Reply to: How to change a remainers mind

[meridian]

So you're claiming we would get to vote on joining the Euro? Any chance you can back that claim up?

The graphic does appear to indicate that a referendum is “locked in”. This appears to be based upon the government policy at the time of the opt out of Maastricht.

From what I can tell, the relevant summary of the official opt out notice is:

On 30 October 1997, the UK Government notified the Council that it was not intending to adopt the single currency on 1 January 1999. The United Kingdom may change its notification at any moment and introduce the single currency provided that it satisfies the following conditions:
- the UK Government and Parliament take a decision in this respect (with or without a referendum, depending on national law);

So it would appear that the government has committed to a decision by the government and parliament.

However, it appears that any referendum to the people isn’t committed in law or treaty, but is (was?) the policy of the government at the time:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...repexecsum.htm

whenever the decision to enter is taken by the Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people.

“Should” doesn’t mean “must”, and no Parliament or government policy can bind it’s successor. However, given that no major party since 2010 has proposed joining the Euro there doesn’t appear to be a current government policy on whether a referendum would be required, and this historical policy is all we’ve got.

So to answer your question directly, would we get to vote if that came to pass? Imo:
- if we are still in the EU then the opt out of Maastricht applies, and both government and Parliament need to vote. Any referendum to the people would need to come from government policy. There is no current government policy in this, so the answer is “maybe”, but enough political pressure would likely force one.
- if we are out of the EU then all previous treaties cease to apply, including the Maastricht opt out. If we wanted to rejoin the EU then there is no opt out stopping a government on it’s own from taking that decision, without Parliament or the people. It would be a foolish government that did that, though.

[vetran]

So you're claiming we would get to vote on joining the Euro? Any chance you can back that claim up?

The UK MEPs or Government might be able to vote for all of these the UK people would not be consulted.

[Mordac]

Well, that's where we differ, and why I'm not in favour of a second referendum. "Leave - No Deal" shouldn't even be a realistic option put forward by a sensible government. Even if it was to be put forward with a realistic and honest assessment of the consequences there are still people that would vote for it to give one in the eye...

And even if the "Leave - Accept Deal" was a reasonable compromise to buy us some time (say, EFTA/EEA) we'll still get the usual suspects coming out with shouts of "betrayal" and "traitors" and "elites riding over what you voted for", etc.



They don't have all that much credibility left anyway, to be fair, and they have spent the past two years dicking around arguing with themselves. But your point is a valid one, splitting the party further is not an option for them. Party over country.



We already have plenty of opt outs from the union:




My personal opinion is that we only think we're on the wrong bus because that's the constant message coming through the media, and successive governments have been all too happy for that message to be delivered.

What I have yet to hear from the Leave side is any costed* alternative to being on the bus and influencing direction, as opposed to being on the outside of the bus walking.

*Costed in this context meaning both pros and cons, not strictly economic. For example, sovereignty - what are we gaining by being outside the EU, and what are we losing?




Oh, so now you're not so keen on simple in/out yes/no questions for a complex solution....

Don't worry, everyone will know what they're voting for and why they've voted, and so will the government. That's how it worked last time as well...



Here's the difference though. Say Remain fibbed and there's no loss of jobs. What's the impact? Not much at all.

Say Leave fibbed and we can't get a trade deal. What's the impact? Quite a lot.

One side's lies has more of an impact if it turns out they were wrong.

So you're claiming we would get to vote on joining the Euro? Any chance you can back that claim up?

[darmstadt]

According to yesterday's Sun poll, a large majority of Brits believe Brexit is a historic mistake. Curiously this only made it into the 23rd paragraph of the paper's story yesterday:



Strangely no graphic in the paper showing this result either (they had room for another 11 graphics though). It also shows 46% in favour of a second referendum and 40% against. They de-emphasised the stuff they disagreed with and emphasised the results they agreed with.

[meridian]

Well it wouldn't be a three-way question ( "Remain", "Leave - No Deal", "Leave - Accept Deal" ) because that would split the "Leave" vote and there is no way that that would be acceptable to "Leave". Let's say it was a 3-way question and the results were 40/30/30 - then you'd be staying in but the majority of people had voted out .... that's not going to end well.

The only feasible question is: "Leave - Accept Deal" or "Leave - No Deal".

Well, that's where we differ, and why I'm not in favour of a second referendum. "Leave - No Deal" shouldn't even be a realistic option put forward by a sensible government. Even if it was to be put forward with a realistic and honest assessment of the consequences there are still people that would vote for it to give one in the eye...

And even if the "Leave - Accept Deal" was a reasonable compromise to buy us some time (say, EFTA/EEA) we'll still get the usual suspects coming out with shouts of "betrayal" and "traitors" and "elites riding over what you voted for", etc.

The Tories would have zero credibility left if they tried to say to say that after 2 years of torturous negotiations, expending all their political capital and threatening to split the party that staying in was an option. They ain't going to offer it. It would kill them. .... we gave you the vote to leave ... you voted to leave ... we dicked around for two years ... let's all pretend it didn't happen.

They don't have all that much credibility left anyway, to be fair, and they have spent the past two years dicking around arguing with themselves. But your point is a valid one, splitting the party further is not an option for them. Party over country.

But anyway, what would we vote to remain in? The pre-2016 EU or the evolving, ever-closer-union EU of 2018? The EU is not a settled case, it's always evolving. Like it or not, the UK has never sat comfortably within the EU, if you find yourself on a bus going the wrong direction sooner or later you have to get off the bus.

We already have plenty of opt outs from the union:




My personal opinion is that we only think we're on the wrong bus because that's the constant message coming through the media, and successive governments have been all too happy for that message to be delivered.

What I have yet to hear from the Leave side is any costed* alternative to being on the bus and influencing direction, as opposed to being on the outside of the bus walking.

*Costed in this context meaning both pros and cons, not strictly economic. For example, sovereignty - what are we gaining by being outside the EU, and what are we losing?

Nah, doesn't work. Are you rejecting the deal because it's too stringent or too lenient? Going back to the EU and saying this was rejected doesn't tell you which bit of the complex deal was rejected. Was it the payment terms? Was it trade? Was it migration? Was the the ECJ?

And then are you supposed to have a public vote on whatever comes out of the extended negotiation?

Oh, so now you're not so keen on simple in/out yes/no questions for a complex solution....

Don't worry, everyone will know what they're voting for and why they've voted, and so will the government. That's how it worked last time as well...

Or you could just claim that rejecting the deal will result in an immediate recession and loss of 500k jobs.

That both sides fibbed is hardly surprising ( the £350M is correct ... if you ignore the rebate and the amount that the EU spends in the UK )

Here's the difference though. Say Remain fibbed and there's no loss of jobs. What's the impact? Not much at all.

Say Leave fibbed and we can't get a trade deal. What's the impact? Quite a lot.

One side's lies has more of an impact if it turns out they were wrong.

[Whorty]

What?

That post makes absolutely no sense at all.

He's a Brexiter, of course it makes no sense.

[sasguru]

What?

That post makes absolutely no sense at all.

What do you expect from Brillo?

[cojak]

So that's 100% across the country then.

If a women if not pregnant one day, pregnant the next, then at her end of term will give birth to 280 babies.

What?

That post makes absolutely no sense at all.

[DimPrawn]

Well I voted leave last time and I’ll vote remain next time.

Go figure...

The Edwardians were right about women voting then....

[WTFH]

Er, not here mate. Think of it as "General" on steroids...

Steroids? More like ketamine.

[shaunbhoy]

all the sensible people who were too lazy to vote

Yeah, let's put our future in THEIR hands!

[WTFH]

Nah, doesn't work. Are you rejecting the deal because it's too stringent or too lenient? Going back to the EU and saying this was rejected doesn't tell you which bit of the complex deal was rejected. Was it the payment terms? Was it trade? Was it migration? Was the the ECJ?

What complex deal? There isn't one.

As for why someone might reject the deal, why should there be multiple choices? There wasn't on the original referendum! Maybe it would have been better worded as:
Do you want to stay in the EU?
Do you want to leave the EU because of the ECJ and it forcing human rights laws on the UK?
Do you want to leave the EU because you hate foreigners?
Do you want to leave the EU because you hate Cornwall/Devon/Wales receiving handouts from it?
Do you want to leave the EU because Nigel Farage did nothing to debate fishing while he was employed to do so?
Do you want to leave the EU because the Home Secretary in the UK is axing border jobs and refusing to secure our borders?
Do you want to leave the EU because you don't like being able to travel/trade abroad?
Do you want to leave the EU because the Wail tells you to?

...and each person in the UK gets to say yes to one of those eight options.

[Mordac]

Surely it's to hold a reasoned debate, respecting the views of the other, on the biggest political change in 50 years?

Er, not here mate. Think of it as "General" on steroids...

[WTFH]

( the £350M is correct ... if you ignore the rebate and the amount that the EU spends in the UK )

My car does 99mpg. (going down hill in 8th at 60mph)

[Mordac]

referendum is not a way to run a democracy

Tell that to Sturgeon...