Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[RizzoTheRat]

Timmy40 said:

Indeed. I'm sorry but this is exactly how I see it playing out. LibDems are running on a remain ticket, the SNP want to remain, Labour officially want to remain. And unless there's a shock Tory landslide at the next GE what will happen is a Lib/Lab coalition along with the SNP reversing the Brexit, probably with lots of references to the fact that the alternative is to break up the UK.

As has been repteadly said.....aint democracy a bh.

That depends if there'd a GE called before Article 50 is declared. My understanding is once we go for article 50 we're out in 2 years whatever else gests decided, so a future government would have to apply to rejoin the EU, in which case we would be in the grovelling territory and would probably not get a great deal.

[Puggit]

RizzoTheRat said:

That depends if there'd a GE called before Article 50 is declared. My understanding is once we go for article 50 we're out in 2 years whatever else gests decided, so a future government would have to apply to rejoin the EU, in which case we would be in the grovelling territory and would probably not get a great deal.

Unless negotiations are slow and ALL countries agree to extend the 2 year deadline (unlikely)

[p1stonhead]

Timmy40 said:

RizzoTheRat said:

p1stonhead said:

Except they know we intend to. If we change our mind its just down to us bottling it. We would be as cowardly as Boris.

So? What would that actually change?

Indeed. I'm sorry but this is exactly how I see it playing out. LibDems are running on a remain ticket, the SNP want to remain, Labour officially want to remain. And unless there's a shock Tory landslide at the next GE what will happen is a Lib/Lab coalition along with the SNP reversing the Brexit, probably with lots of references to the fact that the alternative is to break up the UK.

As has been repteadly said.....aint democracy a bh.

This. I never said anything would change, I said we would look like idiots (which we would be).

I fully expect it to go this way and that we wont actually leave in the end.

[Timmy40]

RizzoTheRat said:

Timmy40 said:

Indeed. I'm sorry but this is exactly how I see it playing out. LibDems are running on a remain ticket, the SNP want to remain, Labour officially want to remain. And unless there's a shock Tory landslide at the next GE what will happen is a Lib/Lab coalition along with the SNP reversing the Brexit, probably with lots of references to the fact that the alternative is to break up the UK.

As has been repteadly said.....aint democracy a bh.

That depends if there'd a GE called before Article 50 is declared. My understanding is once we go for article 50 we're out in 2 years whatever else gests decided, so a future government would have to apply to rejoin the EU, in which case we would be in the grovelling territory and would probably not get a great deal.

I suspect we'll find there is considerably more scope for stopping the exit process even if A50 has been triggered than we are lead to believe, in the event that the UK decides it wants to.

[Mario149]

I think the key thing here is that unless you've staked your career on leaving the EU and campaigned for it, even a eurosceptic is not going to push the A50 button if they know the short/medium term consequences are going to be dire, unless you're f-ing mental. The PM's job, above all others, is to look after the welfare of the whole country, even if it means taking a hit for it. Whether we have a plan or not, the moment A50 is pushed we're borked. If the EU don't like whatever negotiating position we've come up with, they can just sit there until we cave or the 2 years is up. All they have to do is keep a united front. There'll be some WTO tariffs on goods, but we *need* to sell our services which are not covered and subject to regulatory barriers. They make up 80% of our economy. All of a sudden, BMW not being able to flog us a quite as many cars doesn't seem such a big deal. After A50 we're on the timeline to leave and *need* a deal for our financial services. That's probably the major reason they're not letting us negotiate until with trigger A50. Once we trigger A50, they're guaranteed to win, the question is just how much of a spanking we take.

Edited by Mario149 on Thursday 30th June 15:37

[thinkofaname]

Timmy40 said:

I suspect we'll find there is considerably more scope for stopping the exit process even if A50 has been triggered than we are lead to believe, in the event that the UK decides it wants to.

Possibly. People say that it would require unanimity among the 27 other EU members, but really that boils down to what Germany and France think. I can't see Estonia, for example, vetoing it by themselves.

[Beati Dogu]

What percentage of our financial services deal with countries in the EU?

[RizzoTheRat]

Timmy40 said:

I suspect we'll find there is considerably more scope for stopping the exit process even if A50 has been triggered than we are lead to believe, in the event that the UK decides it wants to.

Possibly but it is fairly clear in the treaty:

Article50 said:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

[405dogvan]

Beati Dogu said:

What percentage of our financial services deal with countries in the EU?

I'm going to hazard a wild guess at 100% of it

Do you mean 100% British owned financial services companies or just those who employ people here tho - in which case that would be 100% and 100% respectively ;0

[marshalla]

RizzoTheRat said:

Timmy40 said:

I suspect we'll find there is considerably more scope for stopping the exit process even if A50 has been triggered than we are lead to believe, in the event that the UK decides it wants to.

Possibly but it is fairly clear in the treaty:

Article50 said:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

27 of them standing there saying "fk you! Bye bye. Read Article 49 now."

[Camoradi]

Zod said:

Like Farage in Thanet perhaps?

Yes, I expect he would have complained. And I suspect some leave voters would have found reasons to contest the referendum result had it gone the other way. I voted leave but would have accepted a remain victory in good grace

[Robertj21a]

To answer the original post, I'm sure that they could attempt to do a U-turn, but they won't succeed. It would be a massive blow to democracy and even the attempt would simply ensure that sufficient Remainers and Leavers joined together to block it as blatantly undemocratic.

I can't believe how deluded many posters on this thread have become.

[p1stonhead]

Robertj21a said:

To answer the original post, I'm sure that they could attempt to do a U-turn, but they won't succeed. It would be a massive blow to democracy and even the attempt would simply ensure that sufficient Remainers and Leavers joined together to block it as blatantly undemocratic.

I can't believe how deluded many posters on this thread have become.

You have too much faith in politicians.

[Mario149]

Beati Dogu said:

What percentage of our financial services deal with countries in the EU?

Clearest figure I can find is 42%. But that's not the number we should worry about, it's that plus whatever services we sell elsewhere that rely on us being in the EU/single market

ETA: that means potentially 30%+ of our exports are at risk if we don't find a way to sell financial services to the EU. I'd call that game set and match.

Edited by Mario149 on Thursday 30th June 16:44

[405dogvan]

Mario149 said:

Beati Dogu said:

What percentage of our financial services deal with countries in the EU?

Clearest figure I can find is 42%. But that's not the number we should worry about, it's that plus whatever services we sell elsewhere that rely on us being in the EU/single market

ETA: that means potentially 30%+ of our exports are at risk if we don't find a way to sell financial services to the EU. I'd call that game set and match.

Edited by Mario149 on Thursday 30th June 16:44

To be clear, any company operating in financial services is reliant upon the whole market, reliant upon insurance and investment and credit from other companies - the idea of a company who only 'deals with' UK-based companies and customers is looking for unicorns...

A heady chunk of the UK's GDP comes from the financial sector and a lot of that is down to London's position in that market - which would be completely untenable without 'passporting' into the EU (the ability to trade without boundaries or tariffs there)

Something the EU has been keen to unsettle for a LONG time - they won't give that easily - moving a lot of financial companies to Europe would be something they'd love to see and they know it would cripple us.

This is the sort of thing you need to understand BEFORE you have a vote like this - not figure-out later tho...

[loafer123]

405dogvan said:

Mario149 said:

Beati Dogu said:

What percentage of our financial services deal with countries in the EU?

Clearest figure I can find is 42%. But that's not the number we should worry about, it's that plus whatever services we sell elsewhere that rely on us being in the EU/single market

ETA: that means potentially 30%+ of our exports are at risk if we don't find a way to sell financial services to the EU. I'd call that game set and match.

Edited by Mario149 on Thursday 30th June 16:44

To be clear, any company operating in financial services is reliant upon the whole market, reliant upon insurance and investment and credit from other companies - the idea of a company who only 'deals with' UK-based companies and customers is looking for unicorns...

A heady chunk of the UK's GDP comes from the financial sector and a lot of that is down to London's position in that market - which would be completely untenable without 'passporting' into the EU (the ability to trade without boundaries or tariffs there)

Something the EU has been keen to unsettle for a LONG time - they won't give that easily - moving a lot of financial companies to Europe would be something they'd love to see and they know it would cripple us.

This is the sort of thing you need to understand BEFORE you have a vote like this - not figure-out later tho...

Except many FIs already have locally regulated branches because the passporting system is crap - there isn't a single market for services, despite the hype.

Some, like ANZ, don't, and do it through London and will have to backfill or use local banks to conduit deals through.

I know an owner of an asset manager who tried using passporting and gave up and opened locally in several European markets because it was easier. His main investors are German and he is based in London.

[Mario149]

405dogvan said:

Mario149 said:

Beati Dogu said:

What percentage of our financial services deal with countries in the EU?

Clearest figure I can find is 42%. But that's not the number we should worry about, it's that plus whatever services we sell elsewhere that rely on us being in the EU/single market

ETA: that means potentially 30%+ of our exports are at risk if we don't find a way to sell financial services to the EU. I'd call that game set and match.

Edited by Mario149 on Thursday 30th June 16:44

To be clear, any company operating in financial services is reliant upon the whole market, reliant upon insurance and investment and credit from other companies - the idea of a company who only 'deals with' UK-based companies and customers is looking for unicorns...

A heady chunk of the UK's GDP comes from the financial sector and a lot of that is down to London's position in that market - which would be completely untenable without 'passporting' into the EU (the ability to trade without boundaries or tariffs there)

Something the EU has been keen to unsettle for a LONG time - they won't give that easily - moving a lot of financial companies to Europe would be something they'd love to see and they know it would cripple us.

This is the sort of thing you need to understand BEFORE you have a vote like this - not figure-out later tho...

I've had a couple of glasses of wine now(!), but that sounds like you're agreeing with me? Maybe that it's even worse than I think?

[Fittster]

sidicks said:

jonnyb said:

Also you have the removal of rights and obligations from citizens that may be don't want their rights removed.

It's a democracy, the rules are set by the majority...

What if the winner of next election said we should remain? Would the parties democratic mandate trump the referendum result.

[kurt535]

Mario149 said:

405dogvan said:

Mario149 said:

Beati Dogu said:

What percentage of our financial services deal with countries in the EU?

Clearest figure I can find is 42%. But that's not the number we should worry about, it's that plus whatever services we sell elsewhere that rely on us being in the EU/single market

ETA: that means potentially 30%+ of our exports are at risk if we don't find a way to sell financial services to the EU. I'd call that game set and match.

Edited by Mario149 on Thursday 30th June 16:44

To be clear, any company operating in financial services is reliant upon the whole market, reliant upon insurance and investment and credit from other companies - the idea of a company who only 'deals with' UK-based companies and customers is looking for unicorns...

A heady chunk of the UK's GDP comes from the financial sector and a lot of that is down to London's position in that market - which would be completely untenable without 'passporting' into the EU (the ability to trade without boundaries or tariffs there)

Something the EU has been keen to unsettle for a LONG time - they won't give that easily - moving a lot of financial companies to Europe would be something they'd love to see and they know it would cripple us.

This is the sort of thing you need to understand BEFORE you have a vote like this - not figure-out later tho...

I've had a couple of glasses of wine now(!), but that sounds like you're agreeing with me? Maybe that it's even worse than I think?

Frankfurt houses have gone bid in anticipation of financial services moving out that way

[grumbledoak]

Fittster said:

What if the winner of next election said we should remain? Would the parties democratic mandate trump the referendum result.

Theresa May, today:
"First, Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government and of Parliament to make sure we do just that. ..."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ther...