Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[don4l]

craigjm said:

"We wont build an engine for one market so Euro 7 changes will be built into the UK cars too." infuriated the guy who made the statement but is the reality of international business.

It must have felt really good to have won that argument.

I suppose that means that we are now actually going to Remain.


Oh... wait a minute!

[craigjm]

don4l said:

craigjm said:

"We wont build an engine for one market so Euro 7 changes will be built into the UK cars too." infuriated the guy who made the statement but is the reality of international business.

It must have felt really good to have won that argument.

I suppose that means that we are now actually going to Remain.


Oh... wait a minute!

Excuse me?
Purely a statement of fact that in an international world there is no such thing as a truly sovereign nation. Nothing to do with remaining!

[Stickyfinger]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Stickyfinger said:

then you do not really understand what he is do you....it is why he is where he is and you are posting crap on a car forum.

Awww, got a bit of a crush on him have you?

OK, now I know exactly why you disregard him as a fool

[PurpleMoonlight]

don4l said:

My way is far less complicated.

1) Article 50.
2) Hire new Border Agency staff and HMRC people.
3) Leave.

Or, to put it another way "Brexit means Brexit".

But the Government won't do that because, if nothing else, we are not North Korea.

[don'tbesilly]

craigjm said:

Funkycoldribena said:

don4l said:

My way is far less complicated.

1) Article 50.
2) Hire new Border Agency staff and HMRC people.
3) Leave.

Or, to put it another way "Brexit means Brexit".

Can we do it tomorrow?
If anything,just to shut the whingers on here up.

Even with the ink is signed and a date is set the UK will not be an independent nation. EU legislation will still be felt over here. Was just talking earlier to a couple of friends at JLR about the new Euro 7 engine regulations and another friend said "none of that will matter to us when we are out" to which the reply came "We wont build an engine for one market so Euro 7 changes will be built into the UK cars too." infuriated the guy who made the statement but is the reality of international business.

I'm not sure any leave voter would have a problem with most aspects of EU regulations when it comes to selling goods into Europe.

Complying with regulations to ensure they can be sold to countries in the EU doesn't mean the UK will not be independent.
The UK sells to many countries outside the EU and complies with all manner of each countries regulations, we are not governed by them, we are independent of them, as we will be when we leave the sinking ship.

I'd rather wear a dress than wear the same shoes Edward Smith had on

[Derek Smith]

craigjm said:

Excuse me?
Purely a statement of fact that in an international world there is no such thing as a truly sovereign nation. Nothing to do with remaining!

Don't respond. It is demeaning.

We will, in all probability, continue to conform to EU standards. Even if we plummet to WTO, we still need to show conformity to something or other. So EU is the easiest - we do it already - the cheapest - we do it already - and the most efficient - ditto - from our point of view. As and when the EU changes standards then there will have to be cost/benefits decisions but most are merely modifications so, as we do it already . . .

Brexit means brexit, so nothing to do with which standards we comply with.

[SilverSixer]

don4l said:

"tough".

Yes, yes of course, that's the way to approach a situation where as near as dammit half the people are unimpressed with the situation, a situation which has no easy path forward despite your simplistic ramblings. Those of us who are pro-EU have spent decades accepting part membership of the EU for Britain, in the form of the various vetos and opt outs and accession of new member questions, on the basis of accommodating as far as possible the views of those who didn't wish to be in it at all, and now the boot is on the other foot it has to be all one way, tough titty, everything you wish must inevitably come to pass.

Well I'm sorry, no. Your side are going to have to put up with dissent and demands from the other near-half of the population and you will have to "get over" the fact that some things you don't like may well have to remain as part of exit agreements, or that we may well be asked again in one form or another.

You know what? I think I'd be quite happy with a Norway-style situation now. Why? because that really would be a lip-service, name only exit form the EU. We'd still be contributing financially, we'd still be trading freely, we'd still be able to move freely. In both directions. We'd still have to live with EU regulations and protections which I find valuable. I think it would be the epitome of a pyrrhic victory for many Leavers. It would be pointless, but hey, if Leave means Leave then great, you've got your Leave. Then perhaps we truly will be able to get on with things pretty much as they are without the dire and dark consequences on so many levels of a hard exit. Would you be happy with that? After all, it'd mean we've left. That's the only thing that matters, right? How did Homer Simpson put it? Let the baby have its bottle.

Trouble is, I don't see it as a plausible outcome. Which is a shame in some ways. We're going hard or going home so far as I can tell.

[B'stard Child]

SilverSixer said:

B'stard Child said:

Good to hear that you had a fun weekend - I had very little beer unfortunately - but I did get the "daily" back from it's full respray so spent some time waxing it. Then some more time cleaning the "press ganged into daily - thank god it's not now cos fuel was killing me". Then Sunday took em both to a local car show and had a great day......

oooops - probably a bit car related for this forum section - am I likely to get a ban?

I managed to balls up the oil and filter change on my car by failing to notice the old oil filter's seal staying stuck to the engine, screwing the new one on, starting the engine and spraying 3l of fresh oil all over my drive. After that, I most certainly required a large amount of

Oh I remember the first time I changed the oil on a Triumph Dolly Sprint

Dropped the oil into a "not quite big enough bowl" - black oil slick on a tarmac drive - used Gunk to clean it up instead of the planned engine clean....

Gunk melted the driveway - it started to rain - great better get this job finished quickly

Changed filter for new one got oil down my arm and sleeve

Filled up oil - damn it took as much as I'd bought

Drove down the road to warm it up and check the level on the flat....

What's that lovely rainbow effect on the road behind me....

Ahhh - "lightbulb moment" Drain plug that would be still in the bottom of the not quite big enough bowl.....

Cock!!!! It was 34 years ago - not sure I can blame that on Brexit!!!

[Mrr T]

SilverSixer said:

B'stard Child said:

Well he's written something I agree with (or rather I can see happening) and it's probably why some toys will be thrown from the pram and we will end up exiting without agreement

Which is surely the worst case scenario, isn't it? It's at that point we need to be asked "Leave without agreement" or "Remain", isn't it? Of course, we as a country can't say we're going to ask that question as it may well become self fulfilling - but surely we do have to be asked the question at that point as an electorate, don't we? If I'm generous and say half of Leave voters wouldn't be happy with "Leave without agreement", then where is the mandate to leave under those circumstances?

That's the problem. Once Art 50 is triggered there seems to be no way of withdrawal. So even if the Government decided to offer a referendum on an exit with no treaty (hard brexit) its to late.

[hoagypubdog]

craigjm said:

The whole process is going to be like the most painful and acrimonious divorce that anyone has ever experienced. Having been a member since January 1973 there is so much to unravel, untangle and divorce and much arguing over who gets custody of which children etc. If the plan is to leave with a new trade agreement in place then I can see this period taking many years during which lots of insults and insinuations will be thrown.

Even with the ink is signed and a date is set the UK will not be an independent nation. EU legislation will still be felt over here. Was just talking earlier to a couple of friends at JLR about the new Euro 7 engine regulations and another friend said "none of that will matter to us when we are out" to which the reply came "We wont build an engine for one market so Euro 7 changes will be built into the UK cars too." infuriated the guy who made the statement but is the reality of international business.

I thought JLR still built Euro 4 engines for markets outside EU. Some for sale on Witham Specialist Vehicles website, export only.

[Elysium]

don'tbesilly said:

Elysium said:

There is a very interesting piece here by John Halford of Bindmans, which argues that this is about the arbitrary removal of our rights, rather than an attempt to block Brexit.

https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/parliament-sho...

I agree with his position, the challenge is not impacting the Govt's timetable by their own admission. I never expected Govt to use executive powers to act on the referendum without further parliamentary debate and it seems right and in the interests of democracy that this concept is being challenged.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 26th September 12:33

So the first attempt at democracy (the referendum) which the remain campaign expected to win which was unexpectedly lost, now want a second attempt at democracy because they can't accept the result of the first attempt.

Most people who voted, and as pointed out in the Conservative manifesto that the result would be honoured, did expect the government to do as promised, act as promised and invoke Article 50 as promised once the result was announced.
A delay in doing so (invoking A50) is more than reasonable, but most were not expecting what you are, or what you are agreeing with.

Your further comment about democracy is laughable, however you dress it up.

Only in the UK could wealth and elitism argue the democratic and legitimate process.

How much did you pledge?

Our democracy is based on elected representatives. If important matters are to be put to the public in the form of a referendum, it is entirely reasonable to expect our elected MP's to act in our interest and agree the details. That is what they are paid to do.

In this case, they did exactly that and agreed legislation requiring an advisory referendum to be held. This is important, because a legally binding referendum would not respect the principles of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament cannot put something into law that could not then by undone by a future parliament. This has always been at the very core of our democratic process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovere...

Unfortunately, we now have the Govt proposing to use executive powers to act on the result of the referendum, which is not what was agreed by parliament.

Our Govt must act lawfully on the referendum result and we will find out in the next month or so if this requires a further vote in parliament. I think this should happen anyway as it is central to democracy. It is nothing to do with elitism or wealth. Parliament is paid to make difficult decisions and vote in our interest.

MP's are not paid to shrug their shoulders and blindly put in place legislation based on a public vote, without taking responsibility for the outcome.

[Derek Smith]

Elysium said:

Our democracy is based on elected representatives. If important matters are to be put to the public in the form of a referendum, it is entirely reasonable to expect our elected MP's to act in our interest and agree the details. That is what they are paid to do.

In this case, they did exactly that and agreed legislation requiring an advisory referendum to be held. This is important, because a legally binding referendum would not respect the principles of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament cannot put something into law that could not then by undone by a future parliament. This has always been at the very core of our democratic process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovere...

Unfortunately, we now have the Govt proposing to use executive powers to act on the result of the referendum, which is not what was agreed by parliament.

Our Govt must act lawfully on the referendum result and we will find out in the next month or so if this requires a further vote in parliament. I think this should happen anyway as it is central to democracy. It is nothing to do with elitism or wealth. Parliament is paid to make difficult decisions and vote in our interest.

MP's are not paid to shrug their shoulders and blindly put in place legislation based on a public vote, without taking responsibility for the outcome.

If you were May and had the unenviable task of concluding the deal, would you be on the lookout for an out?

She dumped people in the position of negotiator not through ability or experience, but because they were in the leave campaign. Even the role of Foreign Sec, nothing to do with leave but having responsibility for foreigners, she gave to Johnson in a dramatic throwaway gesture.

Do you see a suggestion of washing her hands of it all. 'Nothing to do with me, I was just following orders.'

Hopefully not of course.

She might well have a tight grip on the situation, but it would be comforting if it was obvious. She's got her work cut out.

I've got another option. I had a boss who wanted to make a particular decision with regards direction of the unit. He was told to commission a report and gave it, as a training exercise, to a group of inexperienced idiots, at least in the main. When the report was delivered, he rejected it, quite rightly, with ample evidence to support. He got his own way.

If that is correct, I hope the analogy ends there because his was was useless and had to to changed, at great expense, some time later.

[JNW1]

Elysium said:

Our democracy is based on elected representatives. If important matters are to be put to the public in the form of a referendum, it is entirely reasonable to expect our elected MP's to act in our interest and agree the details. That is what they are paid to do.

In this case, they did exactly that and agreed legislation requiring an advisory referendum to be held. This is important, because a legally binding referendum would not respect the principles of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament cannot put something into law that could not then by undone by a future parliament. This has always been at the very core of our democratic process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovere...

Unfortunately, we now have the Govt proposing to use executive powers to act on the result of the referendum, which is not what was agreed by parliament.

Our Govt must act lawfully on the referendum result and we will find out in the next month or so if this requires a further vote in parliament. I think this should happen anyway as it is central to democracy. It is nothing to do with elitism or wealth. Parliament is paid to make difficult decisions and vote in our interest.

MP's are not paid to shrug their shoulders and blindly put in place legislation based on a public vote, without taking responsibility for the outcome.

I get all of the above and agree any decision to invoke Article 50 should be one for Parliament to take (not least because if it's not done properly we run the risk of the whole process being subject to a legal challenge which makes any potential mess even worse). However, if since the referendum no new evidence or information has come to light which if known at the time would have changed the result I'm not sure how with any credibility MP's can do anything other than vote to invoke Article 50? If they don't it's surely tantamount to saying the whole referendum was a complete waste of time and money because if in the end MP's were just going to decide on our behalf why ask the electorate? As I've said in previous posts on this thread, unless there's some new evidence for MP's to hang their hat on I think a vote not to proceed with Brexit will completely undermine public confidence in British politics (not that it's that high to start with!).

[confused_buyer]

Elysium said:

Our democracy is based on elected representatives. If important matters are to be put to the public in the form of a referendum, it is entirely reasonable to expect our elected MP's to act in our interest and agree the details. That is what they are paid to do.

That's true and I don't think anyone is saying that MPs will not get a say at some point.

However, virtually all treaties and negotiations on such matters are usually done by the Executive often without reference to Parliament. This is then presented to Parliament for ratification afterwards.

The Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties were all done pretty much like that.

I appreciate this is a little different in that Article 50 tends to point to a pre-defined outcome (i.e. leaving the EU) but any resulting agreement will, at some point, require scrutiny, debate and ratification by Parliament.

[craigjm]

hoagypubdog said:

I thought JLR still built Euro 4 engines for markets outside EU. Some for sale on Witham Specialist Vehicles website, export only.

Being pedantic the Euro 4 engines are Ford designed engines built for Jaguar by Ford much like most of their engines for the past 8 years since Ford sold them. The new range of Ingenium engines ranging from 1.5-3.0 in both fuels will be compliant with EU legislation whether we are in or out. The simple point is that some people think Brexit will mean we can look after ourselves and our own rules etc but in an international trading world that is just not the case.

We are not withdrawing from NATO either so should the EU agree on developing an EU defence force then we would still be supporting it and at times, with NATO command the way it is, have our forces commanded by it.

I am neither a die hard Europhile or a hard nosed Brexiteer. All I can forsee is a load of unhappy brexiteers when they see the deal hammered out and a load of remainers saying told you so etc and that wont help anyone. The country needs to stop labelling people, pull together and make the best of the situation we are in. Unfortunately, I just think its a situation to which the solution, when it comes, will not be as drinkable as people may have hoped. It certainly wont be Nigel Farage's cheers with a beer independence day.

[Mrr T]

SilverSixer said:

You know what? I think I'd be quite happy with a Norway-style situation now. Why? because that really would be a lip-service, name only exit form the EU. We'd still be contributing financially, we'd still be trading freely, we'd still be able to move freely. In both directions. We'd still have to live with EU regulations and protections which I find valuable. I think it would be the epitome of a pyrrhic victory for many Leavers. It would be pointless, but hey, if Leave means Leave then great, you've got your Leave. Then perhaps we truly will be able to get on with things pretty much as they are without the dire and dark consequences on so many levels of a hard exit. Would you be happy with that? After all, it'd mean we've left. That's the only thing that matters, right? How did Homer Simpson put it? Let the baby have its bottle.

Trouble is, I don't see it as a plausible outcome. Which is a shame in some ways. We're going hard or going home so far as I can tell.

I would also be happy with a EEA/EFTA brexit. I would disagree that it puts us in a worst position. For example most EU regulations come from various standards organisations. At the moment our only representative on these organisation if via the EU. In the EEA/EFTA option we would be directly represented giving us more influence in the forming of regulations. Some see the EEA/EFTA option as just a first step to full exit from the SM. I take a different view if we join the EEA/EFTA countries we would give them far more influence. Further I can see other rEU countries who do not want closer union may look to join the EEA/EFTA countries. A real chance to create a 2 speed Europe with minimal impact on the UK economy.

[FiF]

Mrr T said:

I would also be happy with a EEA/EFTA brexit. I would disagree that it puts us in a worst position. For example most EU regulations come from various standards organisations. At the moment our only representative on these organisation if via the EU. In the EEA/EFTA option we would be directly represented giving us more influence in the forming of regulations. Some see the EEA/EFTA option as just a first step to full exit from the SM. I take a different view if we join the EEA/EFTA countries we would give them far more influence. Further I can see other rEU countries who do not want closer union may look to join the EEA/EFTA countries. A real chance to create a 2 speed Europe with minimal impact on the UK economy.

Completely agree with that, I think. The EU is becoming increasingly irrelevant or late to the party on regulation. Business is often ahead of the EU in implementing global regs, Pete North raises the example of container weighing regs, which aren't in place by EU and USA, but carriers refuse to indemnify if the new regulations aren't followed. It makes more sense to have those seats and have greater and earlier influence.

Another one of the major reasons I voted to get out of the EU was to definitely get away from the ever closer union. But Dave had negotiated that I hear the cry from some. Well yes, assuming one believes the validity behind his piece of paper. The reality of that deal would have meant that, yes we were out of ever closer union, but stuck in a two speed Europe which will proceed ever more in favour of union, and that will be their focus, possibly to the disbenefit of the slow speed members. However those members will still be bound by many restrictions on their activities and influence that will not be the case outside in EEA/ EFTA.

Personally I'm guessing that May will either go for the EEA/EFTA option, or something very similar but under a different name. It's really the only sensible way, especially considering the time available.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

I've got another option. I had a boss who wanted to make a particular decision with regards direction of the unit. He was told to commission a report and gave it, as a training exercise, to a group of inexperienced idiots, at least in the main. When the report was delivered, he rejected it, quite rightly, with ample evidence to support. He got his own way.

Yes. I have wondered from time to time whether this is our future. It's a variant on a Russian way of dealing with your enemies. Promote them above their ability, then six months later it's bye bye.

[Stickyfinger]

FiF said:

It's really the only sensible way, especially considering the time available.

and given the total cluster-fk that is the "EU committee"

[confused_buyer]

Mrr T said:

I would also be happy with a EEA/EFTA brexit. I would disagree that it puts us in a worst position. For example most EU regulations come from various standards organisations. At the moment our only representative on these organisation if via the EU. In the EEA/EFTA option we would be directly represented giving us more influence in the forming of regulations. Some see the EEA/EFTA option as just a first step to full exit from the SM. I take a different view if we join the EEA/EFTA countries we would give them far more influence. Further I can see other rEU countries who do not want closer union may look to join the EEA/EFTA countries. A real chance to create a 2 speed Europe with minimal impact on the UK economy.

Likewise I wouldn't have a massive issue with something which looked an awful lot like EEA/EFTA. Most EEA countries opt out of something (Fishing with Norway for example) so there is some give and take and we might have to give up something if the Government wants some sort of FOM control.

It keeps us out of the political bit of the EU and all the ridiculous federal obsession of the "project" plus enables us some flexibility in trading relationship with non-EU.

I wanted, and still want, out of the EU. I never wanted out of Europe or the world or for us to commit economic suicide by pursuing some sort of independence nirvana which simply isn't possible in a modern inter-connected world.