post brexit

[Muddy Retriever]

But surely this applies to Brexit as much as it applies to the proposed second Scotland Independence Referendum.

I think the difference is fairly obvious really. Scotland voted by a large majority to remainin the EU and as a result the SNP repeatedly declare that Scotland is being "dragged" out against its will. Theresa May has said that the UK will exit the single market and the SNP has said that this will be damaging to Scotland's economy (let's leave aside the fact that Scotland exports four times as much to the rest of the UK and so using their own argument, independence would be four times as damaging.) There will be "a hard Tory Brexit" as the SNP put it. But the aim of the Government in the negotiations is to try and secure a comprehensive free trade deal. So why not wait until after the end of the negotiations and two year Article 50 period and see if they have been successful? Then the Scottish electorate will be able to make a decision (should they want an independence referendum) based on that knowledge.

The independence referendum was different. The Leave side based their campaign on taking back control (which Teresa May is honouring by leaving the Single Market) and argued that the economy would be more successful outside the EU. The Remain side based their campaign on warnings of economic chaos (Project Fear), which so far have proved to be completely unfounded. But the fact is those warnings were made loud and clear before the referendum so the electorate had full knowledge of them but still voted to leave.

[Mike T]

I think May's statement about IndyRef2 applies just as well to Brexit - we only had the vaguest idea what we were voting for: simple examples - 1/many did not think we would be leaving the single market, and 2/many thought we would be getting £350,000,000 a week for the NHS; worse, we were meant to believe this, even though it was known by the Chief Leavers to be false.

"So why not wait until after the end of the negotiations and two year Article 50 period and see if they have been successful?" Why not let the UK public have a vote on what they want at this stage in the future - is what will have been negotiated acceptable?

So many of the arguments re Brexit and re IndyRef2 are interchangeable, with only small changes in wording to make them 100% relevant.

[Muddy Retriever]

I think May's statement about IndyRef2 applies just as well to Brexit - we only had the vaguest idea what we were voting for: simple examples - 1/many did not think we would be leaving the single market, and 2/many thought we would be getting £350,000,000 a week for the NHS; worse, we were meant to believe this, even though it was known by the Chief Leavers to be false.

1. Both the Leave and Remain campaigns said that leaving would mean exiting the Single Market. I remember Michael Gove saying it explicitly and the Remainers criticising him for it. In fact to "take back control" would imply nothing else.

2. This was argued about many times in debates and on the news. The £350 million per week contribution was the gross figure (the amount we could control) but I heard Leave campaigners admit the net figure was about half that many times. Do you think people really got hung up about whether it was £350 million or £175 million? Either way it's a large amount of money.

Why not let the UK public have a vote on what they want at this stage in the future - is what will have been negotiated acceptable?

Once article 50 is triggered the exiting nation is leaving unless every single other member state agrees otherwise. So the status of the UK would not be in the control of the British Government if people decided to reverse the referendum decision. In fact deciding that we will have a referendum at the end of the process effectively destroys our negotiating position. The EU doesn't want to lose a cash cow, the second largest net contributor to the EU budget. So they would have every incentive to offer the worst deal possible to try and encourage people to want to stay. They of course could then dictate the terms of our readmission. We could kiss goodbye to the rebate and other opt outs.

The case with another Scottish referendum is quite different. They could wait to see the outcome and then judge whether leaving the UK would be in Scotland's interests. Personally I think it would be reasonable for the SNP to seek an explicit mandate for an independence referendum in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections.

[CL]

But surely this applies to Brexit as much as it applies to the proposed second Scotland Independence Referendum.

Mike T are we to assume you didn't vote in the referendum?

[Mike T]

Mike T are we to assume you didn't vote in the referendum?

I did vote, and like Theresa may, I voted to In. Ideally there would have been more options: In, Out, More information needed. Had more honest information been available - including all the "don't knows" recently revealed by David Davies - I have no doubt more would have voted with us. But of course that is what this is all about - whichever side of the Brexit debate we are on we think we are right.

[Mike T]

"Once article 50 is triggered the exiting nation is leaving unless every single other member state agrees otherwise. So the status of the UK would not be in the control of the British Government if people decided to reverse the referendum decision. In fact deciding that we will have a referendum at the end of the process effectively destroys our negotiating position. The EU doesn't want to lose a cash cow, the second largest net contributor to the EU budget. So they would have every incentive to offer the worst deal possible to try and encourage people to want to stay. They of course could then dictate the terms of our readmission. We could kiss goodbye to the rebate and other opt outs."

Some commentators refute the idea that article 50, once triggered, cannot be reversed - the simplest way of doing this: the formal procedure required at the end of the 2 years is just left to rot.

[Mike T]

"The case with another Scottish referendum is quite different. They could wait to see the outcome and then judge whether leaving the UK would be in Scotland's interests. Personally I think it would be reasonable for the SNP to seek an explicit mandate for an independence referendum in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections."

I have no doubt that the SNP are hoping that if they go independent early enough then they will be treated as a special case by either being let back into the EU easily/quickly or by not having to leave in the first place.

[CL]

I did vote, and like Theresa may, I voted to In. Ideally there would have been more options: In, Out, More information needed. Had more honest information been available - including all the "don't knows" recently revealed by David Davies - I have no doubt more would have voted with us. But of course that is what this is all about - whichever side of the Brexit debate we are on we think we are right.

But Mike you've been arguing, almost grindingly, that we didn't have enough information to help make a decision, yet you still voted remain. So I don't understand what your point is?

[Mike T]

In/Out are not equal but opposite - the latter, once done, is pretty irrevocable, whereas the former includes the possibility of changing the EU system from within, as well as the possibility of leaving at a later date. So despite the woeful lack of real information it made sense to me to vote as I did.

[Witton Park]

The option to change was not feasible. Every single leading Remain campaigner advocated staying in a "reformed" EU but they all had a different vision of what that reformed EU might look like.

We've been hearing about reform of CAP, CFP and devolving decisions back to national governments for years. Cameron asked for little and got less. So little it was hardly mentioned in the debate.

The Remain argument was in basic terms, let's stay in this flawed organisation in the vain hope that we can reform it.

In terms of leave it was set out to:
Bring legal primacy back to the UK Supreme Court.
Leave the customs union in order to set up bilateral trade deals.
Leave the internal market necessary to be able to both the above.
Seek to agree a free trade agreement.
Seek to continue working with the EU where we have common ground eg environment, security, science.
Devolve some of the repatriated powers down to the national assemblies.

I'm not sure what more information you needed Mike. It was out there.

I can understand if people couldn't get their head around it.

I can understand if some had difficulty sifting through the BS that was flying around.

But I can't understand what more you needed to know.

In terms of Davis, he hasn't even sat down with his EU Counterpart yet. Of course he doesn't know on many issues.
He doesn't know if the EU would like to work towards a free trade agreement for example.

I watched the whole of the select committee hearing the other day. To be fair to Davis the questions were pretty poor from both Remain and Leave advocates.