Second referendum

At the end of fiscal 2018, the UK national debt was 85.8% of GDP. It first exceeded the 60% Maastricht guidance in 2010. Not one MP, one government, one cabinet member or shadow minister since then has blamed or advocated austerity in order to acquiesce Europe. Which you would have thought would be politically advantageous to offset a little bit of the constant pain and bad news some were feeling.

There are other measures to stimulate an economy (and not always successful). Brown used Keynesian stimulus in 2008 which was showing moderate signs of success before the tories did the worst thing possible and ceased it, but then went further and started to cut deeper. That meant we wracked up the debt of the stimulus before it started to counter the investment.

It's also worth stating that the IMF encourage debt consolidation as part of their lending to governments... which to be fair, is well within their right when they and the ECB are commonly lenders of last resort. Greece was a basket case and despite constant promises of reform failed to do so and just kept wracking up debt as if they were addicted to it.

I thought Keynsian mechanisms were useful in 2008 and I advocated them. However, I'm less sure they are a good tool at this time with the threat of inflation, reduced credit ratings and the risk of rising borrowing costs. There is merit borrowing at low interest rates, but as that rises, the benefit of financial stimulus is minimal. I also think the next few months we'll start to feel a bite. January is often a rental and rates collection period for business premises, the fall out of Christmas trading figures will be out and if the economy starts to show a more accurate output of flat or negative growth, combined with the outlook of property values falling in real terms, we may well see the start of a slowdown. If the risk of a hard Brexit looms.... I fear to think of the ramifications as the two realities collide.

One business I know employs over 3,000 in the uk and their internal board guidance is a 15% headcount reduction in a no deal scenario, having already frozen pay for the coming 12 months.

 

the eu budget deficit criteria came about in 2008 after the global crash,it was not on the table 40 years ago. the criteria was agreed by all member states regardless of whether they were in the eurozone or not..

btw, my info has got nothing whatsoever to do with the tories,i'd burn the fcukin tories because its those cnuts that took us into the common market and its those cnuts that signed us up to maastricht

 

How's about another referendum to overturn this one in 2061?

 

Nah just stick with the original 75 one that would be democratic as we voted to stay on the common market and entrust parliament to act for us and vote and veto etc . Don’t recall being told we’d have another one 2016 to prop the Tory vote up

 

i think you'll find in one of my earlier posts that i've already stated that there are other ways to tackle budget deficit, but our government,like the others in the EU chose austerity as opposed to investing etc

seeing as the majority in the commons are pro remain its of little surprise that europe gets left alone when talking about austerity and it was left to anyone pro leave to cast these accusations.

im actually on your side with gordon browns methods in that there seemed to be improvement, however many were not of the same opinion , todays reasons for being against were exactly the same in 2008,

the eu is pro austerity and i would have thought even a pro remain supporter could see this

i'm still of the opinion that a hard,no deal brexit will not happen,for reasons previously discussed,ie,big business and industry have a too powerful part in european economics to allow it, contrary to a point earlier on in this thread they dont sell us the 'odd' car and come to think of it the french dont just sell us the 'odd' bit of cheese either,we are big business to europe

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...y-warns-of-massive-crisis-from-no-deal-brexit

 

Do you think sales of Porsche's, BMW's Audi's and Merc's would hugely drop? No... even with a tariff. Because the people who acquire such vehicles are more wealthy than the mean average in the UK and can take a hit. If it was about cost, they'd be driving less marquee and cheaper cars, or, not renewing vehicles as much. Yes, we are valuable to the EU, but if we expect a deal that is beyond their very clear very simple pillars of EU membership, they won't move and rightly so.

Around a dozen of my clients are actively in the process or have already started moving people to mainland UK. 2 others have merged and are losing staff. There will be significant business and job losses if its an extreme leave. But like you, I can't possibly imagine the govt would allow that. and if they did, that would truly be the day parliaments credibility was shattered beyond doubt. It's a governments role to protect the people in its country, and sometimes that entails educating them, not just abdicating to populism.

 

marlon , the common market was on the table and nothing more,further future integration was denied by the common market,the tories and sections of the labour government,,this along should be enough to warrant a referendum,note i do not say second referendum because the eu we have now is nothing like what was on the table in 1975,btw,it is the tories that have done most of the negotiating on the various treaties and vetos that have happened since, indeed the torys were nearly brought down after major agreed to maastricht.

THE Tories' 1970 General Election manifesto promised that Britain would once again negotiate entry to what was by then known as the European Economic Community. TED HEATH did more than negotiate: he took us in. Having said that Britain would join only 'with the full-hearted consent of the British parliament and people', Heath pressed on with entry even though the enabling Bill passed its second reading by only eight votes in the Commons.

The people were never consulted. Heath didn't even tell his Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, that signing the Treaty of Brussels to secure our accession committed us one day to joining a single currency - Sir Alec forced Heath to admit this afterwards.

Heath also said that the common agricultural and fisheries polices would have no adverse effect on our farmers or fishermen. The consistent dwindling of our fleet since 1973 was a direct result of his policy and contrary to what he had promised.

 

the germans are obviously worried that their sales would drop should we get into some trade war..

the fallout of a no-deal Brexit could cause German exports to the U.K. to tumble as much as 57 percent as tariffs and customs barriers impede trade, the IW economic institute in Cologne said in a study published Tuesday. Industries that would be particularly hard hit include logistics, autos, aerospace, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, according to the BDI.,germanys industrial lobby.

i would also imagine that spanish fruit and veg growers would be having similar fears

 

We voted to stay in and returning govts to act on our behalf as I’ve said no where on the 75 ref said we’ll have another vote in 2016 it was supposedly to stay in and MPs via election manifestos to vote and veto .

 

Problem I have here with this marlon...

We joined in 73
We voted to remain in 75

People are up in arms about having a 2nd referendum now. To overturn the one 2 years ago citing people can change opinion.

You are stating that we should keep to what was voted in 75. So it seems we can only have a further referendum so long as it is the one that keeps us in

Dont wish to interupt your debate with dek like. But am i reading your posts right?

 

Well no not really .
What I’m saying is we voted to be in Europe in 75 and all that entails .
Whether the Common market or whatever we voted to go along via elected govts votes / vetos etc .
We went in in 73 and people said it weren’t legit so we had a referendum and we voted to stay . That should be it unless we voted a EU sceptic party with a mandate and even then we couldn’t dismantle a lifetime of commitments I just a few years .
The policies and commitments voted on by previous govts were on the basis we were in for life with veto’s ,
Just because a party cannot shore up its votes it shouldn’t be allowed to rip up a contract especially on a flimsy majority based on the lies and consequences of to previous policies .
So basically I’m saying the 75 ref should stand and if it doesn’t and they try to legitimise this one that had no plans or policies on leaving then further referendums would also be legitimate as the first one is overturned ,

 

I think there would be much more uproar in this country at the lack of food options and the lack of vehicles they wish to purchase. It's a two way street. Yes, no deal doesn't benefit anyone. The natural and obvious position though is we're a much tinier size than the collaborating EU countries. We are far from self sufficient and are therefore hugely reliant on others to cater to our needs. Some companies on the continent may struggle or be less successful. That's obvious. As obvious as we'd have a crisis if we couldn't fulfil basic needs that we've become expectant of but yet can't manufacture or produce to feed, clothe and care for ourselves.

 

so even tho the pro europeans at the time (mainly tories btw) lied about the future direction of the common market, you still think the 1975 referendum should stand?

the fact that they told the public that there was no plans for further political integration and that the doubters were just scaremongering does not bother you?

Article 247 of the Treaty on European Union requires member states of the Community to ratify Maastricht 'in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements'. Douglas Hurd has argued that, while the Danish, French and Irish constitutions require or allow for a referendum, in Britain it is Parliament that decides.


This argument is, constitutionally, highly dubious. There have, so far, been three referendums in Britain: the Northern Ireland border poll in 1973, the referendum on the European Community in 1975 and the devolution referendums in Scotland and Wales in 1979. Each of these was concerned with the transfer of parliamentary powers, either by excluding a part of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) from Parliament's jurisdiction, by limiting Parliament's right to legislate (Scottish devolution), or by transferring powers to another body (the European Community).

There is a clear constitutional rationale for requiring a referendum in such circumstances. MPs are entrusted by the electorate with legislative power, but they are given no authority to transfer that power. That authority requires a specific mandate from the people. 'The Legislative,' declares John Locke, in that bible of liberal constitutionalism, the Second Treatise of Government, 'cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated power from the People, they who have it cannot pass it to others.'



the effin tories even agreed to the masstricht treaty whilst there was uproar from the public and the labour party and this is why blair promised us a referendum in the run up to the 1997 election...corbyn was one of labours biggest critics of the treaty.

 

Using that logic Marlon, you would then say that the Scots should never have another Indepence referendum?

 

Setting aside our respective views on the whole issue, where are we right now in terms of what will happen?

It seems to me that having not succeeded in the Tory 'no confidence in the leader' vote, Mogg and his ERG mob have now swung behind May. They are stuck with her for another year, during which the shape of Brexit (or not) will have emerged. Their only other strategy is to bring down the government by siding with a Corbyn 'no confidence' (in the government) motion, should he bring one. They know that this not only risks Corbyn coming into power, but also (under pressure from his members) the bearded one trying to drive through a SM/CU aligned Brexit, neither of which they want. So they are content to stick with May as leader while resolving (along with the DUP) to vote down her deal, which will not be amended by the EU. They will then hope to argue for a harder or 'no deal' Brexit. The pro-remain MP's meanwhile will also vote against May, hoping for a softer Brexit (with CU alignment) or even a second referendum.

But here's the thing. There is said to be a strong majority in Parliament against a 'no deal' scenario. Realistically, legislation can only emerge if it is sponsored by the government. May is said to be strongly against a second referendum and has also avowed that her deal is the only one on offer. Her track record does not suggest that she would willingly cede enough control to go with the 'indicative vote' idea (whereby Parliament indicates which alternative form of brexit it would be prepared to accept). So if her deal is voted down, there is no vehicle to deliver the anti-no deal mandate. No deal would therefore result by default, unless May seeks to withdraw the exit notice or to extend the Article 50 period. The EU is already exasperated with our manoeuvrings, and would be unlikely to agree an extension unless there was a clear indication of a new direction, which May is powerless to give.

The Supreme Court case established that Parliament had to be consulted before the issue of the A50 notice could take place. But following that vote, the legislation then enacted handed the power to the prime minister to issue the notice. The presumption would have to be that what the prime minister is empowered to issue, then he/she is also empowered to withdraw. Hence it seems to me that May can unilaterally revoke her notice if she believes that is in the national interest. The ECJ has endorsed the UK's right to unilaterally withdraw the notice.

So when May's deal is voted down, the situation thereafter will depend, as I see it on her attitude at that point. She knows full well the economic damage and chaos that will flow from exiting with No Deal, at least in the short term. However, she also appears to have assumed a fanatical zeal to see through the leave vote in June 2016. She has warned that no deal or no Brexit may equally be the consequences of her deal being rejected. So it is difficult to know which way she would blow. But she is indecisive, and the slightly greater probability may be that we end up with a no deal exit simply through the expiry of time.

 

I’m not saying whether it is likely or not but there is also the option of her deal being voted down, a no confidence motion in the government being passed which she loses and the new government (whoever that may be) requests an extension.

 

If the govt try to take them out of the EU even though as a country they have voted overwhelmingly to stay I would say a constitutional commitment has been broken and a referendum to stay in EU even though it unties the Union would be in order .
although your trying to compare it to our ref on Brexit I would imagine the Union would have been pacted on totally different T&Cs so maybe that question should be asked to someone with more knowledge on that subject and not be sidetracked from the subject which seems to be Brexiteers tactics .

 

Interesting piece that it's not all doom and gloom....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8002878/no-deal-brexit-better-britain/

 

I would imagine and has been suggested
an exceptional circumstances bill should be in place given the cross party/country and the closeness of the vote plus the division in the country .
Many like me believe that the referendum was a second referendum and endorses further referendums .
The legislation was passed by previous govts and were endorsed by the people who returned pro EU parties time after time even though EU sceptic parties were contesting seats and claimed non .
We are proposing to leave the EU without one EU sceptic party having one seat , even in 1975 there were parties with seats who were EU sceptic there wasn’t one this time .
The 1975 was a one off we were told and govts were endorsed to pass or veto as reqd thereafter .

Meant to reply to Del Parker don’t know how this had happened ,sos

 

do you honestly believe there will be a lack of food?

everything we buy from europe can be bought from elsewhere ,fruit and veg from all over africa and Asia, meat from all over the world,and before you start there is no need to compromise quality and safety, the biggest percentage of our imported beef is irish and i cannot see irish farmers being told they can no longer import nearly 80,000 tonnes of the stuff to us annually but even if they were told this i'm sure brazil and argentina would up their production to supply us and the wholesale price of meat from either of these two is lower than from the eu anyway, incidently we are the second largest producer of poultry in europe after poland,the uk also exports nearly 50,000 tonnes of beef,mainly to the eu,so in the even of a crisis then surely we can keep that for ourselves) ,,the best wheat is canadian, we make plenty of our own cheese,so there is simply no need to starve and be rationed like some wazzocks are predicting.