Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

The reason I mention England and Wales is because they have different electoral law to the rest of the United Kingdom. UK wide referenda and elections tend to follow this.

Someone else has already highlighted to you that you might be wrong in terms of how the electorate is defined for referendums in the UK so I won't go through that.

What I will highlight is this: you are being disingenuous. The vote whether to Brexit or not did not just take place in England and Wales. It also took place in NI and in Scotland, and while I cannot be certain for NI, in Scotland there is a record of one case at least of EU citizens having the right to vote in a referendum there.

Either the vote is truly national across the UK in which case, yes the Scottish example counts, or else the vote was not truly national in which case, something which neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland voted for is being imposed on them.

In this case, I don't think you can suggest my question is snide although in principle, I agree with ambro25 - you are prone to move goalposts when it doesn't suit you to continue defending a point any more.

You excluded Scotland not because it was a different legal system but because you could not defend your point if Scotland was included. But Scotland was included in the referendum so it was wrong to exclude them from a discussion on previous electorate decisions for referendums. And that's before it was explained to you that in fact, there is some discretion in deciding who can participate in referendums and the exclusion of the 16-18 cohort was a House of Commons decision which overturned a House of Lords decision in favour of allowing the younger cohort to be included.

Also - and I want to be clear about this - EU citizens were allowed to vote in the Brexit referendum. You claim to be one of them. Sure Irish people are special but they are still EU citizens and can be counted as such. You cannot disregard them because it doesn't suit you to acknowledge that we are EU citizens.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Well, as things stand, the default leave date remains March 29th

Does anyone believe this is realistic?

Junkyard Tom wrote:

So they leap off the cliff and expect to grow wings on that date?

Its sums up the madness of Brexit. Putting the Brexit date in law is a crazy decision. It ties the hands of those negotiating on behalf of the UK. It isn't remotely practical as anyone who has read this thread would understand. ( For a person who primarily reads the thread thanks to all the posters that have linked some genuinely interesting information on brexit and its potential consequences)

The UKs very big problem and to a lesser degree Ireland and EU is that those who want to leave the EU and to hell with the consequences have some serious power. RTE were reporting that the UK was sending people to Dublin on a brexit fact finding mission. That should have been done before the referendum or at the very least before triggering brexit talks. The fact that fact finding missions are still going on with only about a year to left is scary.

Inflation hits 5 year high. It's only going to get worse guys.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/nov/14/uk-inflation-cost-of-living-german-economy-growth-powers-ahead-business-live

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You can repeat the same point but it doesn't make it any more true.

The majority of the MPs who voted that bill in campaigned for remain in the referendum.

Again, no referendum has taken place in England and Wales that included EU citizens (bar Irish and Commonwealth inc Maltese and Cypriot) in the electorate. This follows electoral law. The same electorate vote at general elections.

It isn't valid to say that the referendum was rigged by excluding EU citizens when as far as I can tell they haven't been included in any referendum in England and Wales.

Are you going to say the AV referendum was rigged for the same reason?

Calina: if you're not going to respect my sincerity I'd rather you didn't respond to my posts.

Nody: I support transition not an extension of Article 50. I don't think the EU even want an extension of Article 50 as they want British MEPs out of the parliament by the next election. Transition would allow more time for trade negotiations.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Then show us the relevant electoral law. I have already linked to the relevant pieces of legislation that I could find and there is nothing in any of it to back up what you say.

If you are so sure, you will be able to show us the legislation.

blanch152 wrote: »

Then show us the relevant electoral law. I have already linked to the relevant pieces of legislation that I could find and there is nothing in any of it to back up what you say.

If you are so sure, you will be able to show us the legislation.

The relevant law is European Union Referendum Act 2015 section 2. This is the Act which provided for the holding of the referendum (each referendum in the UK is authorised by a separate Act of Parliament) and it says, basically, that the rifht to vote is extended to anyone who can vote in a parliamentary election, plus certain additional categories - peers (who in the UK normally cannot vote in Parliamentary elections) and residents of Gibraltar who are Commonwealth or Irish citizens.

The right to vote in parliamentary elections is set out in the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 2000. Basically, it's residents of the UK who are over age 18 and who are Commonwealth or Irish citizens.

The upshot of all this is that, in addition of course to British citizens, the only EU nationals who got to vote in the UK referendum were citizens of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus (Malta and Cyprus being Commonwealth countries). A French citizen resident in the UK could not vote (whereas, say, a New Zealand citizen could). And this is exactly the state of affairs that applies in UK Parliamentary elections.

Other EU citizens resident in the UK do get to vote in EU Parliament elections and (I think) in local government elections. And it may be that they can vote in Scottish and/or Welsh parliamentary/assembly elections; I don't know about that.

It's a concession only in the sense that it's a concession to reality.

It does make it easier for her to offer something that the EU does want, though, which is a financial settlement. It's slightly easier for May to sell the idea making payments paying the EU to the loony Eurosceptic right of her own party if she can present it as the quid pro quo for something the UK is getting in return, which is continued access to EU markets. So, in that sense, it opens the door to a concession, which is that, yes, the UK will be paying into the EU budget after Brexit.

Enzokk wrote: »

So the London financial sector will still see free movement of labour.

Britain pledges protection for bankers from EU migration curbs

I guess this is no more or less than one definition of control of immigration. But now we have places that favoured leaving the EU by 70% asking to be kept in the EU (in effect) to preserve their industry in their area.

Leave-voting Grimsby accused of double standards

At least London voted remain, but areas that overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU really should just be left to their own devices to sink or swim without any special deals.

There was never any doubt that high skilled workers would be able to migrate to Britain, but that isn't the financial sector's big problem. The big problem is passporting rights. I.E will the British Financial sector or businesses based on Britain be able to do business in the EU as seamlessly as they're doing now.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

As I mentioned previously - even without formal passporting rights banks like UBS have been ensured that they can book trades back to back in London and in another EU location.

There's also the possibility of MiFID II equivalence.

Banking is one of the areas where there has been an exaggeration of impact.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Assured by who?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Good article from the BBC detailing the dilemma ahead for the port at Rotterdam. It looks like the port will have to divide its terminal into two halves for exports to the UK in order to accommodate customs checks.

The article contains the following breakdown of British imports and exports:

The same article has this exchange between the journalist and a Dutch MP specialising in European affairs, where the argument that EU needs the UK as much as the UK needs the EU was put forward, and very definitively shot down:

Yet paradoxically, this threat offers potential support to a key argument deployed by the pro-Brexit side. In the run-up to the referendum, they insisted it would be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, on the basis that "they need us as much as we need them."

With the Netherlands and other countries vulnerable to the consequences of a hard Brexit, Britain might indeed be seen to have leverage in any negotiations.
It was a suggestion I made to a Dutch MP specialising in European affairs, Anne Mulder. Was it time, I asked, for the Netherlands and other influential EU nations to offer the UK more concessions, given all would suffer from a breakdown of talks?

The Dutch have a reputation for politeness, and I was expecting a reply laden with diplomatic euphemism. What I got was a surprisingly pithy denunciation of Britain's politicians, and their approach to the Brexit negotiations:

"Some of them are unrealistic, they are not rational… they are always saying the ball is in the EU's court. Well there's a great big ball in their court, but they don't want to see, because they are blind."

And what about the claim that the EU needs the UK just as much as the UK needs the EU?

"If you want to dream, do it at night," he suggested.

When it comes to those UK-EU negotiations, it seems the current betting here is on failure.

murphaph wrote: »

God be with the days when most Tories were like sensible Ken Clarke.

The loonies (Redwood, Bill Cash, Peter Lilley) were there in those days. It's just that now them or their successors are in the driving seat.