General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Brexit vote is non-binding so can't the UK just ignore it or run it again?
Last edited Fri Jun 24, 2016, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm not up on the latest news on this, but a 52-48 vote is pretty tight for such a major change. Especially considering the vote is non-binding.
And this: Nigel Farage: Narrow Remain win may lead to second referendum
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)However, I did read a brief comment that Parliment would have to approve it. With Cameron resigning, I don't know.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)And at that point say, "OK.....this time it counts!"
Not the most democratic notion.
Renew Deal
(81,803 posts)There was a post last night where Farage or Johnson said as much.
Renew Deal
(81,803 posts)roamer65
(36,739 posts)I am reading already that the EU is considering associate member status for the UK. That would be a much better fit for Britain.
Nothing wrong with doing it a a'la carte with the UK. Give Scotland what they want and England what they want.
MADem
(135,425 posts)TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)now that many of the assholes who voted for it are having second thoughts, maybe they could have a redo, preferably requiring 60%, or more, for exit.
Anyway, Parliament has to do the Prop 50 thing, which no one has done before, so maybe they can screw that up enough until the whole thing blows over.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,158 posts)which means the PM makes the decision himself.
Constitutionally, it is a decision for him alone, not parliament, since it is a matter of the royal prerogative. At the same time, nothing can stop parliament passing a motion that seeks to instruct him not to trigger article 50.
Camerons statement in the campaign that he would trigger article 50 immediately in the wake of a Brexit vote was made to dramatise the irreversibility of Brexit. But many sceptics, including Michael Gove, Daniel Hannan and Lord Howard, stressed it would be quite wrong to act in such haste. Once article 50 is triggered, the clock starts ticking on a two year renegotiation with the EU that must end with the UKs ejection unless the EU member states unanimously agree to extend the negotiations.
It was significant that Cameron in his resignation statement said any exit negotiation strategy would take time to be developed, and involve consultations with the governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He stressed it is right the new prime minister takes the decision about when to trigger article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/britain-has-voted-to-leave-the-eu-what-happens-next
If Cameron, or his successor, screws around with this, the Commons can hold a vote of no confidence, or the Tories can sack him as leader, so he will, in practice, need the support of his MPs.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,158 posts)Well over half of Tory voters want it, and probably over half of Tory MPs would have supported it, if the party leader and the majority of the Cabinet hadn't sided with Remain. They can remove Cameron, or any successor, if they turn round and say "screw the result".
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,158 posts)He chose Leave, possibly because he judged he'd dominate the likely Tory successors on that side. If he'd gone with Leave, he'd be competing with Osborne and May, at a time of Cameron's choosing. I don't think he'd have a particular liking for Remain - as someone pointed out, he as a journalist had a large responsibility for the spread of anti-EU scare stories in the 90s.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)And Parliament is under no compulsion to follow the vote. All quite true. There also seems to be some immediate Brexit regret ("We didn't think it would actually pass!" , and even if the government follows through, there is some lag time built in. It's not going to happen today or tomorrow, or even in the next few months. There's also the problem of an out-and-out lie concerning what would happen to the country's contribution to the EU, and that might affect the perception of a lot of folks.
You point out the closeness of the vote, and that's a problem for any political victor seeking to claim a mandate (excluding, as always, our late experience with the thin margin of the 2004 election) for sweeping change. I think that after the initial hoopla, the Brits will take a deep breath, calm themselves down, and lay out a plan that will try to chart a sensible path. For now, the UK will remain in the EU, and the knee-jerk reaction will even itself out.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)He already committed political suicide.
Bleacher Creature
(11,237 posts)Technically, Cameron (or his successor) can ignore it. Politically, that's not happening.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande led calls for the European Union to reform in order to survive a traumatic divorce with Britain.
In a sign that the bloc wants to move on swiftly, EU chiefs told Britain in a strongly-worded joint statement to "give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be".
The uncompromising stance came after Prime Minister David Cameron said he would resign and leave the negotiations on Britain's departure from the 28-nation club to a successor who will be named by October.
Now that Britain has decided to go, the EU wants to make sure the screen door doesn't hit them on the way out.
Renew Deal
(81,803 posts)They don't care about anyone else
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)brooklynite
(93,878 posts)The BREXIT referendum was a mechanism by Cameron to keep a large Euroskeptic rump group in his Party in line for the last election (think Boehner and the Tea Party). If he reneged, his Government would never survive.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'd say BREXIT pissed off all of the right people.
Renew Deal
(81,803 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)without the UK than the UK does without the EU. I realize that it is popular today to fearmonger that this is the end of the world as we know it, but in two years, once the exit has completed, I'm certain the UK won't be the only ones to leave.
It's hysteria for hysteria's sake. When the UK did not join the monetary union, that was supposed to be the end of the British economy then, too. Boy, that sure ended up being the case, didn't it?