May rules out second referendum as she insists 'Brexit means Brexit'

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So much for the possibility of a second referendum or parliamentary vote...

Britain will seek a unique arrangement for it post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, one that will deliver migration controls and a positive trade outcome, a Cabinet meeting at Chequers heard.

At the first Cabinet meeting after the summer break held at the Prime Minister's official country residence Chequers, Theresa May had tasked her colleagues to set out the opportunities that leaving the EU will create in each of their departments.

Speaking to colleagues on Wednesday, May said there would be no second referendum on Britain's withdrawal from the EU and reiterated her pledge that "Brexit means Brexit, and we're going to make a success of it".

She added: "That means there's no second referendum; no attempts to sort of stay in the EU by the back door; that we're actually going to deliver on this."

Cabinet ministers agreed that it is for the Government alone to decide when to trigger Article 50, which will kick off a two-year period of exit negotiations between the UK and the EU, and that there is "no need" for MPs to give their approval in a vote.

Several Cabinet members made it clear that we are leaving the EU but not leaving Europe, with a decisive view that the model we are seeking is one unique to the United Kingdom and not an off-the-shelf solution.

This must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade goods and services.

– A spokesperson for Mrs May

Following the day-long session - dubbed a "Brexit brainstorm" by Labour, Mrs May's official spokeswoman said: "Ministers agreed that we should be seizing the opportunity of Brexit to confirm the UK's place as one of the great trading nations in the world, fostering entrepreneurialism and setting out a long-term vision for the country."

The meeting also restated the Government's commitment to "fiscal discipline and living within our means" and agreed on "the vital need to increase productivity and the importance of doing more to foster economic growth and industrial development in regions up and down the country", said the spokeswoman.
Last updated Wed 31 Aug 2016

Source

[Crazedwraith]

I figured the second referendum was never going to happen but did think the commons vote was a necessitity

[Tribble]

The lack of a 2nd referendum is not a surprise given that it was made absolutely clear from the start that there would be only one on the issue. IIRC whether or not the PM can trigger Article 50 is going to go before the courts, so we'll have to wait on see.

I'll still be surprised if they actually leaved the EU though, IMO it's more likely that for one reason or another the issue will be delayed until the next election, then a Pro-EU party / coalition will win and the referendum will fade into the sunset. It wouldn't be the first time a referendum was ignored because the results were not the "correct" answer.

[Starglider]

I'll still be surprised if they actually leaved the EU though, IMO it's more likely that for one reason or another the issue will be delayed until the next election, then a Pro-EU party / coalition will win and the referendum will fade into the sunset.

I can't see how it could plausibly be delayed another four years. For that get-out clause, the referendum would have to have been held within a year or two of the next general election.

[TithonusSyndrome]

And at this point there's no guarantee that the next general election will happen on schedule:

PM May under increasing pressure to call early election

Majority of Britons polled want general election this year

It's not set in stone that any of this will come to fruition, but that's sort of the point, isn't it?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

And at this point there's no guarantee that the next general election will happen on schedule:

PM May under increasing pressure to call early election

Majority of Britons polled want general election this year

It's not set in stone that any of this will come to fruition, but that's sort of the point, isn't it?

The problem May has is that with the ongoing fallout from the referendum, she's inherited a poisoned chalice. And I can't see a general election happening, with the country being as divided as ever it's highly unlikely that May would win. Certainly hearing her saying it's full steam ahead re:Brexit will further alienate those who voted to remain.

[K. A. Pital]

Why even do a re-vote? Is that not counter-democratic to make the population vote again and again to get the "correct" result politicians want?

[Ralin]

Why even do a re-vote? Is that not counter-democratic to make the population vote again and again to get the "correct" result politicians want?

It is. Opinions vary on whether this is important enough to be worth countering democracy. We do that sometimes. See gay marriage and school integration in the US.

That said, the referendum was really ill-conceived and should have required something like a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority given the magnitude of the issue. But as you say, it's shady as fuck to adjust the parameters of the vote after it's been passed.

[His Divine Shadow]

So much for the possibility of a second referendum or parliamentary vote...

Britain will seek a unique arrangement for it post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, one that will deliver migration controls and a positive trade outcome, a Cabinet meeting at Chequers heard.

At the first Cabinet meeting after the summer break held at the Prime Minister's official country residence Chequers, Theresa May had tasked her colleagues to set out the opportunities that leaving the EU will create in each of their departments.

Speaking to colleagues on Wednesday, May said there would be no second referendum on Britain's withdrawal from the EU and reiterated her pledge that "Brexit means Brexit, and we're going to make a success of it".

She added: "That means there's no second referendum; no attempts to sort of stay in the EU by the back door; that we're actually going to deliver on this."

Cabinet ministers agreed that it is for the Government alone to decide when to trigger Article 50, which will kick off a two-year period of exit negotiations between the UK and the EU, and that there is "no need" for MPs to give their approval in a vote.

Several Cabinet members made it clear that we are leaving the EU but not leaving Europe, with a decisive view that the model we are seeking is one unique to the United Kingdom and not an off-the-shelf solution.

This must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade goods and services.

– A spokesperson for Mrs May

Following the day-long session - dubbed a "Brexit brainstorm" by Labour, Mrs May's official spokeswoman said: "Ministers agreed that we should be seizing the opportunity of Brexit to confirm the UK's place as one of the great trading nations in the world, fostering entrepreneurialism and setting out a long-term vision for the country."

The meeting also restated the Government's commitment to "fiscal discipline and living within our means" and agreed on "the vital need to increase productivity and the importance of doing more to foster economic growth and industrial development in regions up and down the country", said the spokeswoman.
Last updated Wed 31 Aug 2016

Source

Good.

[Tribble]

Why even do a re-vote? Is that not counter-democratic to make the population vote again and again to get the "correct" result politicians want?

I agree, but many in the Remain group are throwing a tantrum because they lost, even though the rules were clear. From the Remain camp's point of view, the Leave group was just a bunch of stupid little Englanders who didn't know any better, and thus their vote and the referendum results should not count.

Not to worry though, Europe has a habit of ignoring referendum results when they aren't "correct" and this should be no different.

It is. Opinions vary on whether this is important enough to be worth countering democracy. We do that sometimes. See gay marriage and school integration in the US.

That said, the referendum was really ill-conceived and should have required something like a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority given the magnitude of the issue. But as you say, it's shady as fuck to adjust the parameters of the vote after it's been passed.

What the Remain group always remains silent about is that the UK signed the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum despite the Labour government being specifically elected on a campaign promise to do so*. IMO there was absolutely no democratic legitimacy to being in the EU** in the first place. Why should it have required a 2/3 - 3/4 majority to leave, when signing on to the Lisbon Treaty was done via the government simply deciding to join (and almost certainly against the majority of voters given that they scrapped the referendum promise the moment they got elected)? Moving the goalposts like that to get the result you want is pretty undemocratic if you ask me. And we're not talking ancient history here - The Lisbon Treaty was signed less than 10 years ago.


*Yes, technically that was for the European Constitution not the Lisbon Treaty but everyone at the time openly acknowledged that the two were virtually identical.

**Note that I am referring to the EU and the Lisbon Treaty in particular, the UK had voted to join the EEC in 1975. The EU is a very different beast compared to the EEC.

[Zaune]

Why even do a re-vote? Is that not counter-democratic to make the population vote again and again to get the "correct" result politicians want?

In other circumstances I'd agree. But the vote was so close and so badly handled that adhering to the letter of it regardless of the consequences isn't really any less counter-democratic.

And to be honest, given that Google only noticed a spike in search keywords related to what the EU does from the UK after we voted to leave it, my faith in the very concept of democracy is currently at an all-time low. For it to function properly it requires a Press that can be trusted to faithfully report the facts as they are without distortion or embellishment and an education system that encourages the development of critical thinking skills and a decent grasp of the theory and practice of statistics, both of which we are seriously lacking in this country; until and unless we fix that we might as well go back to absolute monarchy and be done with it.

[AMX]

Didn't Leave say before the referendum that they wouldn't accept a narrow loss?

[Crazedwraith]

Didn't Leave say before the referendum that they wouldn't accept a narrow loss?

I don't know about that but the 'lets change the rules' petition was created by a Leaver who then tried to disown it when Remainers started signing it.

[AMX]

Didn't Leave say before the referendum that they wouldn't accept a narrow loss?

I don't know about that but the 'lets change the rules' petition was created by a Leaver who then tried to disown it when Remainers started signing it.

Found it:

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

[K. A. Pital]

Why even do a re-vote? Is that not counter-democratic to make the population vote again and again to get the "correct" result politicians want?

In other circumstances I'd agree. But the vote was so close and so badly handled that adhering to the letter of it regardless of the consequences isn't really any less counter-democratic.

And to be honest, given that Google only noticed a spike in search keywords related to what the EU does from the UK after we voted to leave it, my faith in the very concept of democracy is currently at an all-time low. For it to function properly it requires a Press that can be trusted to faithfully report the facts as they are without distortion or embellishment and an education system that encourages the development of critical thinking skills and a decent grasp of the theory and practice of statistics, both of which we are seriously lacking in this country; until and unless we fix that we might as well go back to absolute monarchy and be done with it.

Well, ignorance does not absolve of responsibility, does it now? We don't absolve foreign tourists from crimes in a nation the laws of which it doesn't know.

[Zaune]

If you can think of a way to give the 52% who voted Leave a much-needed lesson on the importance of being careful what you wish for without screwing over the 48% who voted Remain in the process, I would very much like to hear it. Not everyone on this board is in a position to sit back and watch from a safe distance as the Tories enthusiastically burn down the whole country to kill a bunch of strawmen.

[Grumman]

Didn't Leave say before the referendum that they wouldn't accept a narrow loss?

No, one guy who wasn't part of the Leave campaign but was on the same side said that. Which means approximately jack shit when you're talking about half the country.

[K. A. Pital]

If you can think of a way to give the 52% who voted Leave a much-needed lesson on the importance of being careful what you wish for without screwing over the 48% who voted Remain in the process, I would very much like to hear it. Not everyone on this board is in a position to sit back and watch from a safe distance as the Tories enthusiastically burn down the whole country to kill a bunch of strawmen.

You get out of the EU and live by the WTO rules. It is not a mortal danger to anyone. It is probably going to be quite inconvenient for some, but it is not a life or death question. May said "no free movement". This means a hard exit, not a Norway-like exit. Once again I don't see terribly many people protesting and the country actively defying the government to prevent this.

Passively watching how events unfold is typical for the Facebook generation. Now they will get a taste of what responsibility and consequences mean.

As for those hardest-hit (retired, for example), well, I heard that a great number of those voted to leave. 60% actually, from the 65-plus year bracket. That's way more than just formal majority.

That is not "burning a country to the ground". Burning a country to the ground is what Britain and its pals in America did to Iraq. And Brexit, compared to that, is a mild inconvienice. So tone down the drama.

[Mange]

Why even do a re-vote? Is that not counter-democratic to make the population vote again and again to get the "correct" result politicians want?

It is. Opinions vary on whether this is important enough to be worth countering democracy. We do that sometimes. See gay marriage and school integration in the US.

That said, the referendum was really ill-conceived and should have required something like a 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority given the magnitude of the issue. But as you say, it's shady as fuck to adjust the parameters of the vote after it's been passed.

Well, Sweden joined the EU with a simple majority referendum (52.3 percent for, 46.8 percent against and 0.9 voted blank. The turnout was higher though at 83.3 percent).

In 2003, there was a referendum for joining the Euro zone. The turnout was 82.6 percent. 55.9 percent voted against, 42.0 percent voted for and 2.1 voted blank.

The referendums in Sweden are non-binding. In 1955, 83 percent of the voters rejected the proposal to switch from driving on the left-hand side of the road to the right but it was implemented in 1967. And in 1980, there was a referendum on nuclear power in Sweden with all three proposals being variants of phasing out nuclear power.

[TithonusSyndrome]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -committee

Theresa May should not trigger article 50 alone – formally starting the UK’s exit from the European Union – without “explicit parliamentary approval”, a parliamentary committee has warned.

In a direct challenge to Downing Street’s authority over Brexit, the House of Lords constitution committee has published a report declaring that it would be “constitutionally inappropriate” for the prime minister to act on an advisory referendum without referring back to parliament.

The report says: “In our representative democracy, it is constitutionally appropriate that parliament should take the decision to act following the referendum. This means that parliament should play a central role in the decision to trigger the article 50 process, in the subsequent negotiation process, and in approving or otherwise the final terms under which the UK leaves the EU.

“It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval – particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The government should not trigger article 50 without consulting parliament.”

The question of whether parliament or the prime minister has the authority to trigger article 50 is the central issue in the legal challenge against the government to be heard next month.

Article 50 itself merely states: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” It does not specify what the constitutional requirements are, an ambiguity which has allowed rival claims of authority to be advanced by parliament and the executive.

Ian Lang, the Conservative peer and chairman of the House of Lords constitution committee, said: “The referendum result was clear and it is right that the government are preparing to take Britain out of the EU. However, our constitution is built on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the decision to act following the referendum should be taken by parliament.

“Parliament should be asked to approve the decision to trigger article 50 – a decision which will start the formal process of the UK leaving the EU and set a deadline for the UK’s exit. Parliament’s assent could be sought by means of legislation or through resolutions tabled in both Houses of Parliament.

“An act of parliament would give greater legal certainty and could be used to enshrine the ‘constitutional requirements’ required by article 50, allowing for the setting of advantageous preconditions regarding the exit negotiations to be met before article 50 could be triggered. A resolution could be simpler and quicker to secure but might not provide the same watertight legal authority. We consider that either would be a constitutionally acceptable means of securing parliamentary approval for the triggering of article 50.”

The committee’s report concludes: “The referendum result was clear. Parliament is now responsible for ensuring that the government takes forward the complex process of negotiating the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union in a manner that achieves the best possible outcome for the UK as a whole. The focus must now be on how parliament and the government will work together to that end.

“That cooperation should start now. Parliament and the government should, at this early stage, take the opportunity to establish their respective roles and how they will work together during the negotiation process. The constitutional roles of each – the executive and the legislature – must be respected, beginning with parliamentary involvement and assent for the invoking of article 50.”

Disputing the House of Lords constitiution committee report, a spokesperson for the Department for Exiting the European Union said: “The government’s position is very clear. This is a prerogative power, and therefore one that should be exercised by the government.

“Parliament voted by a majority of six to one to give the British people the decision on our membership of the EU in a referendum.

“As the secretary of state for exiting the EU [David Davis] made clear to parliament this week, the triggering of article 50 is the beginning of the process of exit and we expect parliament to be fully consulted and engaged throughout.”

[Tribble]

Here are the events that lead to the UK joining the Lisbon Treaty:

Labour Party promised during the election campaign that a referendum would be held on the European Constitution
Labout Party was elected with a majority government
Labour Party cancels the referendum after the French and Dutch reject the European Constitution in their referendums
Labout Party then signs on to the Lisbon Treaty without holding a referendum, even though the Lisbon Treaty is practically identical to the European Constitution (which even the politicians at the time pointed out).


And here are the events for Brexit:

Conservative Party promised during the elction campaign that they would hold an in/out referendum on the EU, and they would abide by the results
Conservative Party is elected with a majority government
Conservative Party holds referendum, with the majority voting to leave
The Conservative government declares that "Brexit means Brexit" and that they will be following the referendum results

I find it rather hypocritical for the Remain Group to be complaining about the current government's actions when the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was totally democratically illegitimate to begin with. The Remain group is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that parliament is sovereign, and that the referendum results are non-binding. Yet when the government decides to follow the referendum results, they say "you can't do that!" and demand a 2nd referendum, with the thresholds being set much higher in order to guarantee their side winning. All while conviently ignoring the Lisbon Treaty's democratic illegitimacy.

To be fair, I'm not surprised that a group dedicated to remaining in the EU would act this way, as that's precisely the kind of behaviour the EU espouses. The EU is well known for ignoring referendums and democratic results when they aren't the "right" answer in order for the "greater good" to prevail. Case in point - the French and Dutch governments also ignored their referendum results and proceeded to sign onto the Lisbon Treaty while making sure that referendums weren't held the 2nd time. And Ireland joined the Lisbon Treaty after two referendums, the 2nd one being held because they gave the "wrong" answer. EU democracy at work.

[madd0ct0r]

To be fair, this is the first time I've heard anyone advance this argument. I've heard quite a few argue that horribly complex issues like this shouldn't be put to the common vote. They would see the Lisbon Treaty as being handled correctly.
Quite a few have argued that such major thing (and Brexit is larger for the UK's future than Lisbon, by a considerable margin) should require a large majority (60-66% is the common one I see bandied about) before the status quo is changed. They wouldn't care about this argument.
And a huge number have argued the Leave campaign was based on falsehood and out-right lies. They wouldn't care about this argument.


It's an elegant rebuttal to an argument I've not come across anyone* making.

Prominent changes included the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 45 policy areas in the Council of Ministers, a change in calculating such a majority to a new double majority, a more powerful European Parliament forming a bicameral legislature alongside the Council of Ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure, a consolidated legal personality for the EU and the creation of a long-term President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Treaty also made the Union's bill of rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding. The Treaty for the first time gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU or rejoin it and procedures to do so.

huh. So if we were to campiagn against the lisbon treaty, we could well loose the right to Brexit? giggidy.

*anyone with a public identity anyway. I'm sure you can find an angry teenager on facebook.

[Tribble]

To be fair, this is the first time I've heard anyone advance this argument.

What do you mean? That's precisely the argument that the Conservatives were making when they decided to hold the referendum. They had been arguing for years that a referendum needed to be held as the current relationship with the EU lacked democratic legitimacy.

. I've heard quite a few argue that horribly complex issues like this shouldn't be put to the common vote. They would see the Lisbon Treaty as being handled correctly.

If the Labour government had said "if we are elected we will sign the Lisbon Treaty" then I would have agreed. Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that.

However, they were elected based on the promise to hold a referendum on the issue, then they ignored that promise and signed it without consulting anyone. Do you believe that "We promised we'd ask for your opinion and were elected based on that promise.... FOOLED YOU!" is an acceptable practice for a democratic government, especially for a major alteration of the status quo such as the Lisbon Treaty?

I'm not surprised that the Remain Group is happy with that result, as that is standard EU policy in pretty much every referendum and election campaign that doesn't go the "correct" way.

Quite a few have argued that such major thing (and Brexit is larger for the UK's future than Lisbon, by a considerable margin) should require a large majority (60-66% is the common one I see bandied about) before the status quo is changed. They wouldn't care about this argument.

So on the one hand, they believe that horribly complex issue like the Lisbon Treaty should not be put to the common vote, as the common voter would not be able to understand the issues, yet on the other hand they believe that something horribly complex like withdrawing from the EU... requires a referendum from the common voter... who wouldn't be able to understand the issues. And with a 60-66% requirement as well.

So... parliamentary sovereignty, but only when it conveniently benefits those want wish the UK to integrate more with the EU.

Again, not surprised that the Remain group feels that way, as it is pretty much standard EU policy.

And a huge number have argued the Leave campaign was based on falsehood and out-right lies. They wouldn't care about this argument.

Of course, according to the Remain group the four horses of the apocalypse should have arrived by now. Pretending that their campaign wasn't heavily skewed and biased is also misleading.

Again, not surprised that the Remain Group doesn't care about such details as the EU runs the same way.

It's an elegant rebuttal to an argument I've not come across anyone* making. *anyone with a public identity anyway. I'm sure you can find an angry teenager on facebook.

The Conservatives had been making that argument while they were in opposition, they based their election campaign on that argument, won the election based on that argument, held the referendum based on that argument, and are now deciding to fulfill their campaign promise to abide by the results based on that argument... so I'm rather surprised that you never came across it before now.

huh. So if we were to campiagn against the lisbon treaty, we could well loose the right to Brexit? giggidy.

Actually the UK's membership in the EU is based upon acts in Parliament (which is why there is an argument right now over whether or not the PM can trigger Brexit on her own). The UK could certainly leave the EU even without Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, as all the government would need to do is repeal the Acts binding the UK to the EU. All Article 50 does is establish a formal process for leaving the EU, but it isn't strictly necessary due to parliamentary sovereignty. For example, Parliament could pass an Act which put a sunset clause into the current Acts binding the UK to the EU, and that would amount to more or less the same thing.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Of course, according to the Remain group the four horses of the apocalypse should have arrived by now. Pretending that their campaign wasn't heavily skewed and biased is also misleading.

Hardly, as we haven't even left yet. For the same reason the fallacious £350M per week has failed to materialise- of course when we do actually leave it will be too late to ask when and where that money is going to arrive. It's going to be the most expensive "I told you so!" I've ever seen.

[madd0ct0r]

To be fair, this is the first time I've heard anyone advance this argument.

What do you mean? That's precisely the argument that the Conservatives were making when they decided to hold the referendum. They had been arguing for years that a referendum needed to be held as the current relationship with the EU lacked democratic legitimacy.

. I've heard quite a few argue that horribly complex issues like this shouldn't be put to the common vote. They would see the Lisbon Treaty as being handled correctly.

If the Labour government had said "if we are elected we will sign the Lisbon Treaty" then I would have agreed. Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that.

However, they were elected based on the promise to hold a referendum on the issue, then they ignored that promise and signed it without consulting anyone. Do you believe that "We promised we'd ask for your opinion and were elected based on that promise.... FOOLED YOU!" is an acceptable practice for a democratic government, especially for a major alteration of the status quo such as the Lisbon Treaty?

I'm not surprised that the Remain Group is happy with that result, as that is standard EU policy in pretty much every referendum and election campaign that doesn't go the "correct" way.

It's an elegant rebuttal to an argument I've not come across anyone* making. *anyone with a public identity anyway. I'm sure you can find an angry teenager on facebook.

The Conservatives had been making that argument while they were in opposition, they based their election campaign on that argument, won the election based on that argument, held the referendum based on that argument, and are now deciding to fulfill their campaign promise to abide by the results based on that argument... so I'm rather surprised that you never came across it before now

Nope, honestly, its not ringing any bells.