Sun reckons Queen wants UK to leave the EU...

[JC Footy Genius]

If they had an actual message of what life would be like out they'd have told us by now. They don't know.

Well they have already outlined the possible benefits, what I would like to see is a firming up of their case. Setting out clear post Brexit goals ie Free movement of EU citizens being at the very least restricted to numbers we can control. This would also strengthen the governments future negotiating position as it would have a clear democratic mandate to meet these commitments.

On a possible future referendum, the EU has form circumventing the democratic wishes of the electorate and I seem to remember the Scottish referendum was a once in a generation decision yet many on the staying in side now suggest Brexit will inevitably lead to another referendum.

 

[GT49er]

Boris's imaginary Agents of Project Fear would be proud of you. It is, I suppose, theoretically possible (although politically inconceivable) that if the vote was Out the EU could invite David Cameron back for further talks and that all member countries would rapidly agree to 'better' terms. However, this would place against a background of wild celebrations from the Out camp and a complete disintegration of Cameron's authority (assuming he's still there). Cameron would be unlikely to have the stomach for it anyway, and nor would any of his ministers. Even on a good day the thought that the EU or Cameron could organise a new referendum with qualified majority rules is black fantasy.

It is not going to happen and I can only guess that wild speculation that it might is part of a campaign to demonise the EU. I suggest it can be filed with the assertion from one poster on here that the shadowy figures of Europe would actually rig the vote.

Glad to be reassured by your confidence that an 'Out' vote would be allowed to stand. Roll on the day!

 

[Goldstone1976]

There is no second referendum. This is something the 'no' camp likes to advocate to muddy the waters. That we can vote out without really leaving. This is untrue. We vote out, we trigger article 50, we leave. The next referendum is a generation away.

For the record - I'm currently undecided, having previously been "in".

I know that's the "in" camps rhetoric. I know too that getting a second referendum as a result of t a "no" vote is (some of) the "no" camps rhetoric. I'm asking about what will actually happen in the event of a close "out" vote. My personal view is that Cameron will want to try again; as will the EU politicos. If both parties want us to stay in enough, there simply will be a "re-negotiation", a representation and a second vote (all imo, of course). This is of purely academic interest to me - I will vote on the basis that it's a one-off vote, not tactically.

On the "generation" thing - so was the Scottish referendum - does anyone believe it'll be 30 years before the next one? I sure as hell don't.

 

[sparkie]

I can't get beyond the logic that if we leave, any 'exit deal' for England would have to be bad enough so as to discourage any other countries from leaving the EU.

 

[beorhthelm]

There is no second referendum. This is something the 'no' camp likes to advocate to muddy the waters. That we can vote out without really leaving. This is untrue. We vote out, we trigger article 50, we leave. The next referendum is a generation away.

Denial of any possible second referendum is something the inners claim to reinforce the fear of leave vote. To be fair it is consistent, to claim all negatives of leaving are absolute and known, but it is not a definite fact. Two years of negotiation, assuming article 50 invoked immediately, gives a lot of time for a new arrangement to be proposed and presented. Faced with the second largest member leaving, already outside of the euro, with all the problems associated with that part of the project, it would be an opportunity for the European master to reshape and recast the project, with a two stream future. I'm told reliably that memo and papers on this outcome are already live documents both in the foreign office and in Brussels - the possibility is being planned for even if not publicly.

 

[sparkie]

Denial of any possible second referendum is something the inners claim to reinforce the fear of leave vote. To be fair it is consistent, to claim all negatives of leaving are absolute and known, but it is not a definite fact. Two years of negotiation, assuming article 50 invoked immediately, gives a lot of time for a new arrangement to be proposed and presented. Faced with the second largest member leaving, already outside of the euro, with all the problems associated with that part of the project, it would be an opportunity for the European master to reshape and recast the project, with a two stream future. I'm told reliably that memo and papers on this outcome are already live documents both in the foreign office and in Brussels - the possibility is being planned for even if not publicly.

I've long thought that the European Union should be more of a European Onion, with a core, and layers of membership, with different countries opting for different layers of the 'onion'.

 

[5ways]

For the record - I'm currently undecided, having previously been "in".

I know that's the "in" camps rhetoric. I know too that getting a second referendum as a result of t a "no" vote is (some of) the "no" camps rhetoric. I'm asking about what will actually happen in the event of a close "out" vote. My personal view is that Cameron will want to try again; as will the EU politicos. If both parties want us to stay in enough, there simply will be a "re-negotiation", a representation and a second vote (all imo, of course). This is of purely academic interest to me - I will vote on the basis that it's a one-off vote, not tactically.

On the "generation" thing - so was the Scottish referendum - does anyone believe it'll be 30 years before the next one? I sure as hell don't.

. A second referendum is an out-er ploy, used by lukewarm sceptics like Boris. It' not rhetoric on the in side, however, it is what has been explicitly agreed and made clear.

 

[brighton fella]

Boris's imaginary Agents of Project Fear would be proud of you. It is, I suppose, theoretically possible (although politically inconceivable) that if the vote was Out the EU could invite David Cameron back for further talks and that all member countries would rapidly agree to 'better' terms. However, this would place against a background of wild celebrations from the Out camp and a complete disintegration of Cameron's authority (assuming he's still there). Cameron would be unlikely to have the stomach for it anyway, and nor would any of his ministers. Even on a good day the thought that the EU or Cameron could organise a new referendum with qualified majority rules is black fantasy.

It is not going to happen and I can only guess that wild speculation that it might is part of a campaign to demonise the EU. I suggest it can be filed with the assertion from one poster on here that the shadowy figures of Europe would actually rig the vote.

Are you suggesting that the establishment are far to clean to contemplate doing such a thing as that

you must be living in some dreamworld you crazy fool. , you clearly put way to much trust in your government that's for sure..

 

[5ways]

I can't get beyond the logic that if we leave, any 'exit deal' for England would have to be bad enough so as to discourage any other countries from leaving the EU.

This is what other states will probably threaten - a poison pill.

 

[Goldstone1976]

. A second referendum is an out-er ploy, used by lukewarm sceptics like Boris. It' not rhetoric on the in side, however, it is what has been explicitly agreed and made clear.

..as was the Scottish referendum, which point I note you haven't addressed. Do you believe there will be no second Scottish referendum for 30 years?

A week is a long time in politics.....

 

[5ways]

..as was the Scottish referendum, which point I note you haven't addressed. Do you believe there will be no second Scottish referendum for 30 years?

A week is a long time in politics.....

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. 30 years? I can't say. Probably not, but for more than a decade. A second Scottish referendum would be demanded in the case of new and extraordinary circumstances - I don't see anything seismic enough to trigger that for the EU referendum except perhaps war between member states. The SNP is cohesive behind a second referendum, there is practically no unity in England on the first EU referendum so why would there be second?

 

[GT49er]

. A second referendum is an out-er ploy, used by lukewarm sceptics like Boris. It' not rhetoric on the in side, however, it is what has been explicitly agreed and made clear.

Not so much an outer ploy as an inner conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water.

"Vote 'Out' so we can have another referendum, the verdict can be overturned and your vote will be discounted." Yeh, real cunning, underhand vote-winner from the 'Out' campaign, that is!

 

[LlcoolJ]

I'm not massively pro either side but the Outers on here are coming across like 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. 30 years? I can't say. Probably not, but for more than a decade. A second Scottish referendum would be demanded in the case of new and extraordinary circumstances - I don't see anything seismic enough to trigger that for the EU referendum except perhaps war between member states. The SNP is cohesive behind a second referendum, there is practically no unity in England on the first EU referendum so why would there be second?

30 years, simply because that's the common definition of a "generation", s'all. Thanks for the response - you're more confident than I am that there won't be a second Scottish referendum within even 10 years - I think the SNP will manufacture a set of "new and extraordinary" set of circumstances when they think there's a good chance that the result of the next referendum will go their way.

In much the same way, I believe that Cameron/EU would manufacture a set of "good and logical" reasons to have a second vote in the event that the referendum narrowly voted "out". I know that the stance is that they won't, even can't, but the real politik would change in the event of a narrow "out" vote, imo. I know you don't agree - fair enough!

 

[GT49er]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. 30 years? I can't say. Probably not, but for more than a decade. A second Scottish referendum would be demanded in the case of new and extraordinary circumstances - I don't see anything seismic enough to trigger that for the EU referendum except perhaps war between member states. The SNP is cohesive behind a second referendum, there is practically no unity in England on the first EU referendum so why would there be second?

No, I think he's comparing referendum with referendum. The outcome was/will be decided on a simple majority. The SNP appears to want to go on having referendum after referendum until voters come up with the 'right' answer - any reason to think that the EU and the pro-EU lobby will act any differently? Just because they say they won't is not proof!

 

[beorhthelm]

... I don't see anything seismic enough to trigger that for the EU referendum except perhaps war between member states.

Really? A melodramatic extreme of war? Not a far more realistic and quite probable treaty that attempts to devolve more power to Brussels and or renages on the deal Cameron has brought back? We could know the outcome of his deal and the shape of the next treaty in the next couple of years, so a new call to leave before the next Parliament.

TTIP could certainly upset the apple cart in the similar timeframe once that comes down the pipe and people realise more regulation and rules are being imposed from the EU without oversight. Then there's the possible changes to funding the EU to prop up the ailing eurozone countries, a land grab of power towards centralised fiscal policy (our 3.5% vote is bound to be heard protect us of course).

Of course you may want to believe a vote to remain is a risk free option with no change, unfortunately that not realistic. There's 3 seismic seismic shift that are already in play, before we consider unknown or black swan events.

 

[5ways]

No, I think he's comparing referendum with referendum. The outcome was/will be decided on a simple majority. The SNP appears to want to go on having referendum after referendum until voters come up with the 'right' answer - any reason to think that the EU and the pro-EU lobby will act any differently? Just because they say they won't is not proof!

Well if we can't hold people to their statements I guess anything is fair game. We're charting a course into conspiratorial waters and I think you've caught a case of EU-induced delirium. Never fear, I shall keep a firm hand on the wheel

 

[5ways]

Really? A melodramatic extreme of war? Not a far more realistic and quite probable treaty that attempts to devolve more power to Brussels and or renages on the deal Cameron has brought back? We could know the outcome of his deal and the shape of the next treaty in the next couple of years, so a new call to leave before the next Parliament.

TTIP could certainly upset the apple cart in the similar timeframe once that comes down the pipe and people realise more regulation and rules are being imposed from the EU without oversight. Then there's the possible changes to funding the EU to prop up the ailing eurozone countries, a land grab of power towards centralised fiscal policy (our 3.5% vote is bound to be heard protect us of course).

Of course you may want to believe a vote to remain is a risk free option with no change, unfortunately that not realistic. There's 3 seismic seismic shift that are already in play, before we consider unknown or black swan events.

I think it would have to be something quite dramatic rather than creeping technocratic overreach to pierce the miasma of public interest and attention. Besides, we have our 'cast-iron' opt out from ever-closer-union and our multi-member red and yellow cards.

 

[5ways]

30 years, simply because that's the common definition of a "generation", s'all. Thanks for the response - you're more confident than I am that there won't be a second Scottish referendum within even 10 years - I think the SNP will manufacture a set of "new and extraordinary" set of circumstances when they think there's a good chance that the result of the next referendum will go their way.

In much the same way, I believe that Cameron/EU would manufacture a set of "good and logical" reasons to have a second vote in the event that the referendum narrowly voted "out". I know that the stance is that they won't, even can't, but the real politik would change in the event of a narrow "out" vote, imo. I know you don't agree - fair enough!

If you take a peak at the Referendum thread you'll see I'm a little less cynical than many

 

[GT49er]

Well if we can't hold people to their statements I guess anything is fair game. We're charting a course into conspiratorial waters and I think you've caught a case of EU-induced delirium. Never fear, I shall keep a firm hand on the wheel

No conspiracy theory here - perhaps more to do with Inners' fear of losing ground.

After the Scottish referendum, Alex Salmond came out and clearly said, that's it, for a generation. Clearly not the SNP's aspiration now. And the EU has undeniably got form for going again with referendums when it doesn't get the 'right' result - that's a matter of historical fact, not a conspiracy theory.