There's no going back after Brexit

[Winterbiscuit]

Cameron has proclaimed that if we leave the EU, there's "no going back".

Was that meant to be a scary warning and put doubts in our minds? I don't see it being a problem!

[squoosh]

Well obviously both sides are trying to put doubts in people's minds. That's what this campaigning lark is all about. They've one day left and it's a mad dash to the finish.

[squoosh]

It's as though some people have never voted in a referendum before..........

[LuisCarol]

If things like Schengen, membership of the euro and the rebate are all meaningless to you then you're right, there is no problem.

[thecatfromjapan]

I seem to remember BoJo's earlier stance was that we would have the referendum, then use a 'Leave' result to negotiate a better deal with the EU.

Clearly, that isn't going to happen. Nevertheless, there are - quite possibly - some people out there who still hold on to this. Hence DC's statement.

I, personally, am very worried that people will lose jobs with a 'Leave' vote. And, yes, that puts a lot of doubt in my mind.

[Brokenbiscuit]

Well, I'm sure we could re-join the EU at some point in the future, if that's what we wanted to do. Just not on the same favourable terms that we have at present.

Personally, I'm in favour of us staying in the EU but not sure I'd want us to be forced into Schengen, the Euro and ever closer union.

If we leave, I think the requirements for us to re-join would be quite unpalatable to most people. Then again, I guess that would depend on how badly the economy was hit by a leave vote. We might be begging to go back on whatever terms they'd have us...

[bkgirl]

Ireland had a referendum and they voted Leave.
The EU made them vote again.
Another referendum.
Then they threatened them some, scared the b'jesus out of them in fact, got them to vote again till they got Remain.
They call that Democracy.

[squoosh]

Er, Ireland never voted to Leave.


They voted on the Lisbon Treaty. You might want to read up on it. If having the correct information is your thing that is.

[thecatfromjapan]

I think DC's message was pretty clear. Any political party ignoring a vote for 'Leave' would be finished. I can't imagine the spin you'd have to put on it, or any approach that would work. I can't imagine any politician or party voluntarily committing electoral suicide like that.

[thecatfromjapan]

Personally, I agree with BrokenBiscuit. Yes, I suppose we could go through the protracted leaving process, then (after whenever and whatever,) reapply. But what would the terms be?

[bkgirl]

squoosh down girl, two glasses of wine (too much for me) and you are right not Leave but Lisbon. Shoot me!Point was the made them have another ref and scared them. :)
The wine was much nicer than a panadol. :)

[thecatfromjapan]

The thing about those second referendums on treaties is that the second referendum was won by suggesting that the consequences of a second 'no' would be exclusion from the EU. Given that this referendum is about voluntary exclusion from the EU ....

In principle, following a vote for 'Leave', there is nothing to stop the UK government entering into negotiations with the EU on various points and then approaching the electorate again, with a second referendum, based on a re-negotiated relationship with the EU.

However, who would do that? It would hardly be very popular with the electorate. It would be career-ending for any PM presenting such a solution and I suspect it would have huge consequences for any party taking such an approach. Really, who would do it, and how? Can you honestly imagine Cameron, or even Johnson (who has implied this would be a possibility) actually standing up and selling it as an idea?

And as the process of negotiation went on, followed by a second referendum, over a long period, there would be continued uncertainty = market unrest = recession. It would be a real mess for the party in government.

Well, if the vote is for 'Leave', I guess we'll find out.

[Mistigri]

He's right in that once article 50 is triggered there is no obvious mechanism for reversing the process.

And any subsequent application to rejoin the EU would undoubtedly be on the same terms as any other country seeking to accede ie the Euro, Schenghen and free movement - all existing opt outs would be lost and would need to be renegotiated.

[WellErrr]

I bet it would be like that feeling when you walk away from a job you thought you needed but hated. Lovely.

[DinosaursRoar]

I do think a renegotiation and 2nd referendum is likely if it's a leave vote but under 55% of the votes for leave. (Particularly if they can fudge it by saying if you add the none-voters to the remain you can say less than half the electorate voted leave...)

It also depends what happens in the rest of the Eu - if other countries start considering leaving, we might get another deal on the table to get us to remain (we have 2 years minimum before we can actually leave, a lot can happen in 2 years...)

[Mistigri]

There are some interesting thoughts about a second referendum here:

ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/22/alan-renwick-the-road-to-brexit/

quote:

There is no easy route to a second referendum. There has been much speculation around the question of whether a second referendum to finalise our future relationship with the EU could be held. As I explored in detail in my earlier post, various kinds of second referendum can be imagined, but all face considerable difficulties. One idea, floated last year by Boris Johnson and revived yesterday by the Sunday Times, is that we might take a referendum vote to leave as an opportunity to negotiate not Brexit, but rather radically revised terms of ongoing membership. In the wake of a public vote specifically for Brexit (unless perhaps the margin is very tight), however, it would be politically very difficult for any Prime Minister to pursue such a path. Another idea is a vote on the terms of the Brexit deal once they have been negotiated. The alternative to accepting the deal might either be that we stay in the EU after all or that we go back and try to negotiate something better. The trouble with both options is that they are legally perilous: Article 50 provides no mechanism for withdrawing a notification of intent to leave the EU, and the two-year limit means that, if we rejected a deal, we could find ourselves on the outside by default. In practice, some way round these difficulties might well be found – but the UK might have to make significant concessions to get there. So, while scenarios leading to a second referendum are conceivable – such as if government and parliament are at loggerheads over the terms of the deal – we should presume that leave means leave."

[peggyundercrackers]

That's fantastic needs there is no going back, it's the best thing Cameron has said in this campaign.

[Lanchester]

David Cameron says "there is no going back",
so presumably that is also saying that we would be
TRAPPED - PERMANENTLY in the EU
If we fail to take this LAST opportunity to exit now while we still can ?

[MrsBlackthorn]

Well no. Legally it's easier to have a second referendum in a decade or two if any of these suggestions of an EU Army or whatever do come to fruition and public opinion demands it.

Leaving the EU, suffering the economic consequences and asking to be let back in, well that will take a very long time indeed and guaranteed to be on very poor terms compared to what we have now.

[Mistigri]

Why would it be the last opportunity? I suspect that if remain wins, promising referendums will become a regular manifesto manoeuvre for parties who think it may win them votes in general elections. So the idea that this settles the matter is, unfortunately, very misplaced.

However, in practical and legal terms, leaving (as in triggering article 50) probably is irrevocable.

[Lanchester]

David Cameron went round visiting EU Leaders in their own countries over recent months,

He demanded - and then pleaded - for "concessions"
regarding free movement of workers - etc.

He got mainly an embarrassed response - and little else !
They wondered slightly resentfully why the UK didn't share their other immediate concerns like the movement of peoples through the Balkans.

After a vote to stay the UK would have no leverage for any further "Concessions" pleading.

[Winterbiscuit]

It has been 41 years since the last referendum. I don't think this chance is going to happen often!

[shinytorch2]

I suspect that if remain wins, promising referendums will become a regular manifesto manoeuvre for parties who think it may win them votes in general elections. So the idea that this settles the matter is, unfortunately, very misplaced.

Agreed. The only manifesto a second referendum will be in if we choose to Remain tomorrow, will be UKIPs - and watch support for them surge as the Labour party and the Tories haemorrhage voters to them. A Remain vote will galvanise UKIP, imo.

Oh and of course the SNP will have IndyRef2 in theirs come what may.....!

[Mistigri]

Agreed. The only manifesto a second referendum will be in if we choose to Remain tomorrow, will be UKIPs - and watch support for them surge as the Labour party and the Tories haemorrhage voters to them. A Remain vote will galvanise UKIP, imo.

Yes, I think this is probably true, although I don't think a leave vote is the end of them either - remember that there is the small matter of the UK's future relationship with the EU to be settled. UKIP will continue as a primarily anti-immigration party that will put pressure on a post-brexit government to refuse any relationship with europe that allows continued free movement.

[thecatfromjapan]

Immigration won't disappear with a 'Leave' vote. I think anyone telling themselves that voting 'Leave' will make UKIP disappear is deluding themselves. Voting 'Leave' will mean negotiating trade deals with the EU, and movement of people is going to be a part of those deals - plenty of scope for UKIP there. Particularly since many of those in favour of 'Leave' who may realistically have executive positions in negotiating those deals don't necessarily object to immigration per se. Their objection is to 'red tape' (workers' rights).

[Mistigri]

Particularly since many of those in favour of 'Leave' who may realistically have executive positions in negotiating those deals don't necessarily object to immigration per se. Their objection is to 'red tape' (workers' rights).

I completely agree with this. You cannot run a campaign that focuses primarily on the negative aspects of immigration, and not expect an anti-immigration party not to do well out of it. UKIP may not come out of this with more MPs, but it is hard to see them disappearing as a force in politics.

Attitudes to immigration have undoubtedly hardened, and there will be political consequences to deal with for many years.