Referendum on Exit terms

[wasonthelist]

Tim Fallon is advocating a referendum on the terms of us leaving. One thing I wanted to ask him is - what is people vote "no" (in other words, "no - we don't want to leave on those terms") - do we renegotiate or does he envisage that being an end to it and us remaining in the EU as before? I've never seen him asked this question.

I'm not asking this to be critical of TF - I want to know how he thinks it would work.

I would imagine that unlike before, a PlanA and PlanB would be clearly spelt out.

I don't think calling any more referendums is going to !Anke anything better. It's perfectly possible to reject the outcome of the recent farce of an advisory referendum that hasn't been thought through nor presented any real options without repeating the sorry saga.

Referendums are the device of dictators and demagogues.

The Lib Dems have clearly said that remaining should be one of the options. There should be a choice between the current situation, and whichever detailed plan is negotiated. It's Tim Farron by the way...

I've wondered this . What exactly do they think they are going to be voting for apart from the fact that they want not leaving as one of the questions! Seems to me that they really just want an excuse for a rerun.

Surely after article 50 is invoked we are out? So the choice will be what has been negotiated or no terms at all?

That's the big unknown, carol, and something that is likely going to end up being decided in the ECJ at some point: is Article 50 irreversible or not? The (British) eurocrat who drafted Article 50 says that he thinks it can be reversed and Donald Tusk also takes this view, the UK government says not but really no one knows because it's never even been triggered before let alone been revoked.

I think this question can only be answered sensibly once we know whether A50 is irrevocable or not.

The cognoscenti on Twitter seem to think that the answer to this question is that legally, no one knows, but that it would most likely be made possible if it came to it ...

Whether a revocation would be politically possible, in the context of UK domestic politics, is another question of course.

It's Tim Farron by the way...

Oooops read face for me - thanks (and I do mean thanks - grateful and not being sarky) for the correction.

So the Lib Dems are saying "once we know the terms, we should have a second referendum - which will be -

Leave - on the terms set out

or

Remain (and ask the EU to forget we triggered article 50)

I'm not a fan of referendums in general, but it's not fundamentally unreasonable to ask people whether they would prefer whatever specific type of brexit emerges from the negotiations, or the status quo.

Whether this is legally feasible remains to be seen. It may be that the supreme court ends up referring the issue of revocability to the European court.

I don't think we should have a referendum on the terms proposed by Tim Farron. The questions on the ballot paper would be very complex, not a simple yes no option. And anyway, even if we have proposed terms, it doesn't mean that the Eu would accept them. That exercise would be pointless and very expensive, and again very divisive and will be taken as an opportunity by the UKIP leaders and the like to spread their lies even thicker.

I am for parliamentary representation. The terms of Brexit need to be discussed debated and voted on in parliament. That's enough for me.

Oh and once we trigger the article 50 there is no going back.

The way I see it is you can ask the public what type of Brexit they would like but it's not us who will ultimately make that decision it will be the 27 other EU countries who have the upper hand and will tell us want they are prepared to give us, if anything.

I really feel the LibDems are being a bit presumptuous and up them selves if they really think they or the British people can dictate to the EU our own terms of exit. We can't. So what's the point of it all.

It's tricky, isn't it?

This wouldn't be a second referendum really. In fact, the June referendum was the second referendum on membership. It would be the first referendum looking for the public opinion of the electorate on the their preferred view of the UK's non EU membership situation. If it would be non binding and advisory like the last referendum.

It is total bs for Gove and Andrew Neil to state they know exactly what people voted for. The entire 17million, you understand. Is that just scaled up from the Gove household or the collection of rabid rich self appointed ayatollahs or billionaire bankrolled vassals that are given an easy and unchallenged soapbox on the Daily Politics.

Nick Clegg really showed Neil up as being full of baloney and just argumentative. I think he covers up his lack of knowledge with a belligerent stance. He was barking at him with an ignorance about what the single market was. Nick Clegg had to correct him. No wonder Farage and the rest get away with total tripe as the main politics show in the country has a presenter who doesn't even know what he is talking about. But bolshy with remainers with it.

It was also excellent for Clegg to point out that how it goes forward is the petard the brexiteers have to take responsibility that doesn't hoist the country. They pushed for this. If what they said is all lies, they should admit their mendacity. Andrew Neil always strikes me as Murdoch's lackey really. He was with the Times and is not even handed. The Conservatives who are in power and especially those ideologues who rabidly pushed for a Brexit should be asked every time about farming, research, Northern Ireland, immigration, etc. ad nauseum. They are in power and are fully responsible, especially the brexiteers. They get a very easy time on Neil's show, I think.

As as extra, it was disgraceful for Johnson to twice just bark at Keir Stamer saying he was trying to thwart the democratic will of the people. He just mumbled pisspot bs, ruffled his hair a few times and gave 'what a character am I' bluster to give the people their bread and circus entertainment. Didn't/couldn't answer anything but made sure he gave a finger jabbing inciting 'enemy of the people' tone at Stamer over a non binding, advisory referendum being questioned by parliament. A referendum with no detail. It struck me as having something of the brownshirt about it.

And breathe.

I think it's supposed to be a referendum on the actual negotiated terms, i.e. after an actual deal has been agreed. Assuming we can reverse A50 notification.

Off topic - but I have never understood how Andrew Neil got (and kept) that job. It's one of my (many complaints) about the BBC.