Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if you choose to take the unusual step of consulting the general population by way of a referendum, surely you are then pretty much obligated to act on the result of that referendum, regardless of whether or not you think it is a wise decision?

My Lords, I want to make three points. First, there was a document on citizens’ rights that we put forward in the negotiations in June. That was a genuine negotiating document. None of the documents since is a negotiating document. None of the documents we are talking about today gives the negotiators anything to get their teeth into. They are lists, options, essays—some are rather interesting little essays—but clearly they are aimed mainly at a domestic audience and the aim is to avoid any new outburst of disagreement in the party. So they do not say anything.

My second point is that this is counterproductive. The papers have gone down rather badly in Brussels. On 31 August, Mr Barnier said:

“The UK wants to take back control, it wants to adopt its own standards and regulations. But it also wants to have these standards recognised automatically in the EU. That is what UK papers ask for. This is simply impossible”.

A further cause of doubt in Brussels is the confusion between what we say and what we do. If it is the case that, as the CBI and the TUC want, the Government now think that the right course—at least for an interim period—is to stay inside the single market and possibly the customs union, there is a real negotiation to be had. Why do the Government publish a withdrawal Bill that eliminates completely the umpire of the single market—the European Court of Justice—on Brexit day? You cannot say, “I want to play in your game, but I don’t respect the umpire”. If we want to stay in the customs unions, why does somebody not switch off Dr Fox? There is an inconsistency inside the Government. We need them to come forward with a clear, achievable objective and then with precise negotiating proposals which would get us towards that objective. They need to avoid actions and speeches that are inconsistent with it.

Thirdly, the worst feature of the papers we are talking about is that there is not one on money. I agree that the bill that the European Union—the 27—has presented is grossly inflated. Of course it is. It is far higher than the first draft which Mr Barnier produced. Do not attack Mr Barnier: it is the member states that inflated the bill. I agree that the decision on sequencing that the European Council took was the wrong one. It is a pity that their position is, “Agree on the money before we talk about anything else”. I understand why they reached that decision. It is because they had heard too many people in this country saying that we were just going to do a runner and they could whistle for the money. That is why they said, “You’ve got to show us sufficient progress on money before we move on”. That was a mistake, but we are where we are. Unless we have put forward counterproposals on money and a real negotiation has started, it is not conceivable that next month’s European Council could conclude that sufficient progress has been made.

I have one final point to add. All these papers describe—in rather optimistic, aspirational terms—a special relationship or special partnership with the European Union, which we will have left. The European Union runs on law. If there is no agreement on money—if we go to a court of arbitration to settle a dispute over real or alleged legal commitments—there will be no ​agreements on anything. The European Union will be unable to conclude agreements on anything. The special partnership will not exist and all these little papers will be so much waste paper. We need to put some money on the table and start a real negotiation. If we do not, we are risking the cliff edge—no relationship at all—and that would be very bad indeed.

LONDON

It is a rare opportunity. Seldom does the voting public have the chance to watch their elected politicians confront very specific false promises in real time. Usually campaign promises are either too vague to be contrasted with reality (“Make America Great Again”) or too long term. By the time that “guaranteed growth” either arrives or doesn’t, the person who said it would happen is long out of office.

But in Britain right now, something different is unfolding. During the referendum last year, politicians advocating their country’s departure from the European Union gave some specific assurances. Some derived from ignorance; as it turned out, few of them really understood how the E.U. works. Others were lies, which they knew to be lies at the time.

Because they didn’t expect to win that campaign, they didn’t expect either their ignorance or their dishonesty to be revealed. But then they won — and now it’s happening.

The most egregious lie was about money. During the campaign, leading Brexiteers drove around the country in large red buses, emblazoned with a slogan: “We send the EU 350 million pounds a week, let’s fund our NHS [National Health Service] instead.” This was a very influential argument, as the Brexit campaign managers have admitted. It was also an invented number — Britain does not send the E.U. 350 million pounds a week, as fact-checkers showed over and over. Some of those on the winning side admitted as much after the campaign.

ut now, instead of receiving “350 million pounds a week,” negotiators are trapped in an argument about how much money Britain owes Europe — for budgetary promises not kept, for agreements signed and not honored. More ominously, the British government is just now realizing that leaving the European single market, which is far more than an ordinary free-trade zone, will cost it in other ways, too. Jointly designed European agencies and arrangements may now have to be re-created, at vast expense, from scratch: pharmaceutical and nuclear regulators, for example. It is possible that a vast new customs service, complete with parking lots at the border, computer systems and customs agents, will be needed to cope with new tariff regimes once Britain is outside the European customs union. In the long term, Britain will have more bureaucracy, and less money to spend on the NHS.

The second falsehood, frequently repeated during the campaign, was that leaving the single market would be fast, simple and easy. Liam Fox, now Britain’s top trade negotiator, said a new trade deal with Europe would be “the easiest in human history.” David Davis, now the minister in charge of the whole process, declared that “we can do deals . . . and we can do them quickly.” With breathtaking insouciance and eye-watering obliviousness, others implied that all sorts of trading arrangements with countries all over the world could be ready in a matter of months.

In practice, more than a year has passed since the referendum and nearly six months have passed since Britain invoked Article 50, the “exiting the E.U.” procedure. During that time, almost no progress has been made. The British government itself is divided about its own position, which makes it difficult to talk to Brussels. This Last week, Davis told the House of Commons — to howls of derisory laughter — that “nobody pretended [Brexit] would be easy.” It’s as if he has actually forgotten that he himself repeatedly pretended exactly that.


What happens next is unclear. We know that the Brexiteers’ promises were hollow. Their assessments were wrong. Whatever remaining credibility this government still has should have vanished. Still, elections are complicated things, party loyalties are strong and there are other issues in play. During the referendum campaign, voters weren’t bothered by facts. During the recent snap elections, they seemed uneasier about the ruling party and refused to give it an absolute majority. Will the Brexiteers now be further punished at the ballot box? We’ll see.

The answer matters, because a parallel moment is about to arrive in the United States. As a candidate, Donald Trump also made some very specific electoral promises, including, for example, the construction of a wall along the Mexican border, to be paid for with Mexican money. It didn’t matter how many Mexican politicians denied that this would happen; Trump kept repeating the promise. Now the budget battles are looming and, unsurprisingly, Mexico seems no more likely to pay for a border wall than Brexit is to free up 350 million pounds a week for Britain. Will Trump’s voters punish him for failing to do what he said he would do? We’ll see about that too.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you've answered your own question there.

The binding obligation is to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.

What Parliament does with that legislation is entirely up to them.

Enzokk wrote: »

I know this is a little off topic, but you read that as all the UK government has to do if NI votes for a united Ireland is propose a vote in parliament? Their binding obligation is not to enact the wishes of the referendum but to only put it to parliament and if parliament votes against it at least they have done their obligation?

I think most would read it rather differently, that if NI votes to join Ireland that they would be obliged to support the wishes of the people of NI. So against what you posted, a future government would actually be obliged to follow through on the actions of a previous government. Seems to me that parliament is still sovereign and will technically make the decision but they will have to follow through whether they agree or not. Sort of like a binding referendum.

tomwaterford wrote: »

Where's the value in having a democracy when you just ignore election/referendum results?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No



Yes.

As much as I would like the UK to remain in the eu, the decision has been made and must be respected.

There's no use crying about it, just get on and do the ****ing job.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But yes, you get my point. For Parliament not to act on the outcome of a referendum is reprehensible.

tomwaterford wrote: »

I cannot see how they can ignore a referendum result and keep a straight face, espially after a somewhat ruinous wars to bring democracy to the middle east??