Brexit: EU says no to May on renegotiating deal

European Union leaders have said the Brexit withdrawal agreement is "not open for renegotiation", despite appeals from Theresa May.

Of course. There are three and only three options: May’s deal, no deal, or another referendum.

‘Nothing concentrates the mind so well as the knowledge one will be hung in the morning’.

Of course. There are three and only three options: May’s deal, no deal, or another referendum. — Wayfarer

4 options: May's deal, no deal, another referendum, or revoke Article 50.

According to a YouGov poll:

If choice is Remain v May’s deal: Remain wins 62-38.

If choice is Remain v no-deal: Remain wins 57-43

In a 3-way choice:
Remain 54
leaving with no deal 28
leaving with May’s deal 18

Surely if the aim is to carry out the will of the people, then any number of referenda at any time should be acceptable because on each occasion we will thereby discover the will of the people.

If, on the other hand, the aim is to follow proper procedures, then we are free to remain in the EU as any referendum is only advisory and we live in a representative democracy.

If the aim is to abide by promises made as an ethical stance, then the nature of those promises surely bears significantly on the duty of others to abide by them and clearly the greater good of the people on whose behalf you made the promise must come above that duty otherwise what was the point of it in the first place?

I'm not seeing the line of argument which requires the government to actually leave the EU, nor one which prevents them from holding another referendum if they so wish. Legally, the government can do whatever parliaments allows, ethically a government should work for the best interests of its population at the present time. Making an argument that the government is under either a legal or ethical obligation to carry out the stated preference of a snapshot of the population at some fixed time in the past seems tenuous.

Those stats illustrate nicely the nature of the problem. Which is that 'a compromise is the worst of all possible worlds' is about the only thing both sides agree on.

Perhaps someone can explain what will happen to the Irish border in the event of no deal? Because my own primary concern is not the economy but peace. The civil war in Ireland spilling over to the mainland as I remember was 'rather unpleasant', and I would guess, worse than the possible unrest that would result from another referendum or even the revocation of article 50. The defusing of the issue of the partitioning of Ireland is for me one of the most important benefits of the EU, and yet the issue was hardly mentioned during the campaign, and is still little understood on the mainland, let alone abroad.

We know that leave won — S

Yes, we do, but this isn't my point. I would be as unhappy - alright, almost as unhappy - if Remain had 'won' with such a small majority. The losing minority is far too big for there to be a solution that is acceptable to all. We are at an impasse. I don't see where we go from here, if we are to achieve some form - any form - of compromise that is acceptable to more than just 52% of us...

No they haven't. It takes two sides to negotiate and the EU have flat out refused to renegotiate the agreed text. There may be renogotiations if there's an election as I said earlier, but this deal will not be renogotiated with May. — Baden

Yes, I'm aware of what has been said. It doesn't look like we're going to reach an agreement on this point. It seems that I'm more sceptical than you because I accept that what has been said in politics doesn't always match the reality, and there are countless examples of this, whereas you take a more naive approach.

Yes, that's what I mean. And seeing as you're not willing to put in the mental effort to try to understand that basic distinction, and continue to harp on the red herring of an imagined inconsistency, we're done. — Baden

Well, since you've indicated that don't want to help me understand, given that you've ignored my request for an explanation, then I don't believe you're actually interested in pursuing a constructive exchange of views about your own point, so yes, we're done.

One can only reach that conclusion if one limits consideration to immediate consequences, and ignores longer term consequences.

The reason the EU would rather suffer a worse impact itself than make the deal better for the UK is that, the less penal the deal is for the UK, the greater the risk that other valued members may at some stage vote to leave. So it's in the interest of the EU to make the deal as bad as possible, even if it causes short term pain for the EU. — andrewk

Maybe you're right. I get the incentive for that, but I'm not convinced that it's the overriding incentive. I'd have to think on it, and maybe do some more reading on the subject to see if anyone shares that view.

The reason the EU would rather suffer a worse impact itself than make the deal better for the UK is that, the less penal the deal is for the UK, the greater the risk that other valued members may at some stage vote to leave. So it's in the interest of the EU to make the deal as bad as possible, even if it causes short term pain for the EU.
— andrewk

Maybe you're right. I get the incentive for that, but I'm not convinced that it's the overriding incentive. I'd have to think it on it, and maybe do some more reading on the subject to see if anyone shares that view. — S

It looks to me that the main problem with the deal is the backstop, and the backstop is there to protect the Good Friday Agreement, which is a treaty between The UK and Eire to end the civil war in N. Ireland. That is to say, it's actually nothing to do with the EU but is something the UK needs. (see my previous comment)

...otherwise what was the point of it in the first place? — Ciaran

Exactly.

Yes, I've heard Brexiteers like Jacob Rice-Mug and others say things like "Well, if May just gets rid of the backstop, I'll vote for her plan" as if there's a remote possibility the EU would agree to that, or as if the EU didn't need every member including the Republic to ratify the agreement, and as if the Republic would agree to anything that threatens the Good Friday agreement. I suspect though they know it's backstop or no deal and are actually willing to take no deal at any cost and want only to give the veneer of reasonableness to their position, being covered enough financially themselves not to care about the economic havoc that position would wreak on the rest of the country.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the latest incarnation of Norman Tebbit, via John Redwood, frightens the hell out of me. I cannot express my concerns more exactly than that. Fright. :scream:

For me, I guess he walks that line between pathetic and dangerous that men of inflated self-importance and fortunate political status often find themselves on. I expect he'll lose in the end, which will probably be the best thing for him.

I expect he'll win, and soon, which will probably be the worst thing for us. Hence my fright.

Perhaps someone can explain what will happen to the Irish border in the event of no deal? Because my own primary concern is not the economy but peace. The civil war in Ireland spilling over to the mainland as I remember was 'rather unpleasant', and I would guess, worse than the possible unrest that would result from another referendum or even the revocation of article 50. The defusing of the issue of the partitioning of Ireland is for me one of the most important benefits of the EU, and yet the issue was hardly mentioned during the campaign, and is still little understood on the mainland, let alone abroad. — unenlightened

That's exactly why I think that No Deal isn't an option. If May's Withdrawal Agreement is rejected by Parliament then Parliament must revoke Article 50. Maintaining the Good Friday Agreement is far more important than respecting the result of the referendum.

I don't understand how anyone can claim a second referendum would undermine democracy when the first referendum nullified 40 years worth of democratic decisions at a stroke, and was as crooked as a dog's hind leg!

A little off-topic, but who's worse, in your opinion: Jacob Reese-Mogg or Boris Johnson? It's a toughie, but I'm thinking Reese-Mogg.

I don't understand how anyone can claim a second referendum would undermine democracy when the first referendum nullified 40 years worth of democratic decisions at a stroke, and was as crooked as a dog's hind leg! — karl stone

You do realise that over 30 million people voted, right? And I actually think that it being a relatively close call would, in a sense, make it even worse to rerun it, because that would mean that it was hard to win the first time. And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won.

And also, bear in mind that the government was given a mandate by the people to hold a referendum. It was part of the Conservative manifesto. That's representative democracy for you. There's no mandate for a second referendum, the power to hold one rests with the government, and they ruled it out last time I checked.

And another thing, I'd say that fourty years between a referendum and a rerun is a lot more acceptable than two years.

You do realise that over 30 million people voted, right? And I actually think that it being a relatively close call would, in a sense, make it even worse to rerun it, because that would mean that it was hard to win the first time. And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won. — S

Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.

Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical. — karl stone

No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course they're not barred, and of course there'd be an option to leave, but they'd be penalised through no fault of their own by having their win rendered invalid and by being exposed to the risk of losing.

Moreover, don't you think that there ought to be suitable restrictions regarding the length of time between a referendum and a rerun? Otherwise there'd be nothing from stopping a government, if they so decided, from having one every couple of years until they got the result that they wanted.

Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.
— karl stone

No, of course they're not barred, but they'd be penalised through no fault of their own by having their win rendered invalid and by being exposed to the risk of losing again. Moreover, don't you think that there ought to be suitable restrictions regarding the length of time between a referendum and a rerun? Otherwise there'd be nothing from stopping a government, if they so decide, from having one every couple of years until they get the result that they want. — S

So you're telling me that the amorphous sense of 'winning' an individual might have as a result of his or her opinion being confirmed by a slight majority of others who cared to express an opinion two years ago, is more important than the actual consequences of the policy now we know what it is?

4 options: May's deal, no deal, another referendum, or revoke Article 50. — Michael

Of course - I hadn’t considered straight-out revocation.

I'd be grateful if you could briefly outline what revoking Article 50 involves, and its likely consequences. As I understand it, that's something that's in the control of the EU, not of the UK, since it's an EU rule. If that's correct, doesn't that disqualify it from being an option in a UK poll?

I'd be grateful if you could briefly outline what revoking Article 50 involves, and its likely consequences. As I understand it, that's something that's in the control of the EU, not of the UK, since it's an EU rule. If that's correct, doesn't that disqualify it from being an option in a UK poll? — andrewk

Brexit ruling: UK can cancel decision, EU court says

The European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit without the permission of the other 27 EU members.

The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.

The Government just needs to write to the European Council announcing that it revokes Article 50. So long as the Government has the legal authority to do so under UK law (i.e. approved by Parliament) it's valid.

Here's the press announcement of the ruling with more details.

So what has to happen to have another referendum?

So what has to happen to have another referendum? — frank

Parliament votes to have one. Or it votes to just revoke Article 50 without a referendum.

Wow. Would that be a watershed event if they revoked Article 50?

Wow. Would that be a watershed event if they revoked Article 50? — frank

Well, it would cancel Brexit which would be pretty big. Don't know about the political repercussions. Maybe more votes for UKIP at the next GE? Doubtful enough to win them more than a couple of seats though.

I'll rephrase: read up on the research in the field. It's boring to talk to people so struggling with knowledge from the 80s.