You are probably right, but if one has a referendum, one should invoke the result. That is democracy. Then, if there is enough call for it, have another referendum on whether or not we should apply to rejoin. Otherwise, democracy is dead.
All treaties are signed by Government ministers under Crown Prerogative. That's why Cameron thought he could leave the EU using Crown Prerogative and made the statement in the Referendum materials that 'the Government will implement your decision'. However Crown Prerogative can't be used to take away rights of UK citizens which means Cameron was wrong.
This is not like a GE. The first significant difference is that, unlike a GE, the result of the referendum was ever legally binding. The most significant difference, however, is that if you come to the conclusion that you voted wrongly in a GE, in 5 yrs max you get a chance to rectify your mistake. There’s no second chances on this if the likes of the ERG get their way. The leave campaign don’t wish to give anybody a chance to change their minds. Probably because they know the result would be a defeat for the lies and undeliverable promises of 2016.
He wasn't always wrong. I read somewhere after the result of the referendum, in a private email, he said, 'that means 3 years of euro w*nk, I'm not hanging around for that'. He couldn't have been more right.
Indeed. As someone who voted remain, all I see for the "we didn't know what we were voting for" crap relates to not foreseeing that the serving PM/govt would (by any combo of hubris / incompetence / malicious intent) make such an embarrassing eff-up of exit and future trade terms with the EU.
Well then a compromise solution could be that 5 years after leaving we will have another referendum where people will have experience of what leaving actually meant and give them the opportunity to re-apply for membership if that is what the people want.
That would be fine if the previous referendum had been binding in law. But it wasn't so why not have a binding one now we know much better what Leave actually entails? Or better still, MPs decide what to do in the national interest as they are supposed to.
To be frank, until we leave, nobody knows what it will entail. There are a lot of scare stories, some will have substance, some not.
I am more concerned that the "source data" needed to do a most basic "let the numbers decide" analysis, is not easily available to true scientists/engineers like me.
And don't forget the 1.5M people who have become eligible to vote since June 2016. They haven't had a chance to vote at all on a decision which will affect them more than most. 1.5M votes is larger than the margin of victory by the Leave campaign.
That is why A50 should have been triggered immediately after the result. It was always known that it would take two years, but three is unacceptably long.
Reapplying for membership would be an humbling and costly exercise. The EU would almost certainly not allow us back without certain safeguards against us deciding to leave again 5 yrs later. Also, all of the opt-outs, concessions, rebates etc, that have been negotiated throughout the years would again almost certainly all disappear.
Very true, but they would need to be considered by the voters. My preferences are as follows, 1 WTO, 2 Remain and try to change the EU from within. 3 no three. What must not happen is the toxic deal May has negotiated.
I’m sorry, but WTO is just plain suicidal. It would cost the country a fortune. I’m still of the opinion that the only possible form of gaining some closure on this is to hold a people’s vote on the options as they are now. Now that everybody has a far clearer idea of what Brexit entails. No, it will not bring total closure. Nothing will, I fear, but it’s better than letting the warring fools in Westminster decide for us.
60% of our trade is done on WTO terms anyway. I am yet to be convinced that it will cost the country a fortune. The data necessary to make a reasonable assessment is being held back by the government. What I do know is that both Northern Irish and Scottish ship yards look like they may be going out of business because they lose government contracts to EU competitors. I also know it cost £350 M a year to run the European Court of Justice, when our courts are adequate. How much it costs to run the EU parliament is anybodies guess. Ideally, the EU could be changed from within, but there are so many champagne socialists doing very nicely, it will take a couple of generations.
If we offer the no tariff scenario, under WTO rules we have to give those terms to all trading partners. That would hugely damage our domestic businesses as they battle to compete with cheap imports from all over.
