Second Referendum

[MyNameIsArthur]

If there was a second referendum, how would you phrase the question on the ballot paper? I thought maybe it should be phrased in the following way in two parts but I'm not sure. What do you think?

A) Do you wish for the UK to Remain in the EU or to leave the EU ?

B) If the majority of the UK votes to leave the EU, do you wish for the UK to leave with:

                    1         Theresa May's deal
                    2          No deal

@madeyemoodysmum Exactly!!

I like the phrasing you suggested, OP.

In most choices where there’s a major change of policy the status quoted prevails until all the detail are settled and there’s a clear real majority,. It as an advisory vote. TM ducked it up after Cameron fucked it up. All to try and solve a Tory party problem,

A second vote won’t happen, we’ll get no deal, which is a v bad prospect. I couldn’t vote, but I would have voted leave, still would. Out can’t disentangle that many years easily and well.

Riots in France
Initially for similar reasons to the UK, poorer people's lives being ignored by 'Paris'. Protests started peacefully but have been taken over by the equivalent of Tommy Robinson. The UK may be about to get it's own version.
Meanwhile youngsters in London and elsewhere are knifing each other to death.

Merkel clinging for dear life
Of course she has opposition but Germany is still WAY ahead of most others financially.

Italy are unhappy
Italy is often 'unhappy'.

Riots in Brussels
Objections to helping immigrants among other reasons, plus a 'far right disruptive element.

Netherlands watching us closely
Meaning what?

Other EU members in a state of near bankruptcy
And you think the UK isn't?
Mrs May's 'end of austerity' is a lie. The UK will have a massive withdrawal bill to pay on top of trying to negotiate with anybody and none have any really good reason to give the UK a really 'good' deal, they don't need to as they know the UK has pulled it's trousers down and is bending over in best 'private school' style.

Remember, NO ONE has managed to suggest what the UK is going to DO to make it MORE competitive than how it is now within the EU.
There are no viable coal mines or other natural resources. Financial institutions need to be 'connected' to other countries, the UK is isolating itself in terms of 'passporting'.
Farage, May, the ERG, NONE have said what the UK can do to create wealth in a practical sense. The UK has not got anything 'unique' that can't be sourced elsewhere in the world. Fine words don't work when your bank account is empty. You don't hand an IOU to the cashier at Tescos and expect to go out with the goods.
Yes there are problems across Europe but NOTHING like what will hit the UK who will be entirely alone. If it is a financial issue in Europe, the ECB can discuss a solution.
Woe betide the UK if after it has left, the right wing elements across Europe get it into their heads that the UK has having significantly caused the issues they are angry about. The UK is forcing the governments of all EU countries to pay out big piles of money to make new trade systems work, The Dutch around £400 per person. You do need to think a bit further than the end of your street.

But the fact is that the head of HMRC, and his Irish counterpart, have both said there is no need for any additional physical infrastructure on the Irish border. Just last week, two of the world’s leading customs experts told the Commons Northern Ireland Select Committee this, insisting we can rely on existing technology, trusted trader schemes and behind-the-border checks.

From that Spectator article. Who are the people he said said those things, and if it's true why the problem? Why are their names not given, I wonder? And does what they are saying relate to the Customs Union only (this might make some kind of sense) or the integrity of the single market when it comes to safety standards for food and goods? Because I'd expect customs duties to be possible to handle without a hard border as such. I believe some things actually do currently operate on a system of trust. The single market is not the same as the Customs Union.

Ordinary people in the EU are used to trusting that food and goods meet certain standards. If there's no hard border there will be no way of keeping non EU standard food and goods out of the EU. I don't believe that article is addressing that aspect of a border at all.

Currently NI's economy is roughly about 50:50 exports to the rest of the UK and to the rest of the world. But most of the exports go through the republic and shipped from there.

I think the question should be two part,

Remain
Leave

Part 2 if you voted leave
TM deal
Try negotiate again ( if E.U. willing )
Leave on WTO ( until a trade deal agreed)

I'd be worried about too complicated a question in any ballot, many people in the UK cannot even read or write.

It would be better if Parliament resolved this issue themselves....

apparently Cameron is back advising the government, so all will be well, i am soooooo relived.

There is NO renegotiation, the EU is not willing. Nor should it have to, it is the UK that is leaving. It made this choice, now get over it.
If the WA was reopened all the EU countries that have had to compromise to get it this far will rip the UK to shreds. French, Dutch and others for fishing, Spain for Gibraltar and others. Individual EU countries are not happy with the WA either as it is too SOFT on the UK.
WTO rules may appear attractive and after 10 years of negotiations some deals might get done but in the intervening years the UK will be hit by massive tariffs. It would take a couple of years just to get the lawyers together to actually discuss it.

Maybe people are omitting the fact that there are not a few thousand highly skilled lawyers trained in the relevant fields just waiting to sort the legal niceties of all this mess. Unless it is covered by law, nothing happens.

1tisILeClerc Compromise in what way exactly? We are only at the stage of talking about leaving, A50 should have been written in a way where any country should know the terms of leaving

A50 DOES say precisely what happens when a country leaves. ALL treaties end completely at the time allotted, 11pm on 29 March 2019.

EVERY agreement is ripped up and is null and void, just like your car insurance at the end of it's validity. A50 does not have a 'grace' period in itself.
Legally, all the 'bad stuff' that has been suggested really does happen.
EU nationals standing on UK soil are technically illegal immigrants.
France can legally switch off the power interconnector and the UK will lose about 10% of the electricity it needs. Ships carrying food and 'stuff' to the UK will stay in harbour, they would be breaking the law to do otherwise. That is what No Deal means.
The same as you rocking up to a supermarket 10 minutes after it closes, you get NOTHING.
The WA lets the UK leave gently.

Worth a read-

news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

1tisILeClerc The WA terms you are leaving on, not having to negotiate to leave

1tisILeClerc there’s no such thing as no deal as we will go on trading on WTO terms, Perhaps if the E.U. was worried about Europeans citizens rights they would do more for them in negotiations

WTO terms seem to mean that we can’t impose any trade tariffs on any country because we won’t impose them on Ireland. That doesn’t sound like a solution to be throwing around.

I think we should have some kind of general election/referendum hybrid, where cross party groups speak for each of the options (remain, deal, no deal), publishing a manifesto outlining their vision for the country that they would then have to deliver so they can't wriggle out of it.

I just don't see how anyone would vote for a manifesto with any kind of Brexit in it, if the detail was set out rather than the slogans.

We should also have a Mueller-style inquiry into foreign interference/manipulation of voters in the 2016 referendum.

If there's to be no hard border in NI noblegiraffe , then yes. Can't descrimate on goods coming from the EU (ROI) Vs goods from the rest of the world. The funniest thing is, JRM posted an article on Twitter explaining this but didn't seem it realise. Its ridiculous.

{ Hesta54 Mon 17-Dec-18 13:08:37

1tisILeClerc there’s no such thing as no deal as we will go on trading on WTO terms, Perhaps if the E.U. was worried about Europeans citizens rights they would do more for them in negotiations.}

Not quite.
The UK is a WTO member in it's own right, .meaning that it has passed the qualifications to be a member. HOWEVER the terms it is trading under now are as part of the EU, so the UK is piggybacking on the EU as a trade block of 500 Million.
When the UK leaves, it can indeed use it's membership of the WTO without having to go through the membership formalities but all the tariffs get reset to the WTO default, that no one else actually uses, as everyone has a 'deal' with someone. So, the UK will be sat at a table with a 'wish list' and will face the other 164 members alone, representing just 65 Million people.
The WTO does not set tariffs, it sets the framework to ensure 'fair play', the rules of the game.

{ Perhaps if the E.U. was worried about Europeans citizens rights they would do more for them in negotiations}
In general the EU is doing quite a lot for citizens rights. It is the UK government using them as 'pawns' in a power play that is the problem. The combination of Theresa's 'Hostile environment' and erosion of citizens rights that is particularly unpleasant and vindictive. Since the UK still hasn't said what it really wants it is very difficult for the EU to come up with a plan, it is the UK government all along who have ballsed this up.
It is the UK leaving, it is not up to the EU to sort out this complete fuck up.

The WTO 'default' tariff for lamb is 40% and beef 23% I think.
Lamb producers in the UK are considering having to slaughter a couple of million lambs when the UK leaves if it does not either use the WA or remain.

" but the point about not being able to drop tariffs on produce from one country without dropping them for all, is refuted by IEA "

The IEA have that wrong. If we were to offer one country 0 tariffs through MFN status, we;'d have to open it to them all, that's the way MFN status works.

This article: beefandlambmatters.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-uk-imports-lamb-from-new-zealand.html

Doesn't seem to say what you think it did. We export most of our lamb because it contains products the UK doesn't eat.

"So far in 2013, the UK is the second largest importer of sheep meat in the world, while holding its position as the third largest exporter globally. However, if it weren’t for imported product, we would likely see a decline in domestic consumption, rather than a large scale switch into domestic product due to surplus sheep meat being the wrong type of product, lack of availability at the right time and being priced above the reach of some consumers."

So basically when we export most of our lamb to the EU, tariff free, tariffs will cause the number of exports to fall.

The point about importing food from Africa? Ok if we are going to lower standards etc too, but also see the UK agriculture industry colapse ( as first predicted by Minford).

Essentially the IEA and Minford models make a few assumptions.

1., They assume perfect competition, where price is the only determinant of demand. Perfectly competitive markets don't exist ( products are not homogeneous) and price is not the only important determinant of demand, even for agricultural produce.

Thus I found this odd:" found this an odd example given the number of UK cars imported from Germany" the most important determinant of demand for cars is not price. WTO terms would see the death of the UK car manufacturing industry, which would of course reduce consumer choice here. Employing WTO terms on cars would mean all of them increase in cost ( including the Korean cars where the tariff is not WTO standard). However, people will still be purchasing BMWs, Audi and VW cars over others ( but remember that the majority of US brand cars in the UK are produced in the EU).

The rest of

My choice of 'Africa' was only representative of a country where we do not already have significant trade. There is also the issue that due to internal wars the food situation on the African continent is hardly stable and would almost certainly be unable to replace the foodstuffs the UK obtains from Europe. There is also an issue that many countries are getting deeply into debt with China who will happily throw it's weight about if it suits them. Even the USA would squeal if China called in the debts the USA has racked up. The Chinese approach to world domination is not normally militarily, but financially, with massive loans for infrastructure. Railways and cities all around the South China sea etc. All fine and dandy if the respective governments do what China wants. Of course the ongoing arguments over Taiwan are only partly to do with their claim to Taiwan, but also as a reminder to others that China will not be crossed.

Of course there are virtually no 'British' cars any more. Apart from about 4 very niche makers the rest are simply 'foreign' cars assembled in the UK, with varying amounts of local content.
The UK leaving the EU without SM/CU virtually removes the reason to assemble cars in the UK at all.

Actually there are no British cars anymore.

Morgan use BMW engines.

Rolls Royce have BMW parts and supply lines

Aston Martin use Mercedes AMG Engines

Bentley's are based on VW parts ( which is why the W12 engine in the Continental also appears in the VW phaeton sans turbo chargers).

I know way, way too much about cars

1tisILeClerc It’s funny how you can hear the same thing and have two outcomes, TM has said she will uphold E.U. citizens rights in a no deal situation, the same cannot be said of the E.U.

Look at the date dimwit, she hadn't even declared article 50 at that point so no they weren't going to discuss anything till the UK had made its position clear.

@BorisBogtrotter , you can never know too much about cars