There's no mandate for a no deal Brexit

[Cinammoncake]

It seems to me (as a remainer) that leavers didn't give their vote to a no deal Brexit. Even if say half of them might want that now, there's no mandate now to go ahead and do something so damaging to the country as this. I don't remember this outcome seeming likely around the time of the referendum, so I think people just didn't vote for that.

ContinuityError
Have you read some of the other ideas in the link? Does the UK want, for example, the creation of a European unemployment fund and an EU-wide unemployment benefit fund?

No Clav because my point on this thread has always been around Article 42.

Although I’d be very happy to be Norwegian when it came to unemployment funds.

And Norwegian when it comes to sovereign wealth funds too.

ContinuityError
From a link on page 25 - a paper on 'The Legal Foundations of a European Army' (2016) -

^"A possible if not likely scenario is that over the next decade several Member States, hopefully including the United Kingdom, will form battle groups until an overall size of 60,000-100,000 is reached. Moreover, once formed they will also be deployed.This will create the experience and tradition to move towards an even more
permanent force in the future. A further development to a more permanent European Rapid Reaction Force would not require a Treaty revision as the Treaty of Lisbon already contains the necessary flexibly framework of permanent structured cooperation."^

That was 2016 - now the they are looking at battle groups in 2019...

No Clav because my point on this thread has always been around Article 42.

^"Article 42 TEU, as all rules of the Treaties, is subject to the principle of subsidiary, which, according to some commentators, 'supports the allocation of defence policy to the EU level, including the establishment of European military structures'.

@Bercows you should have just shouted “House!”

Clavinova it’s now a moot point, but any involvement with an EU army would have required a referendum in the UK.

And if you’re referring to the Trybus paper, then that sees an EU army replacing national forces as the least likely scenario.

And “subsidiarity” not about devolving all powers to the EU when a member state is capable of taking decisions and actions by itself.

A further development to a more permanent European Rapid Reaction Force would not require a Treaty revision as the Treaty of Lisbon already contains the necessary flexibly framework of permanent structured cooperation.

Membership of PESCO is voluntary - and is not an EU army.

ContinuityError
Going back to the document I found on the EU Commission website - it sounds very much like the EU are planing to remove more of our voting powers by stealth;

"President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani remarked on 13 November 2018 that 'a crucial change to be made is to give the European Parliament more power' ... "All this should be seen in the context of President Juncker's recent call–in his 2018 State of the Union address–to build a 'European sovereignty'." ...

"Bearing this in mind, it is useful to embark on a careful re-reading of the currently binding Treaties, with a view to unlocking the potential enshrined in the wording of its articles."

They sound a bit 'Orwellian' to me - I would much rather be a friendly neighbour than part of the European Project.

Orwellian? Try looking at what has been happening in the UK over the last three years:

Judges are “enemies of the people”
Civil Servants are “traitors”
Parliamentarians are “saboteurs”
Plans to prorogue Parliament so government can force through its agenda

And compare to give the European Parliament more power - a democratically elected body? I thought Brexiters disapproved of the EU because power disproportionately resided in the Commission rather than the EP?

Plus I’m not trawling through 93 pages just to find which bit you’ve cherry picked either.

Plus I’m not trawling through 93 pages just to find which bit you’ve cherry picked either.

You don't need to - it's all from the introduction!

Orwellian?

Turns out I wasn't far wrong after all - just found this;

May 2019: "As Europeans prepare to vote in the EU Parliament elections, the European Commission has raised some eyebrows with a tweet extolling the virtues of the union, in true George Orwell style."

^“The EU is peace.The EU is freedom.The EU is solidarity.The EU is diversity.The EU is human rights.The EU is opportunities,” read the Commission’s tweet, posted on Saturday.The message ended with a simple instruction: “Vote.”

So are you disagreeing with any of the aims outlined in that Tweet?

Or do you think Russia Today might have some agenda in calling them “Orwellian”?

Is “Orwellian” that the EU wants to develop the competency of the EP to deliver for EU citizens?

Today, European citizens are not much invested in the institutional debate concerning the European project in its political dimension, but rather focus on whether the Union is capable of delivering on matters of concern to them, within specific policy areas, such as consumer protection, free movement of citizens, irregular migration and combating transnational crime, including terrorism. Even in matters which lie at the heart of the traditionally conceived state sovereignty – the broad domain of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – large proportions of EU citizens want more action on the part of the European institutions. Therefore, expectations of the European public are an important guideline for the European institutions, and delivering upon such expectations, within the Treaty framework, contributes to enhancing the EU's democratic legitimacy.

UK has always had a big say in what goes on in the EU and vetos etc. The fear of some kind of EU developments which have not happened and which we could say no to anyway -v- the absolute crapfest that Brexit is and the damage it's done to our country? Just doesn't make sense. It's a fear based hysteria.
There are a few rich people pushing Brexit who stand to make a lot of money out of it. At everyone else's expense. This is being ignored by the no deal brexiters, some of whom presumably have been whipped up to a frenzy by people like Farage, Ann Widdecombe, Richard Tice, Jacob Rees Mogg. Why not take a step back and look at these people and their agendas.

large proportions of EU citizens want more action on the part of the European institutions.

That's fine - let them get on with it - the UK doesn't have to join in.

That's fine - let them get on with it - the UK doesn't have to join in.

UK citizens are EU citizens though - or are you trying to say that absolutely nobody in the UK wants things such as stronger environmental and climate commitments, protections against terrorism, solutions to irregular migration?

It's a long document though - a few things stick out;

^"Activating the passerelle clause by the European Council (acting
unanimously) and thereby allowing for QMV (majority voting) to be used in Council on Common Foreign and Security Policy without formal Treaty changes."^

"progressive move towards the creation of a European Army"

"full integration of EU energy market"

"uniform election procedure to the European Parliament (EU elections) with the same rules on constituencies, voting age"

"creation of a European unemployment fund and an EU wide unemployment benefit fund"

"possibly granting executive powers to the EU in relation to the adoption or execution of return decisions" (deportations?)

I've only read a fraction of the document.

I voted remain, would do again, and campaigned for remain both before and after the referendum. However, I don't think this is a good argument.

If there is no mandate for no deal, what is there a mandate for? There's no mandate for the withdrawal agreement because not everyone who voted leave voted for that. The same is true for every different flavour of leave. Logically, if you accept that the referendum was a legitimate way of making this decision (not sure I do, but the government definitely does), then it has resulted in a mandate for whichever kind of Leave is actually possible.

I think Remain should spend more time trying to convince people that staying in the EU is a good thing and the alternatives on offer are all worse, and less time arguing about the legitimacy of the referendum. Might well be too late for that now, though :(

If there is no mandate for no deal, what is there a mandate for?

Nothing. Except simplistic slogans. 17 million varied and often mutually contradictory simplistic slogans.

If there's no mandate for anything the logical conclusion would be to maintain the status quo, at least for now. That's all I'm saying, it stands to reason that more people might prefer to stay as we are rather than go down the 'no deal' route.

A confirmatory referendum is the best way to test this. If the no deal Brexiters are so confident it's what everyone wants then nothing to be afraid of. If the no deal Brexiters think really that they're pushing it through in a kind of 'last chance saloon' way, then that's no way to set the course for our country's future for generations to come.

"surely as things stand now the British people are being kept in against their will?"
Blame the ERG and the DUP. If they had sucked up a little compromise we'd be out by now.

I may not want to leave but I want the option to leave. If you join a club you follow it's rules or leave but we are trapped in a club where we have to follow rules we have little say in making. The harder it is becoming to leave the keener I am to get out.

My preferred solution would be a much longer deferral - say 2 years or even 5. We have a period of stability to hammer out a deal and then vote - planned and scheduled. The options to leave with the agreed deal or remain. If there is not an agreed deal the options would be no-deal or remain. This would be a far more informed vote than the last but I think ultimately the result would be the same.

If the Conservatives can't get us out of Europe before the next general election Brexit/UKip will win. We will still end up out of Europe but with an even worse government than the current one. That's what the remainers are risking.

the British people are being kept in against their will

The British people have had lots of opportunities to leave. They could have accepted the WA or a deal similar to Norway or whatever.

But they rejected those options. So in no terms whatsoever are they being kept in against their will.

If you join a club you follow it's rules or leave but we are trapped in a club where we have to follow rules we have little say in making. The harder it is becoming to leave the keener I am to get out.

Simply not true

The UK has a huge say in the EU, vetos and very favourable terms of membership.
As for getting out, the only reason we're not is because our MPs voted down a deal. DUP and ERG included. That is absolutely not the fault of the EU.

It's scary that people believe this misinformation.

If the Conservatives can't get us out of Europe before the next general election Brexit/UKip will win

I dont think the Brexit party would win a general election. If they did, that would be the fault of those who voted them in and not of the 'remainers!'

If there is no mandate for no deal, what is there a mandate for?

What we voted for. A soft Brexit (52:48 split) with a fantastic deal (as promised to the 52% by the leaders of the leave campaign.

They either deliver that, or run another referendum giving us a choice of what is really available......remain or leave with a shit deal or no deal.