Even though we voted for it, a Brexit won't happen in the end. Here's why

[dick dasterdly]

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

Not one single person who voted in the referendum, from either side, thought that they were merely taking part in an opinion poll.

If that was the case, the time to mention it would have been before the vote. Mentioning it after the vote isn't going to wash with anyone, besides those who voted remain and can't accept they lost.

I'm talking here about legality, not about political reality. That said, should public opinion turn against it, do you think the new government is going to go ahead with it and their electoral future be damned?

Ignoring the argument about legality, the important point is that MPs will do their best to be retained as MPs.

Those who supported 'remain' in constituencies where there was an overwhelming vote to 'leave' are in trouble.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[rixalex]

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

Not one single person who voted in the referendum, from either side, thought that they were merely taking part in an opinion poll.

If that was the case, the time to mention it would have been before the vote. Mentioning it after the vote isn't going to wash with anyone, besides those who voted remain and can't accept they lost.

I'm talking here about legality, not about political reality. That said, should public opinion turn against it, do you think the new government is going to go ahead with it and their electoral future be damned?

But why are you talking about legality? It's irrelevant and pointless. It's like someone arguing that the Queen could refuse to accept a newly voted in PM. Of course legally and technically speaking she could but in reality she really couldn't.

As for public opinion turning... the problem is how exactly do you measure public opinion? There was a nationwide vote just a few days ago. That's about as accurate a measure as you can get. Sure public opinion can change but to what degree? It's all a bit unknown. What isn't unknown is the result of the referendum.

As much as they hate the result, politicians are going to have to go with it, or at least be seen to go with it, because if they don't, it will have far reaching implications on the democratic system.

[Basil B]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

Seems even the lawyers do not know.

As the dust settles after the UK vote to leave the EU, lawyers are picking over the landscape and legal opinions are emerging as to how the UK's departure from the European Union might be slowed or even stopped.

They fall into three main areas:

• the operation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty
• a Scottish "block"
• a second national referendum

It has come as a shock to many that the referendum result itself is not legally binding in UK law and it alone does not trigger the UK's departure from the EU.

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629

The referendum is not, and never was legally binding.

The PM may use his/her prerogative powers to move Article 50, but I think there may be legal challenges to this.

The better option is with an act of parliament, then MP's can vote whether to carryout the wishes of the referendum or decide to remain, my thoughts are that now most MP's want out, but drawing up legislation (Act of Parliament) and debating it will take time (by then Junkers will probably have bust a few blood vessels, and hopefully been wheeled of to the funny farm along with Tusk, Boris and Angela).

As they say 2 weeks is along time in politics, I bet by the end of next week many Europeans will be queuing to negotiate even though Junkers and Tusk have told them not to.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Basil B

[nontabury]

If public opinion changed significantly, yes they would. Most MPs want to get re-elected. So if they judge that it would be in the interests of their relection to reject Brexit, they would. I'm not predicting that will happen, but if it does...

...if it does that will mean that henceforth, referendums have no worth, because once you have ignored one, you can ignore them all. And if you are going to ignore referendums, it's not such a great leap to start ignoring elections.

In fact, it's a huge leap. What nonsense.

No, not really.

Undermine one democratic process and what happens is you tend to undermine them all.

Slippery slopes and all that...

It was just a populartiy contest.t had no binding force. Parliament could have passed a law giving it binding force. It chose not to.

N::::::::::;;;;;;;

Well that is your opinion as a non Brit,others think otherwise.

Edited July 1, 2016 by nontabury

[Naam]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

I also thought but it would appear that it will not be possible.

After the shock results of the 27 have regretted, sincerely.

But now everyone agrees that it is not possible to accept a member whose population majority rejects the European project.

And new laws will be passed if the UK drags to promulgate his resignation letter.

Finally, the prospect of sharing the successful legacy of the City (Ireland, Germany, France, Luxembourg ...) take over on the regrets.

i humbly beg to differ. whether EU member states or their governments accept or reject an existing member is totally irrelevant. the decision rests exclusively with the member wanting to leave or remain.

[dick dasterdly]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

Seems even the lawyers do not know.

As the dust settles after the UK vote to leave the EU, lawyers are picking over the landscape and legal opinions are emerging as to how the UK's departure from the European Union might be slowed or even stopped.

They fall into three main areas:

• the operation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty
• a Scottish "block"
• a second national referendum

It has come as a shock to many that the referendum result itself is not legally binding in UK law and it alone does not trigger the UK's departure from the EU.

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629

The referendum is not, and never was legally binding.

The PM may use his/her prerogative powers to move Article 50, but I think there may be legal challenges to this.

The better option is with an act of parliament, then MP's can vote whether to carryout the wishes of the referendum or decide to remain, my thoughts are that now most MP's want out, but drawing up legislation (Act of Parliament) and debating it will take time (by then Junkers will probably have bust a few blood vessels, and hopefully been wheeled of to the funny farm along with Tusk, Boris and Angela).

As they say 2 weeks is along time in politics, I bet by the end of next week many Europeans will be queuing to negotiate even though Junkers and Tusk have told them not to.

Weirdly, most Brits aren't fans of lawyers !

[MissAndry]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Where was that written on the ballot paper?

Besides, do you really think the Germans are going to claim the UK's contract to buy all their cars is no longer valid.

"No you naughty English people, we won't sell you our cars, and all our factories can close, so there"

Edited July 1, 2016 by MissAndry

[Gweiloman]

Can someone answer this question for me:

"Are individual member states in the EU allowed to enter into trade agreements with countries outside of the EU?"

[SheungWan]

Of the four freedoms, the freedom of movement of persons is the most sacred, so to say. It is the freedom that actually every European citizen can experience directly and personally. There is NO way to reach a compromise. If the UK wants access to the single market the UK will leave the freedom of movement of persons untouched. There must not be any limitation at all. In short: abandon all hope (in that regard).

They still will have freedom of movement. The difference will be they get a stamp in their passport and a VOA.

It is difficult to know sometimes whether some forum contributors genuinely misunderstand the point or deliberately so. This is not about freedom of movement going on holiday, it is about freedom of movement concerning employment.

[dick dasterdly]

None of us will know what will happen in the end, but relying on legal arguments is not going to 'cut it' with the electorate.

[Naam]

Of the four freedoms, the freedom of movement of persons is the most sacred, so to say. It is the freedom that actually every European citizen can experience directly and personally. There is NO way to reach a compromise. If the UK wants access to the single market the UK will leave the freedom of movement of persons untouched. There must not be any limitation at all. In short: abandon all hope (in that regard).

They still will have freedom of movement. The difference will be they get a stamp in their passport and a VOA.

It is difficult to know sometimes whether some forum contributors genuinely misunderstand the point or deliberately so. This is not about freedom of movement going on holiday, it is about freedom of movement concerning employment.

it is about freedom of movement concerning employment

and also settlement/residence without being employed.

[SheungWan]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled.

Nobody can make any assertions at present.

I

Seems even the lawyers do not know.

As the dust settles after the UK vote to leave the EU, lawyers are picking over the landscape and legal opinions are emerging as to how the UK's departure from the European Union might be slowed or even stopped.

They fall into three main areas:

• the operation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty
• a Scottish "block"
• a second national referendum

It has come as a shock to many that the referendum result itself is not legally binding in UK law and it alone does not trigger the UK's departure from the EU.

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629

The referendum is not, and never was legally binding.

The PM may use his/her prerogative powers to move Article 50, but I think there may be legal challenges to this.

The better option is with an act of parliament, then MP's can vote whether to carryout the wishes of the referendum or decide to remain, my thoughts are that now most MP's want out, but drawing up legislation (Act of Parliament) and debating it will take time (by then Junkers will probably have bust a few blood vessels, and hopefully been wheeled of to the funny farm along with Tusk, Boris and Angela).

As they say 2 weeks is along time in politics, I bet by the end of next week many Europeans will be queuing to negotiate even though Junkers and Tusk have told them not to.

Weirdly, most Brits aren't fans of lawyers !

This would be the legions of self-appointed bar-room lawyers here in attendance.

[dick dasterdly]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Where was that written on the ballot paper?

Besides, do you really think the Germans are going to claim the UK's contract to buy all their cars is no longer valid.

"No you naughty English people, we won't sell you our cars, and all our factories can close, so there"

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

[Naam]

None of us will know what will happen in the end, but relying on legal arguments is not going to 'cut it' with the electorate.

please list three out of 196 existing countries in which the electorate was never büllshittéd by its government

[bkkcanuck8]

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629

The referendum is not, and never was legally binding.

The PM may use his/her prerogative powers to move Article 50, but I think there may be legal challenges to this.

The better option is with an act of parliament, then MP's can vote whether to carryout the wishes of the referendum or decide to remain, my thoughts are that now most MP's want out, but drawing up legislation (Act of Parliament) and debating it will take time (by then Junkers will probably have bust a few blood vessels, and hopefully been wheeled of to the funny farm along with Tusk, Boris and Angela).

As they say 2 weeks is along time in politics, I bet by the end of next week many Europeans will be queuing to negotiate even though Junkers and Tusk have told them not to.

It is basically what I have been saying.... An act of the legislature is not needed, and just the Referendum Act itself is arguably enough cover not to both if the PM wished.

Although the referendum is not "binding", it is also not "advisory".... and ignoring it would be not politically acceptable since no one voting ever thought that the referendum was just to get opinion -- it was not.

Edited July 1, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[dick dasterdly]

I'm not sure Parliament can prevent enactment of Article 50. Article 50 does state that it can only be issued in accordance within the constitution of the issuing country. Parliament does decide on Constitutional matters, so it could certainly reject the ensuing Act of Parliament, but by that time the EU would be well under way and what happens in the UK would be a moot point.

There is some conjecture that the referendum might never be enacted and the possibility that a legal challenge might be mounted. Part of the mandate was the promise of free trade. As the EU commissioner for Trade has stated not talks before Brexit, then that might be grounds to challenge legality of the referendum since clearly the rules were known and the public misled

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629

The referendum is not, and never was legally binding.

The PM may use his/her prerogative powers to move Article 50, but I think there may be legal challenges to this.

The better option is with an act of parliament, then MP's can vote whether to carryout the wishes of the referendum or decide to remain, my thoughts are that now most MP's want out, but drawing up legislation (Act of Parliament) and debating it will take time (by then Junkers will probably have bust a few blood vessels, and hopefully been wheeled of to the funny farm along with Tusk, Boris and Angela).

As they say 2 weeks is along time in politics, I bet by the end of next week many Europeans will be queuing to negotiate even though Junkers and Tusk have told them not to.

Weirdly, most Brits aren't fans of lawyers !

This would be the legions of self-appointed bar-room lawyers here in attendance.

Not at all. I can guarantee that most people (let alone Brits!) aren't keen on lawyers winning on legal arguments.

My best friend is a solicitor, and I'm constantly having to point out that there is the odd exception!

This won't hold water when it comes to lawyers overturning the referendum.

[SheungWan]

Public opinion is key. The only reliable measure of that is the referendum. Nevertheless key in forming public opinion was the assertion that there would be a free trade deal. If that is not available, and it seems it isn't, then a leagal challenge could be mounted, or Parliament could make a stand.

Where was that written on the ballot paper?

Besides, do you really think the Germans are going to claim the UK's contract to buy all their cars is no longer valid.

"No you naughty English people, we won't sell you our cars, and all our factories can close, so there"

I'm still waiting for a link to that claim. I suspect it was just an opinion rather than a claim.

I am afraid that the result of the referendum cannot/will not be reversed because one side or another may have lied out of the back of their head or that 'public opinion' in the form of one opinion poll or another has demonstrably changed. It is the duty of the next PM and government to implement. The UK will withdraw. The devil of the detail will be in the compliance with EU rules to gain/retain access to the single market. The continuing political split is between those who wish to prioritize economic interests vs those who wish to prioritize immigration control. The latter want signing of Article 50 right now, the former want the freedom to negotiate before signing. The former want their cake and eat it, the latter just don't care.

[KarenBravo]

An inconvenient truth is that many Brexiteers saw this as a once only chance to preserve the "English way of life". It was so important to them, that any adverse affect from Brexit was worth paying.

[SheungWan]

-- BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629

The referendum is not, and never was legally binding.

The PM may use his/her prerogative powers to move Article 50, but I think there may be legal challenges to this.

The better option is with an act of parliament, then MP's can vote whether to carryout the wishes of the referendum or decide to remain, my thoughts are that now most MP's want out, but drawing up legislation (Act of Parliament) and debating it will take time (by then Junkers will probably have bust a few blood vessels, and hopefully been wheeled of to the funny farm along with Tusk, Boris and Angela).

As they say 2 weeks is along time in politics, I bet by the end of next week many Europeans will be queuing to negotiate even though Junkers and Tusk have told them not to.

Weirdly, most Brits aren't fans of lawyers !

This would be the legions of self-appointed bar-room lawyers here in attendance.

Not at all. I can guarantee that most people (let alone Brits!) aren't keen on lawyers winning on legal arguments.

My best friend is a solicitor, and I'm constantly having to point out that there is the odd exception!

This won't hold water when it comes to lawyers overturning the referendum.

Some of the worst bar-room lawyers are those who claim their 'best friends' are lawyers!

[rixalex]

An inconvenient truth is that many Brexiteers saw this as a once only chance to preserve the "English way of life". It was so important to them, that any adverse affect from Brexit was worth paying.

Whatever the case and whatever you think of them, the Brexiters won the vote, and so, if you believe in the basic principles of democracy, you have to accept that a decision has been made by the country and government must act on that.

Is staying in the EU so important to the remainers that somehow finding a way to subvert or ignore a fair and democratic process is a price worth paying so as to have their way, because that is certainly how it appears.

[jope]

Can someone answer this question for me:

"Are individual member states in the EU allowed to enter into trade agreements with countries outside of the EU?"

Easy:

No, they are not. Trade deals are exclusively handled by the EU (the Commission, to be precise).

[dick dasterdly]

Weirdly, most Brits aren't fans of lawyers !

This would be the legions of self-appointed bar-room lawyers here in attendance.

Not at all. I can guarantee that most people (let alone Brits!) aren't keen on lawyers winning on legal arguments.

My best friend is a solicitor, and I'm constantly having to point out that there is the odd exception!

This won't hold water when it comes to lawyers overturning the referendum.

Some of the worst bar-room lawyers are those who claim their 'best friends' are lawyers!

Not sure of your point.

Is it that I am lying? Or is it that I'm a bar-room lawyer?

An odd argument either way, bearing in mind I've been saying that the electorate won't be impressed by legal arguments winning the day over the referendum result.

[Thaiwine]

Can someone answer this question for me:

"Are individual member states in the EU allowed to enter into trade agreements with countries outside of the EU?"

Easy:

No, they are not. Trade deals are exclusively handled by the EU (the Commission, to be precise).

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

[bkkcanuck8]

Can someone answer this question for me:

"Are individual member states in the EU allowed to enter into trade agreements with countries outside of the EU?"

Easy:

No, they are not. Trade deals are exclusively handled by the EU (the Commission, to be precise).

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

[jope]

Can someone answer this question for me:

"Are individual member states in the EU allowed to enter into trade agreements with countries outside of the EU?"

Easy:

No, they are not. Trade deals are exclusively handled by the EU (the Commission, to be precise).

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

Yes, if there are no other, more specific regulations.

Everybody can trade with everybody. But respective rules and regulations apply. In future the UK can sell Germany whatever Germany is ready to buy (with the probable exception of services). But goods from the UK must meet respective European specifications. In future Germany can sell cars to the UK but must meet British rules, regulations and specifications. The whole trade will become more cumbersome and more expensive.

So, not only the UK but also the EU member states will be in a worse position than before. But I fail to see how that supports the Brexit argument that it was good idea to leave.

BTW, I am not an expert. That is just general knowledge about the EU. Experts' corrections and comments are always welcome.

[Guest]

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

The customs to be paid are just a minor part of the access to the markets. The bigger issue is all kind of separate restrictions which the countries require. This starts from the safety of the products and goes forward to what need to be printed to the packages on which the products are sold.

Even with the WTO rules enabled, it's just a first step to get products in to the markets.

In practice manufacturers might need to have separate product lines for products in different markets. The EU's idea of single market is to fight against these separate requirements. It's to give access to products to the whole EU market.

This would also mean that for example USA and China will have to make different products for EU market and UK market if their rules are different. EU being larger market, the unit price per unit is likely be less than for the smaller UK markets.

When UK company creates an product, it will have to pass the rules of the UK legislation as well as EU rules, in case the product is sold to the EU single market. This adds production costs, thus adds the price of the product, thus it's more difficult for the product to compete in price with other similar products from EU. Not to forget that there is customs fees etc to import the products to EU market.

Please watch the video, which was posted to here earlier. I personally didn't know these things before. The talk is about what the market really presents is somewhere in the middle of the video.

[jope]

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

The customs to be paid are just a minor part of the access to the markets. The bigger issue is all kind of separate restrictions which the countries require. This starts from the safety of the products and goes forward to what need to be printed to the packages on which the products are sold.

Even with the WTO rules enabled, it's just a first step to get products in to the markets.

In practice manufacturers might need to have separate product lines for products in different markets. The EU's idea of single market is to fight against these separate requirements. It's to give access to products to the whole EU market.

This would also mean that for example USA and China will have to make different products for EU market and UK market if their rules are different. EU being larger market, the unit price per unit is likely be less than for the smaller UK markets.

When UK company creates an product, it will have to pass the rules of the UK legislation as well as EU rules, in case the product is sold to the EU single market. This adds production costs, thus adds the price of the product, thus it's more difficult for the product to compete in price with other similar products from EU. Not to forget that there is customs fees etc to import the products to EU market.

Please watch the video, which was posted to here earlier. I personally didn't know these things before. The talk is about what the market really presents is somewhere in the middle of the video.

For those interested, this is really a great presentation. Thanks for posting it.

It helps to know a bit about the EU institutions, but even without it is easy to understand.

[Thaiwine]

It seems an EU member country can not make a trade deal, but they can trade with countries with out a trade deal.

The default is WTO rules.

The customs to be paid are just a minor part of the access to the markets. The bigger issue is all kind of separate restrictions which the countries require. This starts from the safety of the products and goes forward to what need to be printed to the packages on which the products are sold.

Even with the WTO rules enabled, it's just a first step to get products in to the markets.

In practice manufacturers might need to have separate product lines for products in different markets. The EU's idea of single market is to fight against these separate requirements. It's to give access to products to the whole EU market.

This would also mean that for example USA and China will have to make different products for EU market and UK market if their rules are different. EU being larger market, the unit price per unit is likely be less than for the smaller UK markets.

When UK company creates an product, it will have to pass the rules of the UK legislation as well as EU rules, in case the product is sold to the EU single market. This adds production costs, thus adds the price of the product, thus it's more difficult for the product to compete in price with other similar products from EU. Not to forget that there is customs fees etc to import the products to EU market.

Please watch the video, which was posted to here earlier. I personally didn't know these things before. The talk is about what the market really presents is somewhere in the middle of the video.

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

[Guest]

A company can identify it's market, ie USA and make the product to US spec rather than having to make the product to meet US and EU spec's so reducing production costs.

By making products to EU spec only you restrict your product to the EU market, it would seem impractical to take all the worlds markets and make a product that fitted all regulations, bespoke deals are much simpler and makes the product cheaper to produce.

Please watch the video first. It not all that complicated and speaks in simple terms.

[kingalfred]

It will happen and well done to those who voted ....Expats .Its democracy or anarchy