Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Jom]

None of this is relevant. Leave the EU means Leave the EU.

No interpretation needed.
The vote was for Leave.
So Leave.

That was asked, and once clarified that the single market is part of the EU, answered.
Leave.

Leave. Future is future. All else comes after leaving.

I don't see any thing in the referendum question about a 'swiss model' (or a Norway model).



You can leave the EU, and then negotiate for trade deals.


What I actually see is a vote where 'one side' won, and the losers whinge and whine and cry and piss and moan and try and do what they can to avoid the fact that they lost.

A problem is being created, to avoid leaving.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Yep. Lots of stuff in there about deals...

It's more to avoid a catastrophe that people are discussing what Britain's future relationship with the EU should look like. You can shout all the slogans you want, but it won't get back that 3.5% of GDP that'll be lost.

So again, why can't the UK leave the EU and stay in the single market? There's as much on the ballot paper about leaving all EU policy areas (which don't require EU membership) as there is about deals.

The central objectives of the leave movement are to reduce migration, to strike international trade deals, to end the jurisdiction of the ECJ over British affairs and to return the law-making powers delegated to Brussels back to Westminster. It is "common sense" that for these objectives to be achieved the United Kingdom must leave the European Single Market and the Custom's Union in addition to the European Union.

Very few of the significant figures now demanding "clarification" on the meaning of the leave vote opposed the European Union Referendum Act 2015 when it went through Commons. Many of them were sitting MP's who had the opportunity to scrutinize and/or oppose the bill directly, but chose not to. Only 53 SNP MP's voted against it. So contrary to your suggestion, and even were it true that the "question and choices were ill-conceived", the nature of the Referendum Act very much is the fault of those now complaining of its ambiguity.

Just because those were the central objectives doesn't mean a majority of leave voters voted for them. You can't have your mandate and eat it, too.

Here's some polling on confirmatory or a "public vote". It seems like the majority of the polls are for seeking clarification via a second vote, not necessarily with remaining on the ballot paper.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

None of this is relevant. Leave the EU means Leave the EU.

No interpretation needed.
The vote was for Leave.
So Leave.

That was asked, and once clarified that the single market is part of the EU, answered.
Leave.

Leave. Future is future. All else comes after leaving.

I don't see any thing in the referendum question about a 'swiss model' (or a Norway model).

I'm sorry but that while being a perspective (and an idealized one), bears no actual relation to the political reality. For instance a GE is due in 2022, and its likely a snap-election will be called now prior to brexit being 'done'. Polling currently indicates that Corbyn's Labour are in the lead (as the Brexit party is eating away at the Conservatives vote share), and will most likely if this holds up form a majority government.

Corbyn is a traditional left-wing Eurosceptic. He has wanted out of the EU for most of his political life, his policy on brexit is that we have a customs union with the EU, which entails regulatory alignment. Currently, even if the Conservatives do a 'WTO brexit', Corbyn once in office will essentially undo that and seek a customs union as is Labour policy. Despite the fact he's advocating this he still in many polls is leading and would more than likely 'win' a GE- so there is public support for this to legitimize it. So how does just shouting 'leave means leave everything' resolve that? It doesn't. There is no sustainable majority for 'Leave' currently, or remain. Because both electorally and politically are part of a myriad of factions. Its indeed likely as time goes on that the UK on its current course of polarization might end up rejoining the EU (Which i think will be a disaster for us) especially if the current trend of pro-EU leftwing young voters keeps up for the next of couple of years (A long time in politics).

So your's is currently a valid opinion indeed 'leave means leave', however it bears no relevance to what is actually happening, or indeed what can happen. Its interesting that currently remainers think a status-quo win from a second referendum would be sustainable (most polling has remain only slightly winning, as leave did this time around), and brexiteers think that a specific WTO vision of brexit is something that could at all last...it can't, as the support slice for it is far too low (for instance again, my parents are avid brexiteers and yet want a customs union and indeed are ok with single market access over a no-deal scenario), the fact that Britain has the Westminister political system means indeed that Corbyn's option of an EU relationship is the one most likely from a victory during a GE (This may indeed change, but you can of course see how their are a myriad of equally valid views on brexit). Especially as a GE mandate trumps a Referendum mandate (And that's the difficulty for referendums in the UK, as a GE is fought over a myriad of issues that will 'water down' the single issue some may care about- this is exactly what happened in 2017 when the Conservatives essentially 'lost' their mandate to easily implement their brexit vision at the time).

[Cope]

Just because those were the central objectives doesn't mean a majority of leave voters voted for them.

This is a non-argument: we can't know voter motivations with absolute clarity in any election.

You can't have your mandate and eat it, too.

This reads like a meaningless phrase lifted from the Guardian

Here's some polling on confirmatory or a "public vote". It seems like the majority of the polls are for seeking clarification via a second vote, not necessarily with remaining on the ballot paper.

The notion of a confirmatory referendum is just the first stage of an infinite regress designed to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union at any cost: no one believes that the arch remainers of the political class would honour the outcome of a 2d plebiscite if they lost it.

[Infidel144]

It's more to avoid a catastrophe that people are discussing what Britain's future relationship with the EU should look like. You can shout all the slogans you want, but it won't get back that 3.5% of GDP that'll be lost.

So again, why can't the UK leave the EU and stay in the single market? There's as much on the ballot paper about leaving all EU policy areas (which don't require EU membership) as there is about deals.

There is nothing about policy areas or deals. Just leaving.
So leave.
Then negotiate whatever deals.
Don't have to be in the EU to negotiate a deal. Just look at Norway.

But losers can not accept that they lost...

[Dante Von Hespburg]

There is nothing about policy areas or deals. Just leaving.
So leave.
Then negotiate whatever deals.
Don't have to be in the EU to negotiate a deal. Just look at Norway.

But losers can not accept that they lost...

Yes, Norway who has single market access and accepts freedom of movement... so that is a valid option for you? Essentially the UK could theoretically spend a few hours on WTO terms and immediately rejoin the single market, but not the EU, and that would be brexit fulfilled?

Which is exactly the same as if we left with a deal that includes single market access and skip the few hours (i'm being a tad tongue-in-cheek about the timing ) and just go straight into that?

Which incidentally is the complete opposite of what you said here mate-

No interpretation needed.
The vote was for Leave.
So Leave.

That was asked, and once clarified that the single market is part of the EU, answered.
Leave.

You are essentially agreeing that there are a myriad of 'leave factions' all with different ideas of what leaving meant, and that all are equally valid interpretations of the referendum (As again you can have single market membership, without being in the EU like Norway).

[Jom]

This is a non-argument: we can't know voter motivations with absolute clarity in any election.

Actually it's quite different from any other election, because political parties stand with a manifesto. Vote Leave did not have anything nearly as elaborated upon as a political party's manifesto. All it had was a vague list of nebulous promises with numbers that have since been debunked. In a general election you can confidently say that anyone who voted for a political party voted for what's in their manifesto; that's the point after all.

This reads like a meaningless phrase lifted from the Guardian

It's about as meaningful as dismissing things as "semantics".

The notion of a confirmatory referendum is just the first stage of an infinite regress designed to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union at any cost: no one believes that the arch remainers of the political class would honour the outcome of a 2d plebiscite if they lost it.

A confirmatory referendum doesn't even have to have remaining on the ballot paper. And it seems like the people who are responding to the polls saying that they want a confirmatory vote believe that it would be implemented, otherwise why would they want it? Where's the proof of your claim?

[Aexodus]

Remaining in the single market would be leaving the EU in the narrowest possible sense. Freedom of movement, goods, services and capital would all still continue. The UK would continue to follow EU law.

The Customs Union is the economic unit with which, for example, Canada recently made a free trade deal. If we left the EU as a ‘core’ member but stayed in the Customs Union, we would lose our seat at the negotiating table, one seat among 28 EU commissioners. This would leave us with zero, absolutely zero say in our own trade policy. We would have no influence in the European Commission, or the European Council.

Thus, it’s hard to imagine how remaining in the single market and customs union would be truly leaving the EU and its attached institutions.

That’s without even mentioning the European Court of Justice, which is an EU institution.

The EU, technically speaking, is simply that which was introduced in the Maastricht treaty. Before then it was the European Economic Community. That is, a community of sovereign countries.

Now sure, on paper the EU is simply the Parliament, Commission and Council, but we all know that in common parlance, the EU is everything that is contained within it’s governance and jurisdiction.



Personally, I regard countries like Norway, Switzerland and Turkey to be in a sort of ‘orbital’ form of membership; not a core member, but not totally separate either.

CGP Grey has a great video about these orbital stages of relationship.

In a general election you can confidently say that anyone who voted for a political party voted for what's in their manifesto; that's the point after all.

In 2017 Labour pledged in their manifesto that they would respect the result of the referendum and leave the EU, while ‘retaining the benefits of the single market and customs union’. The Conservative Party pledged to respect the result of the referendum and leave both the single market and customs union.

Make of that what you will.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Remaining in the single market would be leaving the EU in the narrowest possible sense. Freedom of movement, goods, services and capital would all still continue. The UK would continue to follow EU law.

The Customs Union is the economic unit with which, for example, Canada recently made a free trade deal. If we left the EU as a ‘core’ member but stayed in the Customs Union, we would lose our seat at the negotiating table, one seat among 28 EU commissioners. This would leave us with zero, absolutely zero say in our own trade policy. We would have no influence in the European Commission, or the European Council.

Thus, it’s hard to imagine how remaining in the single market and customs union would be truly leaving the EU and its attached institutions.

All fair points, however as i mentioned earlier they also have their counter-arguments of leaving the single market, or indeed a customs union from both remainer and 'leaver' perspectives. But i think you essentially hit the nail on the head (in terms of the discussion going on above) that it would be

leaving the EU in the narrowest possible sense

, which is still leaving. Its personal opinion after that for the how and why, and as mentioned there aren't even supporters currently to make brexit overall (or remain for that matter) sustainable politically as a policy, let alone when we get into degrees of purity and acceptability of leaving or remaining. We are currently stuck, something that to bring this to current events (Talking specifically about Tory leadership candidates brexit stances, not anything else as i attempt to not cross-contaminate ), the Tory leadership elections are about to make much worse, with polarization candidates and the real potential for a collapse in party unity to worse than current levels have been under May, unless a new 'compromise' candidate is found who is not interested in 'hard brexit', but isn't too soft either....

Which is essentially someone like me saying i'd like to have Robert Downey Jr.'s stylish 'tash... its a great idea (So damn dashing), but also ain't ever going to happen (I'm a read-head...) .

Indeed ironically if the Conservatives next leader tries to pursue a WTO brexit, the Conservatives might actually facilitate a Labour brexit (If Hammond and the Tory 'moderates' follow through with their vote of VoNC-ing their own party in the case of it pursuing a WTO brexit- what's certain is that even with the DUP, its unlikely the Tory 'majority' is going to exist for much longer potentially). This is made worse by a snap-election potentially not even getting the Conservatives back into power. The 'Brexit party' through splitting the WTO-wishing vote between them and the Conservatives may actually make it far more difficult to politically deliver.

[Aexodus]

Dante, Jom, if we stay in the single market and customs union, what exactly are we leaving? The EU, yes, but what makes up the EU, in your opinions. For example, the parliament, the commission, EU law, the EU council etc.

Essentially, what is the narrowest possible way to leave the EU in the technical sense. What would that look like.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Dante, Jom, if we stay in the single market and customs union, what exactly are we leaving? The EU, yes, but what makes up the EU, in your opinions. For example, the parliament, the commission, EU law, the EU council etc.

Essentially, what is the narrowest possible way to leave the EU in the technical sense. What would that look like.

For me, its clear you've left the EU when you no longer have any direct ability to influence how it runs itself (I.e. move from rule-maker)*. Hence why no-one says that Norway is an EU member.

Being outside the EU, means Britain becomes a 'rule-taker' from someone, unless we join a new bloc (which is likely given the weird support for the TPP among some Tory backbenches early on, or indeed a Corbyn government who will see us in some form of customs union). As i posted earlier, very few people actually understand what trade deals are, and even fewer have seemingly bothered to look at what the globe is currently like, especially in relation to even a 'best-case' brexit Britain scenario- present company exempted of course here, but that is because we're all interested in politics. The media and politicians from all sides have been absolutely incompetent in actually telling people the bigger picture. For instance, getting a WTO schedule is a real issue currently for Britain due to our stance against several countries (and the interests of several ostensible allies such as the US potentially screwing us over- quite fairly of course on their part, i get why).

But to the original point- would i personally want merely single market access? Or to become a 'rule-taker?' - actually heck no. But it would be 'leaving the EU' in the actual sense.

*The addition no one wanted and no one asked for the reason i say ' move from rule-maker' and the UK not having the ability to influence is to issues i've described before about how trade deals, and naturally geopolitics and dependency/neo-imperial relations work (Neo-imperial being contentious, another way of saying it is literally that global super-powers, which the UK is not, and has no hope of being, in a multi-polar world- which does not allow 'neutrals' to playoff the two powers- its actually very bad for the 'normal' states like us having just one or indeed more than two potential superpowers, so 'true' sovereignty (as we might have expected prior to 1970 arguably at least) is beyond the UK's grasp, especially as the 'up and coming super-powers' are in the process of creating their own mini-EU's and the world is going protectionist- these are horrid circumstances for the UK, and it becomes a matter of who we should pin our flag to (or who pressures us into their fold), especially as the UK employs the 'lieutenant' geopolitical strategy- we need another power to channel our global role through, but we also need another further 'Great Power' to balance that super-power from dominating UK policy too much. We're currently very lucky this century that the US (To Europe at least) is a 'benign' superpower, this might change though, especially if the UK continues to have a bi-polar policy towards China). But TL/DR rule-taking thus is a fact of life outside the protection of some kind of large trade bloc, thus not being at table, means no longer being part of that body.

[Cope]

Actually it's quite different from any other election, because political parties stand with a manifesto. Vote Leave did not have anything nearly as elaborated upon as a political party's manifesto. All it had was a vague list of nebulous promises with numbers that have since been debunked. In a general election you can confidently say that anyone who voted for a political party voted for what's in their manifesto; that's the point after all.

Vote Leave not producing anything "nearly as elaborated upon as a political party's manifesto" only serves to prove my point: the convolution of extensive manifestos merely reduces the clarity with which we can understand the electorate's reasoning.

It's about as meaningful as dismissing things as "semantics".

If it weren't merely semantics these issues would have be raised previously. The Europhile majority in Parliament which was responsible for devising the Referendum Act only started musing over the wording of the plebiscite they'd engineered after they'd lost.

A confirmatory referendum doesn't even have to have remaining on the ballot paper.

Please direct me toward the politician who is advocating for a "confirmatory" referendum which doesn't include remaining on the ballot.

And it seems like the people who are responding to the polls saying that they want a confirmatory vote believe that it would be implemented, otherwise why would they want it?

They can believe it would be implemented. I do not.

Where's the proof of your claim?

Etched onto the heart of every Europhile since John Major.

[Jom]

Dante, Jom, if we stay in the single market and customs union, what exactly are we leaving? The EU, yes, but what makes up the EU, in your opinions. For example, the parliament, the commission, EU law, the EU council etc.

Essentially, what is the narrowest possible way to leave the EU in the technical sense. What would that look like.

Dante's answer sums up my position as well: not being party to EU decision-making would mean having left it in my view.

Vote Leave not producing anything "nearly as elaborated upon as a political party's manifesto" only serves to prove my point: the convolution of extensive manifestos merely reduces the clarity with which we can understand the electorate's reasoning.

Or makes it very easy to see exactly what they want to happen...

If it weren't merely semantics these issues would have be raised previously. The Europhile majority in Parliament which was responsible for devising the Referendum Act only started musing over the wording of the plebiscite they'd engineered after they'd lost.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Please direct me toward the politician who is advocating for a "confirmatory" referendum which doesn't include remaining on the ballot.

In the Roadmap to a People's Vote the authors discuss multiple referendum options:

They can believe it would be implemented. I do not.

Seems you're in the minority then.

Etched onto the heart of every Europhile since John Major.

So you don't have any proof.

[Infidel144]

Which incidentally is the complete opposite of what you said here mate-

No. It is not the complete opposite.

As I noted further down in the second post you are quoting from:
"Leave. Future is future. All else comes after leaving."
Leave. Full stop. Then negotiate whatever deals after leaving. Entirely consistent.

You are essentially agreeing that there are a myriad of 'leave factions' all with different ideas of what leaving meant, and that all are equally valid interpretations of the referendum (As again you can have single market membership, without being in the EU like Norway).

Nope. I don't think I have said anything about leave factions whatsoever.
"Leave" does not require interpretation.

[Aexodus]

No. It is not the complete opposite.

As I noted further down in the second post you are quoting from:
"Leave. Future is future. All else comes after leaving."
Leave. Full stop. Then negotiate whatever deals after leaving. Entirely consistent.



Nope. I don't think I have said anything about leave factions whatsoever.
"Leave" does not require interpretation.

Infidel, what is the European Union? Why is the single market a part of the EU? There’s some very obvious reasons for why that would be.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

No. It is not the complete opposite.

As I noted further down in the second post you are quoting from:
"Leave. Future is future. All else comes after leaving."
Leave. Full stop. Then negotiate whatever deals after leaving. Entirely consistent.



Nope. I don't think I have said anything about leave factions whatsoever.
"Leave" does not require interpretation.

I think i'm being a bit slow this evening. I'll see how you answer Aexodus's question mate. But essentially rejoining the single market after 'leaving' is deemed by some factions of leavers to be 'no brexit at all' (Boris and co for instance and the ERG as well as Farage and the Brexit party). Thus though if as you've said, that joining the single market- like Norway is, isn't being 'part of the EU', there is an issue here, and it highlights just how myriad the position of leave is.

Likewise, if being part of the single mark still constitutes 'having left the EU' as i've argued and as you stated about Norway yourself, (as Norway is not an EU member, but is is part of the single market)- then negotiating to leave the EU with a deal that keeps the UK as part of the single market, is also actually leaving, as the UK no longer is a 'member state' of the EU, but merely a state with single market access- thus we have 'left the EU' but with a negotiated treaty- which is exactly what leavers and remainers who do not want 'no-deal' want.

[QuintusSertorius]

Norway is an associate member of the EU. They have most of the obligations of membership, without voting rights. It's a fudge their elites dreamed up rather than do as they were told, and not join the EU.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Norway is an associate member of the EU. They have most of the obligations of membership, without voting rights. It's a fudge their elites dreamed up rather than do as they were told, and not join the EU.

Indeed, however it is not a member state of the EU, and has rejected EU membership politically and in a referendum. The 'fudge' (I don't quite agree with term here, but i appreciate its usage ) came about exactly due to that referendum, which was incredibly close, and thus they retained their 1960s economic links, and signed up to EEA. The referendum result has effected their political system so damn adversely since that they no longer talk about it really, as it collapses coalition governments.

EDIT: Indeed the result was according to wiki 52.7 to 47.8%- foreshadowing for how brexit will indeed be a stalling factor for the UK for the next decade and potentially what might 'solve it' anyone? As i mentioned with the Brexit party doing so well tonight, and splitting the Conservative vote at a GE, it is actually detrimental to the coming about of a 'hard brexit' by this vote split, which helps Labour (with FPTP) get into power potentially and implement their customs union plan instead...which will last all of one GE and back and forth we might go.

[Sir Adrian]

Can someone explain to me why does Farage get another term in the EU parliament? Isn't Britain leaving in 4 weeks? Why did Britain hold elections?

[Jom]

Can someone explain to me why does Farage get another term in the EU parliament? Isn't Britain leaving in 4 weeks? Why did Britain hold elections?

Britain is leaving in October, and whilst May agreed not to attend a leader's summit between now and then, legally we need to have MEPs to represent the population of Britain, as Britain is still an EU member.

[Sir Adrian]

I must have missed the new extension. But if there still is half a year why was May "fired"? Isn't it kind of stupid to bring in someone new when you have a decent deal on the table?

Sad to have that sack of baldricks leeching off our taxpayer money for another 5 months though. Anti-EU party members be should banned from receiving pay checks from EU institutions.