People’s Vote Delusion

[PersonaNonGarter]

It isn’t going to happen. For the following reasons:

1. May Government won’t vote for a second referendum
2. No new post-May Tory Government will vote for a second referendum
3. Jeremy Corbyn and those in the Labour Party front benches won’t vote for a second referendum
4. There is no agreement about what the referendum would ask.
5. There is no plausible timetable for a referendum.

Why would Corbyn want a second referendum? He is a Leaver wanting to win in Leave seats. And he wants to implement his domestic agenda, not waste any further time on Brexit votes. The current situation SUITS him.

The obvious conclusion to this is that motivated youngsters should leave the UK and go to 'sunnier climes' while they can.

Yes because Leavers fought through 2 world wars, the black death and rationing and by God these snowflake youngsters can have it fuggin hard too....oh and we managed before.

I’m in Helsinki at the moment - just went round the room in the national museum dedicated to the 10+ year long shock recession in Finland caused by the collapse of its trading relationship with the Soviet Union when the latter collapsed, plus over-extended banks and overly optimistic consumers. As I read the statistics charting acute poverty, suicides, mass unemployment, emigration, I was explaining to my DH that this is why I marched on Saturday - this is the scenario that I am afraid of, and that we face, except that our harm is entirely self inflicted.

'@MyNameIsArthur - hope you are well and heard back from your MP. It would be useful to get your input to this discussion, I think you're now in favour of a referendum - care to share your views here?'

@Indistinct thank you. Am doing okay. Consultant happy. I did hear back from my Conservative MP. He said he will not be supporting a second referendum. When I voted to leave, I felt that we would be able to achieve a reasonable deal but I did not realise that the Northern Ireland border would be such an issue and an obstacle to agreeing a deal. The chance now of leaving without a deal is real and not what I want and so I believe that if this is going to happen, there should be a second referendum and article 50 should be revoked.

Interesting contribution here from Frank Field MP

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/26/insurance-no-deal-brexit-norway-for-now-then-canada

I happen to believe that a Norway style deal would be the best outcome - recognising that Leave won the Referendum but also that that doesn't give the Leavers the right to inflict economic disaster on the rest of us.

However the Frank Field article is nonsense. Why would the EU and the EFTA members undertake all the hard work of letting us in that club just for us to demand that we negotiate out again. And as for saying that the EU won't receive any money from us until after the eventual Canada destination was reached - that is utterly ridiculous. A Norway style deal would involve contributing to EU agencies - does Frank really think the EU will allow us to do that for free? Why would the existing EFTA members allow UK to have something for free that they would be paying for?

There are politicians promoting this option - I expect their idea is that we have Norway now and over the years any enthusiam for moving to "Canada" diminishes so effectively we stay in Norway forever. This is probably a realistic, if cynical, viewpoint, but I hardly think EU or EFTA members are going to want continual uncertainty and negotiations.

With the whole world having witnessed the messing about that the UK has been doing for over 2 years, there will be some very expensive lawyers drawing up whatever agreements that will be made.
There was a minor 'slip up' in the EU membership legislation, but it won't be repeated and in future at least 27 legal teams will be examining it with great detail.

@MyNameIsArthur
Thanks Arthur - sorry for calling on you. Also sorry your MP didn’t agree with you but I think it’s important you registered your views with him.

@LouiseCollins28
So I can just about accepts EFTA+CU option with an elongated exit plan as if should allow UK time to restructure economy but it would require a gov initiative to make it happen. Still don’t see the long term benefits though. Still think we should remain and fight our corner. Think both EU and UK will benefit from us still being involved.

@indistinct thank you. That's okay. My MP sounded quite shirty in his letter actually! I saw a post on my town facebook group by someone urging everyone to contact our MP so maybe he will get a lot more emails and letters

This thread by EU lawyer Jean-Claude PIRIS @piris_jc is very good on why the “Norway for now” approach won’t work:

1/ Some comments on Nick Boles’proposal « Norway For Now »#@NickBoles*,#*@Simon_Nixon, #StephenFidler1, #@pmdfoster
2/This could not be « a new transition », as neither EFTA nor EEA are open to a temporary membership and I doubt their members would accept such a change.
3/ On top of that, due to the fact that there would not be an actual period of transition, UK would fall in cliff edge and a backstop would be necessary because EEA does not allow custom union with EU and does not provide EU single market on agriculture.
4/ Calendar: It would be impossible to get a Norway model status « on 29th March 2019 », as U.K. candidacies to both organisations could not be negotiated before that date (art 217 TFEU).
5/ EFTA, EEA and agreements on EFTA Surveillance Authority and Court of Justice are not « 0ff-the-shelf ». These agreements necessarily need to be opened and negotiated on a number of points for a new accession. Ratifications by 30 States and the EU will have to follow.
6/ Waiting for conclusion and entry into force (or even provisional application) of these acceding treaties, the U.K. will not be able to avoid the cliff edge and the normal WTO rules (absence of transition period).
7/ “Britain maintaining continuity in its customs arrangements », ie to remain in the EU Customs union, would be incompatible with article 56(3) EFTA Convention, which binds acceding members to become party to the FTAs concluded by EFTA Members.
8/ Following that absence of CU with EU, the backstop on the Irish border issue would remain absolutely necessary.

@missmoon
Interesting; wasn’t aware that EFTA effectively has its own CU. Was aware that EEA meant no CAP but wasn’t aware it didn’t allow CU - do we know why? Neither then resolve NI border issue. Presumably the Norths have considered these points as they seem to have most realistic exit plan? Might go and research time permitting. All points to remain for now until a viable non-damaging leaving plan can be produced.

@indistinct

I think it's because only EU members can be part of the EU customs union (according to the treaties). EFTA members have their own set of trade agreements that cover EFTA countries, and these might need to be amended should the UK join EFTA (as it changes the nature of the goods traded as part of the FTAs, for instance). The Norths are keen on the single market but not the customs union, see the Flexcit document.

As other Wetminstenders have been saying all along, all Brexit models, even the softest, are incompatible with the GFA.
The only way to Brexit is with a referendum in Ireland calling for reunification. And that obviously is the sole decision of the Irish people.
Why the hell would Cameron call for a referendum on a question with a possible answer that the UK government could not unilaterally enforce?! (Rhetorical question)
It would have been more honest to ask back in 2016:
Do you want to leave the EU and break up the UK or stay within the EU and the UK as it is known today.

it's not a given that Ireland has to have a ref regarding unification GFA etc..

anyway, the GFA can be adjusted if needs be

Given that the GFA took around 10 years to get negotiated, the 'just change it' suggestion is ridiculous.

if the UK, as a nation state, needs it slightly adjusting, in order to move forward with it's national objective, then so be it.

times change, rules change etc..

One of the few things which gives me a small crumb of comfort, is that Cameron, who wanted to be PM because he thought he would be good at it, will go down in history as one of the most stupid. This doesn't solve the EU/NI border issue.

The GFA is not 'the UKs' to change, it it is an internationally recognised
treaty between many parties.
The UK may want to change it, but the others say no.

who has the power to say 'no'?

Mother: that an an abusd irony, you see, once we're out of the EU, they do not have control of UK internal borders , so whether they 'agree' or not is irrelevent

For once threetrees isn't wholly babbling nonsense - times and rules do change, and if two countries agree that a treaty is no longer relevant then it can be changed. It doesn't need pointing out that this hasn't been the case in NI. NI didn't vote to Leave the EU. One country unilaterally tearing up a treaty has been done before, but usually by a powerful country. Not one which lost its empire and thinks it can punch above its weight but is finding out that it can't.