Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[removeduser_487563287433]

A significan portion of UKs people hasn't realized that Brexit cannot be stopped, invoking a second referendum doesn't make any sense because there is no way to reverse the triggering of the Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

What makes you believe this?

[Principe Alessandro]

What makes you believe this?

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.htm

Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification.

[removeduser_487563287433]

That just means both the UK and the EU would need to agree to reverse it. And why would the EU refuse?

[Knight of Heaven]

Exactly it can be reversed if there is political will.

[Daruwind]

It is politics..everything is possible especially if somebody got little better mandate. Brexit vote was so close that any new winner of general election can easily claim to have better,newer,stronger position to do whatever just because he won GE.... if the vote was 90% for leave that would be something else probably but 52/48. Pls so far any real damage was probably caused just to Britain. Two lost years.

[JP226]

It's crazy how democracy allows folks to vote in what they think is their best interest when the opposite is normally true.

It is politics..everything is possible especially if somebody got little better mandate. Brexit vote was so close that any new winner of general election can easily claim to have better,newer,stronger position to do whatever just because he won GE.... if the vote was 90% for leave that would be something else probably but 52/48. Pls so far any real damage was probably caused just to Britain. Two lost years.

agreed, I like democracy and all, but sometimes folks get in the way of the betters of society.

[Paggers]

^ ^ For me that's the whole point to democratic societies. It gives rise to the ultimate freedom...the freedom to take the consequences of one's own actions. Can't progress if we don't learn from mistakes. Per the article below, there is an ongoing case, t's dated 21 September 2018, but I can't see the date anywhere, although I'm still half asleep so who knows. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...urt-of-justice As far as I'm aware no judgement has been given as yet.The only issue I foresee is if the ECJ rules Article 50 can be revoked it may well harden attitudes due to it being seen as the ECJ interfering in a democratic process, no matter how flawed that process may/not have been.Also, with all due respect, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.htm is only a press release and does not have the force of Law. One cannot rely on such as being legally watertight.I notice that part of the release refers to

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Does anyone have this?If it agrees with what was shown earlier then of course I will withdraw objections.I am a reasonable person after all.

[95thrifleman]

That just means both the UK and the EU would need to agree to reverse it. And why would the EU refuse?

The EU wold renegotiate, goodbye to the comfy rebates and we'd be forced to sign shengen and accept the euro.

[Big War Bird]

That just means both the UK and the EU would need to agree to reverse it. And why would the EU refuse?

At this point does the EU Commission want a UK member and to have UK MEPs constantly pointing out how indemocratic it is, when it might be possible to force the UK back into its orbit anyway.

[Elmetiacos]

The EU wold renegotiate, goodbye to the comfy rebates and we'd be forced to sign shengen and accept the euro.

No, it wouldn't be rejoining the EU, it would simply be halting the exit process. According to 50.4 there wouldn't even need to be unanimity among the other member states.

[mongrel]

The prodigal Brexiteer.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...es-for-brexit/

Whether pro or anti, I haven't experienced this much anger and bewilderment about government since the days of Callaghan/Heath. Once this Brexit farce is done I think there will be a reckoning. People are realising that working poor will be substantially less well off than they already are under Brexit, the same people who have already suffered from almost a decade of austerity, tax increases and cuts in services..

[Paggers]

I think Theresa May pretty much gave up. She knew she'd never get a deal that would be accepted so took whatever the EU was offering, knowing it'd be voted down and lead to no deal.

She only has 2 options left to her now 1) Put the deal to parliment and get on with a no deal crash 2) Put the deal to parliment with a second referendum attached to it.

Having seen and digested what has occurred today and yesterday, I agree 're her choices.

I expect she will choose option 1 and the House will amend to option 2.

I also think that the deal will be blocked and there will be moves to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50 to allow time to prepare for a new referendum. I think the choice will be between accepting the deal or staying in the EU.

Personally I voted Leave as I want a sovereign Parliament and see this as a viable way to limit what I see as undue interference by the institutions of the EU. I expect my earlier posts have made this implicitly obvious. Now as an ardent believer in Parliamentary Democracy I find myself in agreement with David Lammy MP. If Parliament is stuck, refer back to the people.

Vote to accept the deal on the table - enact the deal through both Houses ASAP, using the Parliament Act if necessary to push it through the Lords. If the people vote to accept the deal it is not viable for the Lords to obfuscate and/or obstruct, imo.

Vote to remain in the EU - enact legislation to revoke the triggering of Article 50. Also ASAP.

[neoptolemos]

https://punchng.com/british-poor-are...rer-un-report/

I really don't know how "more democracy " could be possible with the averege Brit becoming poorer....

Also relevant
https://medium.com/the-jist/was-eu-t...m-980ba88a8077

https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...hore-tax-haven

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...else-1-4896702

And finally an insightful article
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-fintan-otoole

[Paggers]

https://punchng.com/british-poor-are...rer-un-report/

I really don't know how "more democracy " could be possible with the averege Brit becoming poorer....

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying people will stop getting poorer if we don't have 'more democracy '[sic]? Disagree. Or that maybe we should focus on solving / alleviating the many social problems in the UK as opposed to endless democratic exercises? Strongly agree. Unfortunately we are where we are and the above post is just my personal view.

Also relevant
https://medium.com/the-jist/was-eu-t...m-980ba88a8077

https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...hore-tax-haven

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...else-1-4896702

I've read these before. I think that their relevance has been superseded by subsequent events although they are interesting in showing various motivations.

And finally an insightful article
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-fintan-otoole

This article is long and detailed for this time of day. There are some good points and it does amuse me with the focus on giving the finger to the EU. However, an awful lot of it is old hat. I made the point in an earlier post. Until those in influential positions who voted remain fully grasp why the UK voted to leave then these divisions will not heal. After years of austerity those outside the capital were seeing recovery there and no improvements in their own fortunes. It was a recipe to give Mr Cameron a bloody nose and that's what he got. I've said it before. We should not have had a referendum and Parliament should've had the nouse to realise this.

Now it is up to Parliament to use the meaningful vote to choose what happens next just as 95thrifleman has said.

Finally, (thank goodness I hear you cry) there isn't much point chewing over old soup. We have to live in the here and now so it would be good if we just get on with sorting out this impasse.

[caratacus]

Having seen and digested what has occurred today and yesterday, I agree 're her choices.

I expect she will choose option 1 and the House will amend to option 2.

I also think that the deal will be blocked and there will be moves to ask the EU for an extension to Article 50 to allow time to prepare for a new referendum. I think the choice will be between accepting the deal or staying in the EU.

Personally I voted Leave as I want a sovereign Parliament and see this as a viable way to limit what I see as undue interference by the institutions of the EU. I expect my earlier posts have made this implicitly obvious. Now as an ardent believer in Parliamentary Democracy I find myself in agreement with David Lammy MP. If Parliament is stuck, refer back to the people.

Vote to accept the deal on the table - enact the deal through both Houses ASAP, using the Parliament Act if necessary to push it through the Lords. If the people vote to accept the deal it is not viable for the Lords to obfuscate and/or obstruct, imo.

Vote to remain in the EU - enact legislation to revoke the triggering of Article 50. Also ASAP.

Lammy is a remainer, he wants to delay and if possible thwart Brexit, he'd love a delay as long as possible. It's been over two years already!

And how can people vote on a deal they haven't read? Have you read all 585 pages, do you know where you can see it? The whole process has been anything other than open and public. The document was prepared by civil servants behind closed doors unseen by May's cabinet including her own Brexit Secretary. And government ministers given less than 24 hours to read it prior to attending a meeting to rubber stamp it.

That's what this whole 48hr crisis has been about, the reaction to finally seeing what's in it by those within the government! A minority government at that. All this shambles could have been avoided through greater openess with monthly update reports to Parliament. But how could you get that when even the Brexit secretaries weren't consulted. You think this agreement plan has a public manadate by virtue of the referendum result and its a case of except it or no Brexit in yet another referendum? Even if it did, you cannot put this to parliament unless the people themselves have seen its content and whether it accords with their vote in the referendum. It was the people that voted for Brexit remember, NOT Parliament! Copies need to be made freely available to all the British public online and in libraries so the public can express their views to local MPs before it goes before parliament. Although whether they will pay any heed is another matter. This "I'm doing it for the good of the Country, trust me" isn't what I call democratic. Especialy when that deal results in surrendering sovereignty. That is what the referendum was all about.

Seemingly the the task of explaining this agreement is left to those who oppose it.

Brexiteer Tory MP Mark Francois, who has submitted a letter of no confidence, says the prime minister is "irretrievably committed to Chequers".
He says: "The draft agreement is 585 pages, it is extremely complex and is written in legalese.

"Because of this, tomorrow morning at 9am Conservative MP Steve Baker will make publicly available a seven page document summarising the agreement which everyone should read."

He says the document will "expose Chequers". -BBC NEWS

[Paggers]

You're absolutely correct. Copies do need to be made available to the public. Timing is an issue. Before or after a meaningful vote. Not really sure, but I was only agreeing with an earlier post about which options to lay before the House. We voted Leave and instructed the Govt to do so, but our democracy works through Parliament and the Govt has said meaningful vote. If the Commons amends to a new referendum then that's what will happen. If the electorate don't agree with how their MP votes then they can punish via a general election.

Also, I'm aware David Lammy is a remainer, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't think he's correct on this particular occasion.

[caratacus]

You're absolutely correct. Copies do need to be made available to the public. Timing is an issue. Before or after a meaningful vote. Not really sure, but I was only agreeing with an earlier post about which options to lay before the House. We voted Leave and instructed the Govt to do so, but our democracy works through Parliament and the Govt has said meaningful vote. If the Commons amends to a new referendum then that's what will happen. If the electorate don't agree with how their MP votes then they can punish via a general election.

Also, I'm aware David Lammy is a remainer, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't think he's correct on this particular occasion.

But it is unlikely that Mr Lammy has read through the document that he is so enthusiastically asking for a referendum on. I doubt most people have, even members of the present government. His purpose is so obviously obfuscation, something that should not be part of an elected members role in Parliament.

Why undertake another rerferendum, when the prevous one has neither resulted in a clear path to Brexit nor a document that has received any universal support. Who is expected to implement the result? certainly not Theresa May who is welded to the present withdrawl document without amendment. The only solution to the current impasse is a general election, something that should have been undertaken immediately after the referendum two years ago.

[Paggers]

Ok. So we go with your suggestion of a general election. There are many possible outcomes. I have a lot of sympathy with your statement that it should've been straightaway but it's too late now.

Anyway we have the election.
Scenario 1 - Conservative majority.
Scenario 2 - Labour majority.
Scenario 3 - Conservative largest party, no majority.
Scenario 4 - Labour largest party, no overall majority.
Scenario 5 - a surprise comeback for the Lib Dems where the 3 major parties have similar numbers of seats, say 200ish.

Please would you be kind enough to give your views on what happens next as judging from your earlier posts I am sure you have looked at this in detail? (I did so in an earlier post a couple of days ago.)

I made my suggestion as a speedy way out of this impasse and yours appears to take a similar length of time.

[Elmetiacos]

Anyway we have the election.
Scenario 1 - Conservative majority.
Scenario 2 - Labour majority.
Scenario 3 - Conservative largest party, no majority.
Scenario 4 - Labour largest party, no overall majority.
Scenario 5 - a surprise comeback for the Lib Dems where the 3 major parties have similar numbers of seats, say 200ish.

The polls suggest either 3 or 4; they have swung for several months between Conservatives and Labour either neck and neck, or a 1% lead for one or the other. The election would in all probability dump us back into the same situation. The blame for all of it lies in the Conservative manifesto promising to leave the customs union while committed to 'no hard border' in Ireland; this means that we have spent the last year trying negotiate a logically impossible position of creating a customs frontier without creating a customs frontier. Hence Theresa May has negotiated a deal whereby Britain will pretend to leave the customs union but not actually do so, which pleases almost nobody.

[Daruwind]

Well logical conclusion would be to scrap Brexit now and start preparing new Brexit 2025/2030 this time negotiating everything ahead with enough time and without pressure. Possibly with new addendum that the final draft has to go with new referendum ,this time with needed majority like 75% for it to actually happen...or something like that.

If Britain is hard split between both options 50/50 then neither option is the right one...