Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Bannasidhe

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Surely the bit that's ignored is that they never seek to re-run the referendum when it does go their desired way, either at the first time of asking - or the second. Wonder why?

Not true.

It is also worth noting that not all referenda are proposed by government. The Worker's Party, The Socialist Labour Party, Sinn Fein, and The Greens have all proposed referenda in Ireland.

In Ireland governments have lost several referendums.

In 1992 FF/PDs sought to role back on the X -Case ref and have the 'suicide clause' removed. They were defeated.
Eventually The 8 Amendment was repealed due to a Referendum proposed by government but very much due to sustained public campaign. Which, when you think about it is the exact opposite to what the 1992 ref wanted.

In 2013 the was a referendum on abolishing the Seanád - it was defeated and nothing has been heard about that since.

In 2015 the referendum on reducing the age of presidential candidates was defeated.

There have also been instances where more than one amendment was put to the vote and not all passed -

robinph

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Delighted that the vote looks like it finally be respected.

So if this potential result means the vote is then respected, who was disrespecting it previously?

That train of thought would be putting the blame on the voting population for daring to have not voted in enough Brexit supporting Tories in 2017.
MPs won't have changed their mind about the best course of action for the country, the proposed course put forward by the PM won't have changed, just 30% of the population happened to vote in a different set of MPs.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Yes. You do.

Again, this behaviour contributed to the negative perceptions of the bloc which the likes of the far right were able to exploit and feed upon.

I fail to see how anything there equates to "shelve and disregard". The fact is, the constitution was dead in the water and the whole process came to an end. You're also quoting a UK politician as if they spoke for the EU as a whole. And before you say that the Lisbon Treaty that followed was the same thing, you're wrong. Fundamentally different in its ratification process and by extension (and of course brexit tells us the same thing), as a treaty, can be repealed in the same manner in which it was implemented. Something that a constitution could not as easily be repealed.

Russman

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Surely the bit that's ignored is that they never seek to re-run the referendum when it does go their desired way, either at the first time of asking - or the second. Wonder why?

What sort of an argument is that ? The government are in favour of something, ask the people, the people approve it, and you think the government should ask them again ? Why ?? They're the government, we elect them to govern for 4 years.
The reason for asking again if the people reject something is that the government are still in favour of it (whatever "it" may be at the time), and in some cases present some changes for the people to consider. Sometimes the issue dies with a rejection by the people, but other issues, particularly EU related, need to be revisited as there are 27 other countries involved to a greater or lesser degree and the collective doesn't stop because of one country, a way has to be found to get that country on board.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

Meanwhile, back in 2019: breaking news -
SHOCK move as 12 EU member states exercise sovereignty to BLOCK unwanted EU law (Britain opts to eat purdah curry instead of casting vote either way)

Interesting.

Corporate profits are hard to identify by country as, for example, intellectual property is hard to locate. Also, back office operations are a corporate cost and may be located in one location - how is that shared out? Local offices might be tiny but sales generated from the head office create profits assigned to the locality but booked centrally and assigned to the head office. It is not a simple matter.

BMW and Mercedes do not make cars in Ireland but sell lots of them. How do the profits of their factories in Germany get spread out over the EU?

Just because companies selling digital services can make huge profits across country borders silently and without visible interactions does not change the principle that applies to traditional traded goods.

It is complicated and this move appears to be a money grab by high tax countries.

Zubeneschamali

IAmTheReign wrote: »

You realise that voter turnout increased by 450,000 votes for the second Nice treaty and by 200,000 for the second Lisbon treaty? The evidence that anyone was 'turned off by the disenfranchisement of the original vote' is lacking.

For Nice, the No vote increased by 5%, and the Yes vote doubled.

Lisbon was a little different - the Yes vote was half a million higher, but more than half of that was people who changed from No to Yes.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Serious, on topic posts only please.

Keep all the nonsense about George Soros and being physically afraid of the European Union to yourselves.

prawnsambo

McGiver wrote: »

That is true although there was much more in the Constitution. And you are underestimating the symbolic as well as legal effect of consolidating several treaties into a single text. A constitution is a foundation of a nation.

That's really the main thing. A treaty is a completely different legal beast from a constitution. A good bit further down the legal tree of importance. Brexit would be impossible if the constitution had been adopted afaik.

Imreoir2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This is a revisionist myth often trotted out. What about those that voted No because they were concerned about Ireland's loss of sovereignty? Where were their concerns addressed by the government? Answer: they weren't.

It's not a myth, its exactly what happened. The government addressed the concerns of enough of the electorate to win the second referendum.

They guaged that those concerned by a loss of sovereignty, who were thus opposed in principle to the treaty no matter what, formed a minority opinion. In the event, the government were proven correct.

You don't need to address the concerns of every voter, you only need to address enough concerns to build a winning majority.

Euroscepticism's rise was to do with many factors, some of which you touch on, and one of them was the perception of a domineering EU intent on usurping national sovereignty. The behaviour of the EU towards the electorates of Ireland, France and the Netherlands following results it did not like undoubtedly contributed to the perception of a remote institution with its own agenda that did not care about the concerns of ordinary people.

I find it hard to agree with you given that what you complain of has happend twice in Ireland and yet support for the EU is higher here than almost anywhere else in Europe, and has grown in the aftermath of those incidents, while euroskepticism is rampant in the UK despite it never happening there. If anything the available evidence suggests that forcing an electorate to vote again makes them support the EU more. (Though I'm willing to bet that in reality there is little or no causal link)

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For Nice, the No vote increased by 5%, and the Yes vote doubled.

Lisbon was a little different - the Yes vote was half a million higher, but more than half of that was people who changed from No to Yes.

I voted No in the first one and Yes in the second one.

According to Brexiteers, it was 'profoundly undemocratic' that I got to vote twice. I got to express my 'will' in the first one and that should have been the end of the matter.

Imreoir2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Surely the bit that's ignored is that they never seek to re-run the referendum when it does go their desired way, either at the first time of asking - or the second. Wonder why?

Because they are normal rational human beings?
These people are doing what they think is right, why should they go out of their way to prevent themselves from doing what they believe is the right thing to do? Why should they refrain from persuing legitimate means of overcoming obsticles when they believe that there is a reasonable chance that they would be successful?

You are coming accross as rather petulant that things did not work out to your preferance.

Leroy42

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Because they are normal rational human beings?
These people are doing what they think is right, why should they go out of their way to prevent themselves from doing what they believe is the right thing to do? Why should they refrain from persuing legitimate means of overcoming obsticles when they believe that there is a reasonable chance that they would be successful?

You are coming accross as rather petulant that things did not work out to your preferance.

And lets us remember that a 2nd Ref, although called for by a small number at the time of the result, has only gained traction as the reality of Brexit has become apparent.

It is the Brexiteers that try to argue that a 2nd ref was always the desire of all remainers, when in fact the vast majority, as can be seen by the oft quoted 2017 vote for Pro Brexit parties, were happy to accept the result.

What has changed is that the illegality of the Leave campaign is now better known, the lies, are obvious and the Tories have made a complete and utter mess of it all. Far from being the easier deal in history it turns out that not only will the UK not get the unicorns they thought they ended up splitting NI off from the union.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Move away from the Lisbon treaty please and stay with Brexit.

Leroy42

You seem to have the view that people are completely incapable of seeing the obvious creation of narratives. One could almost take form that that you deem the average voter incapable of understanding.

The problem with that thought is that it works both ways. Why would we trust any vote the voters make if you are so sure that they can be so easily manipulated?

Think of it form the governments POV. To lose one ref is an issue, but one that can be overcome. To rerun it, and lose again, would mean the collapse of said government. For your theory to hold any water, you need to show that politicians are willing ti take such a significant risk.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Move away from the Lisbon treaty please and stay with Brexit.

Post deleted. The topic is Brexit, not the Lisbon treaty referendum.

Strazdas

Visitors to the UK from the European Union and the Commonwealth will have to comply with a US-style electronic visa system after Brexit, under plans set out today by Home Secretary Priti Patel.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/01/eu-commonwealth-visitors-have-apply-new-us-style-visas-enter/

Even Commonwealth citizens getting it in the neck from the Tories, never mind people from the EU.

BonnieSituation

Strazdas wrote: »

Visitors to the UK from the European Union and the Commonwealth will have to comply with a US-style electronic visa system after Brexit, under plans set out today by Home Secretary Priti Patel.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/01/eu-commonwealth-visitors-have-apply-new-us-style-visas-enter/

Even Commonwealth citizens getting it in the neck from the Tories, never mind people from the EU.

And us CTA citizens?

---

Does she understand what reciprocal means? The EU will make visiting mainland Europe unbearable if that's her "plan".


Which it's not. It's just a bizarre response to show that the Tories are "tough".

She's despicable.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And us CTA citizens?

---

CTA has already been assured as "untouchable" so unless they have lied, we're OK!

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

CTA has already been assured as "untouchable" so unless they have lied, we're OK!

Unless the Tories have lied?

Hmmmm...

strandroad

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Does she understand what reciprocal means? The EU will make visiting mainland Europe unbearable if that's her "plan".

Who needs Spain when you have Blackpool? Or if you want a stag in Prague you better make all your lads organise their visas first.

But seriously, they are not going to risk that. It's just more election fodder.

BonnieSituation

strandroad wrote: »

Who needs Spain when you have Blackpool? Or if you want a stag in Prague you better make all your lads organise their visas first.

But seriously, they are not going to risk that. It's just more election fodder.

Absolutely. But the idea that this wins votes is mind-numbing.

CelticRambler

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Does she understand what reciprocal means? The EU will make visiting mainland Europe unbearable if that's her "plan".

The EU has already stated that non-EU British passport holders will be subject to the same ETIAS controls/applications as every other third country. This is one of the "slow burning" effects of Brexit that I think will catch out a lot of Brits who plan to vote Tory just to "get Brexit done!"

I can envision many, many situations where regular travellers will turn up at a check-in desk to find that they need a visa waiver they didn't know about, or that the one they applied for three years ago has expired. I'm waiting for the stories of families or classes or sports teams being split up at the airport because some of them have "go anywhere" EU passports and the others are sent away until they have a visa waiver in their second-class Blue Passports.

Russman

CelticRambler wrote: »

I can envision many, many situations where regular travellers will turn up at a check-in desk to find that they need a visa waiver they didn't know about, or that the one they applied for three years ago has expired. I'm waiting for the stories of families or classes or sports teams being split up at the airport because some of them have "go anywhere" EU passports and the others are sent away until they have a visa waiver in their second-class Blue Passports.

I think this above will be one of the consequences that might drive home the reality of Brexit for a lot of people. Realistically (and I'm not trying to condescend or anything) large areas of the UK, particularly the north east are very much less well off and if things get a bit worse, it'll be easily brushed off and plausibly blamed on whatever suits the narrative - Labour leavers can blame Tory austerity etc. However something as stark as not being allowed travel to your usual haunt in Spain or the cigarette run down to Bruges can't really be spun as anything other than a consequence of Brexit.

CelticRambler

Just thinking about it a bit more, this could play havoc with Ryanair's (and maybe Easyjet's) operations. They surely won't have access to the visa (waiver) database at the boarding gates in Stansted, Liverpool or East Midlands, so the Blue Passports won't be screened for visa compliance until they arrive at some regional airport in France or Spain or Poland, many of which have only one flight a day (if even that) and little in the way of holding facilities. I suppose airlines will have to add another box to their check-in process, requiring British passport holders to confirm that they have a valid ETIAS clearance.

Probably more likely to be a problem at Eurotunnel, where you don't have to declare any passengers until you arrive at the border control. Could be really awkward if it's only the driver who's turned away! :pac:

First Up

CelticRambler wrote:

Just thinking about it a bit more, this could play havoc with Ryanair's (and maybe Easyjet's) operations. They surely won't have access to the visa (waiver) database at the boarding gates in Stansted, Liverpool or East Midlands, so the Blue Passports won't be screened for visa compliance until they arrive at some regional airport in France or Spain or Poland, many of which have only one flight a day (if even that) and little in the way of holding facilities. I suppose airlines will have to add another box to their check-in process, requiring British passport holders to confirm that they have a valid ETIAS clearance.

UK passport holders already go through passport control entering Schengen. So do we.

Its highly probable the UK will join the 60+ countries with visa free access to the EU. They will lose some benefits of membership but they'll get 90 days. Enough for holidays and business trips but residency might need more.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

UK passport holders already go through passport control entering Schengen. So do we.

Its highly probable the UK will join the 60+ countries with visa free access to the EU. They will lose some benefits of membership but they'll get 90 days. Enough for holidays and business trips but residency might need more.

It's highly probable. But they'll be lumped into a non-EU queue. I wouldn't relish that in Schiphol when loads of flights land at once. Ah well.

CelticRambler

First Up wrote: »

UK passport holders already go through passport control entering Schengen. So do we.

Its highly probable the UK will join the 60+ countries with visa free access to the EU. They will lose some benefits of membership but they'll get 90 days. Enough for holidays and business trips but residency might need more.

That's not the potential point of disruption: someone landing in rural France or coastal Spain with an Irish passport will be checked and waved through - freedom of movement. A UK passport holder will be checked and have to justify that they have applied for and been granted a visa waiver. If they know about it and have done it, no problem; but if they've tuned out all this Brexit stuff, if they're the dopey kind of traveller, if someone else has always dealt with the paperwork before and they didn't realise the three years are up ... that's when they'll realise that a Blue Passport holder is a second class citizen in the EU.

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote:

It's highly probable. But they'll be lumped into a non-EU queue. I wouldn't relish that in Schiphol when loads of flights land at once. Ah well.

There isn't an EU passport line in Schipol (or Frankfurt). Its either Schengen or queue. Its electronic in many EU airports but Irish and UK flights still go through the passport control part of the terminal.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote:

That's not the potential point of disruption: someone landing in rural France or coastal Spain with an Irish passport will be checked and waved through - freedom of movement. A UK passport holder will be checked and have to justify that they have applied for and been granted a visa waiver. If they know about it and have done it, no problem; but if they've tuned out all this Brexit stuff, if they're the dopey kind of traveller, if someone else has always dealt with the paperwork before and they didn't realise the three years are up ... that's when they'll realise that a Blue Passport holder is a second class citizen in the EU.

OK; I hadn't realised they have to apply for the waiver in advance. But Irish and UK passports join that queue.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

OK; I hadn't realised they have to apply for the waiver in advance. But Irish and UK passports join that queue.

It depends on the airport.
You might be lucky and have an EU queue.
You might be unlucky like me and arrive late at night just after a flight from Uzbekistan.