tact. Our fishing quotas and Drunker getting the top job are all down to political ineptitude in our part. My worry is, after all is said and done, every bridge will have been burnt. Maybe they already have.

Nah, Trump has declared the EU the enemy, so expect it to be getting a big increase in popularity in the UK soon.


Also, this insanity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44838333/donald-trump-theresa-may-on-the-president-s-eu-advice

It's not insanity, it's just the usual Trump twattery.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is true.

The distribution of the UK fishing quotas isn't an EU prerogative. It's been done by the UK government in order to benefit big business.

And small business who found it easier to just sell their quotas and let others do the actual fishing.

BaronIvea wrote:

Also, this insanity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44838333/donald-trump-theresa-may-on-the-president-s-eu-advice

She can barely contain a laugh. So does this mean she's given up trying to suck up to Trump?

It seems so. She is almost openly ridiculing him...

Herzlos wrote:

BaronIvea wrote:

Also, this insanity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44838333/donald-trump-theresa-may-on-the-president-s-eu-advice

She can barely contain a laugh. So does this mean she's given up trying to suck up to Trump?

It means she has very carefully selected an anecdote that she can mention on tv that suggests she might think he’s a bit silly whilst never criticising him directly. Quite possibly with his endorsement. Good of Marr to ask the question exactly as requested to set it up. Like it was good of him not to ask about another sleaze resignation. Mind you, I suppose he’s probably sympathetic to people whose extra-marital antics come put in the press. Too bad Griffiths didn’t get a superinjuction.

Justine Greening calls for second referendum.

TL/DR: A second vote with three options as follows: Hard Brexit, the May plan, Remain, and single AV voting so that people are forced to make a decision that Parliament is unable to.

The main problem I see with this is that the May plan probably isn't workable even if people choose it.

It's a big question. I think Remain would be the only option with a chance of getting 50% in the first count, but is it likely?

If not then who knows how it would all shake out... Most Remainers would have the May/EU-negotiated Soft Brexit as a second choice I assume. Would most Hard Brexiteers? I assume they'd think that neither Remain or Soft Brexit deliver "True Brexit" but at least Remain gives us some ability to make decisions in the bloc.

And at this stage how many people would have Soft Brexit as a first choice? My instant reaction is an extremely small number (it seems the only people who advocate for SB are Remain-leaning politicians steering along the "will of the people" line) but I could be wrong; and where would those Soft Brexiteers be more likely to place a second choice?

Edit:

Most political commentators say there wouldn't enough time anyway to get it all set up before the end of March 2019 so the EU would have to agree to the extension of A50...

Can I remind people that referendums are not legally binding.

And to an earlier point made by Kilkrazy: nobody knows if the UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit - it obviously hasn't been tested.

I'm reliably informed that there is such a case heading for the ECJ and has been in the pipeline for a few months. It came from Ireland or something.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Can I remind people that referendums are not legally binding.

They can be declared to be, the last one wasn't.

Who knows what will happen. There's no political will in Parliament to either wreck the economy with a Hard Brexit, to advocate Remain (and call the bluff of people like Bernard Jenkin insisting today that he knows exactly what the 17 million all voted for), or to try to fudge with a "let's just hurt the economy a little, sign up for a Soft Brexit and claim as loudly as possible the result has been respected" plan. I can't see a referendum happening but it's at least a way for Parliament to get a fresh mandate to move forward with something because right now we're going nowhere.

 Riquende wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Can I remind people that referendums are not legally binding.

They can be declared to be, the last one wasn't.

Who knows what will happen. There's no political will in Parliament to either wreck the economy with a Hard Brexit, to advocate Remain (and call the bluff of people like Bernard Jenkin insisting today that he knows exactly what the 17 million all voted for), or to try to fudge with a "let's just hurt the economy a little, sign up for a Soft Brexit and claim as loudly as possible the result has been respected" plan. I can't see a referendum happening but it's at least a way for Parliament to get a fresh mandate to move forward with something because right now we're going nowhere.

As others have pointed out, there's no time for it, and if I'm being hand on heart honest, I don't think the country can be bothered with another vote. After all, people are still waiting for the first referendum to be implemented, never mind a second.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Can I remind people that referendums are not legally binding.

And to an earlier point made by Kilkrazy: nobody knows if the UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit - it obviously hasn't been tested.

I'm reliably informed that there is such a case heading for the ECJ and has been in the pipeline for a few months. It came from Ireland or something.

EU informed legal opinion is that the UK can unilaterally reverse its decision to Brexit. This isn't a decision of the ECJ but it follows the logic that announcing an intention is not the completion of an act.

The EU wants to keep the UK inside, so would be unlikely to offer much resistance to the UK withdrawing its Article 50 letter.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Can I remind people that referendums are not legally binding.

And to an earlier point made by Kilkrazy: nobody knows if the UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit - it obviously hasn't been tested.

I'm reliably informed that there is such a case heading for the ECJ and has been in the pipeline for a few months. It came from Ireland or something.

EU informed legal opinion is that the UK can unilaterally reverse its decision to Brexit. This isn't a decision of the ECJ but it follows the logic that announcing an intention is not the completion of an act.

The EU wants to keep the UK inside, so would be unlikely to offer much resistance to the UK withdrawing its Article 50 letter.

It's still got to be tested in some court, because logically, every country could invoke A50 in order to shake down the EU for some extra concessions.

We haven't had any concessions.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
After all, people are still waiting for the first referendum to be implemented, never mind a second.

The issue is that nobody in power can agree on or get any sort of majority together to find a specific way to implement it, and nor is there a clear mandate for any specific course of action, regardless of what the Hard Brexiteers tell you 17m people voted for.

If the plan is to have a second referendum then those "Tory Rebels" would want to get on with it NOW, and stop backing Theresa May of the stupid red lines and half arsed fudge.

Labour would want to get on board as well.

As is, I cannot see it as a viable political strategy, too few people are calling for it, they have not had the gumption to actually take any political risks to try and make it happen, and you would need to go ask the EU now, ASAP, about pausing the Article 50 process.

Also, that referendum is unlikely to be accepted as proposed. It would split the vote between two brexit options and one remain option. A bigger discussion about what is actually possible, or a more straightforward in-out question is needed.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And to an earlier point made by Kilkrazy: nobody knows if the UK can unilaterally reverse Brexit - it obviously hasn't been tested.

Most of the experts believe it is, and even Barnier has been hinting at it. So I think it's safe to think it can be undone.

It might take a bit of bartering or a legal case, but I doubt it'd need to go that far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:

And at this stage how many people would have Soft Brexit as a first choice? My instant reaction is an extremely small number (it seems the only people who advocate for SB are Remain-leaning politicians steering along the "will of the people" line) but I could be wrong; and where would those Soft Brexiteers be more likely to place a second choice?

I'd estimate at least half of Brexiteers would choose a soft brexit (not May's Brexit, which is dead on arrival) first. They'd then probably split 50:50 for the 2nd choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree a 2nd referendum would likely be the only way to get this to a conclusion, and it needs to be run ASAP whilst there's still time to do something with the result.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


It's still got to be tested in some court, because logically, every country could invoke A50 in order to shake down the EU for some extra concessions.

Only if the EU refused. But they could agree and then re-draft it with more clarity.

The EU hasn't and won't give us any concessions.

 Da Boss wrote:
If the plan is to have a second referendum then those "Tory Rebels" would want to get on with it NOW, and stop backing Theresa May of the stupid red lines and half arsed fudge.

You couldn't hold it until the deal was agreed though. It's almost like wasting 2 years on internal bickering wasn't a hugely effective use of Government time. Just how much earlier could the white paper have been published?

The more I think about it, the more I think we should just ignore the deal. Nobody would like it. Instead: Referendum called - "We, the conservatives, have spent years fannying about, wasting the country's time calling general elections, setting unhelpful red lines, losing ministers left and right and basically being incompetent. Despite that incompetency we have determined that there is no possible way to work out a deal with the EU so have it people - should we stay or should we go? No campaigning, no lies - either everything stays as it was before the first referendum or we go out, no deal, nothing to soften the blow. Decide."

 Da Boss wrote:
If the plan is to have a second referendum then those "Tory Rebels" would want to get on with it NOW, and stop backing Theresa May of the stupid red lines and half arsed fudge.

Labour would want to get on board as well.

As is, I cannot see it as a viable political strategy, too few people are calling for it, they have not had the gumption to actually take any political risks to try and make it happen, and you would need to go ask the EU now, ASAP, about pausing the Article 50 process.

Also, that referendum is unlikely to be accepted as proposed. It would split the vote between two brexit options and one remain option. A bigger discussion about what is actually possible, or a more straightforward in-out question is needed.

The purpose of the referendum is to force Parliament to do something, because Parliament can't make its mind up.

I think a three-way question is fine. It allows people to express their preferences more accurately than an 'in-out' question -- which after all is what got us into this mess from the first referundum.

I don't think the May option is a viable one, but at least a clear public choice for the May option would force the government and Parliament away from the two extremes of Hard Bexit/No Brexit.