Crosswords0 min ago
Assuming He Gets His Referendum Of Exit From Brexit
How likely is remain to win considering all the rhetoric from the EU being about 'ever closer ties' etc.
There will always be die hard Remainers that will not accept that out will ever be right but for the others I wonder if they actually listen and understand?
There will always be die hard Remainers that will not accept that out will ever be right but for the others I wonder if they actually listen and understand?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“…prospective EU members need all current members to approve their application. Ergo, the UK has a veto over Turkish membership. It's simply a fact.”
Quite so, Jim. For the moment. Among Mr Juncker’s pronouncements last week was that all remaining EU members currently not using the euro should have to do so as part of his plans for a Euro Superstate. I wonder if that includes Denmark – the only other nation apart from the UK to have an “opt out” from the single currency. Time will tell (if the euro lasts long enough, that is).
There have been many significant changes to the EU constitution and voting arrangements in the last twenty-five years. One by one the matters over which individual nations had vetoes have been quietly removed. There is no reason to believe that the arrangements for denying admission to new members or for Denmark to continue to be able to use their own money will remain. I don’t what it will take for people to accept that the EU does not do the status quo. It is not in their vocabulary. The Euromaniacs will not rest until Europe consists of one gigantic superstate presided over by unelected civil servants. Only then might status quo be maintained, but I wouldn’t count on it.
Quite so, Jim. For the moment. Among Mr Juncker’s pronouncements last week was that all remaining EU members currently not using the euro should have to do so as part of his plans for a Euro Superstate. I wonder if that includes Denmark – the only other nation apart from the UK to have an “opt out” from the single currency. Time will tell (if the euro lasts long enough, that is).
There have been many significant changes to the EU constitution and voting arrangements in the last twenty-five years. One by one the matters over which individual nations had vetoes have been quietly removed. There is no reason to believe that the arrangements for denying admission to new members or for Denmark to continue to be able to use their own money will remain. I don’t what it will take for people to accept that the EU does not do the status quo. It is not in their vocabulary. The Euromaniacs will not rest until Europe consists of one gigantic superstate presided over by unelected civil servants. Only then might status quo be maintained, but I wouldn’t count on it.
NJ //prospective EU members need all current members to approve their application. Ergo, the UK has a veto over Turkish membership. It's simply a fact.”
Quite so, Jim//
No it isn't "quite so" NJ. Were Britain to remain, they would have no veto to prevent Turkey, (or Uncle Tom Cobbley) from joining the EU.
Quite so, Jim//
No it isn't "quite so" NJ. Were Britain to remain, they would have no veto to prevent Turkey, (or Uncle Tom Cobbley) from joining the EU.
I'm confused why you are insisting it is not so. The current procedure concludes with an accession treaty that must be ratified by all current EU members to take effect. If any one EU member doesn't ratify the treaty then it doesn't pass.
NJ's "for the moment" comment may still be valid, but it's nevertheless odd to deny how things work and insist that describing the current procedure is wrong or not so. The UK would have a veto over Turkish membership of the EU.
But it's a bizarre debate anyway. Turkey isn't going to join the EU any time soon. It's been trying for 60 years or more as it is.
NJ's "for the moment" comment may still be valid, but it's nevertheless odd to deny how things work and insist that describing the current procedure is wrong or not so. The UK would have a veto over Turkish membership of the EU.
But it's a bizarre debate anyway. Turkey isn't going to join the EU any time soon. It's been trying for 60 years or more as it is.
Under "Concluding the Negotiations, 2. Accession Treaty, points two and three" here, for example:
https:/
https:/
I don't really see this rule changing in the near future, at least. I'm sure that the EU will move towards greater integration, but as long as there are separate countries then there will be respect for their constitutional processes in matters such as this.
Not that it overly matters, since we're leaving, but the UK probably was one of the main checks against such rapid integration in the first place. Whether for good or ill, who can say? But those who believe that a more unified EU is a bad thing might almost regret causing the UK to leave it if it allows the rest to hasten the process.
Not that it overly matters, since we're leaving, but the UK probably was one of the main checks against such rapid integration in the first place. Whether for good or ill, who can say? But those who believe that a more unified EU is a bad thing might almost regret causing the UK to leave it if it allows the rest to hasten the process.
In terms of the original question, I'd wonder the reverse really. I don't think Juncker's speech will do anything to push people one way or the other -- it was irritating but I want to be a member of the EU on principles that aren't necessarily affected by who is the present leader (rather like I wouldn't up and leave the UK if the present PM were incompetent (hypothetically)). Probably will just serve to harden views that already existed.
Most polls seem to suggest that views haven't really changed much at all since the 2016 referendum, and in practice I think that's likely to remain the case for another couple of years. "Regrexit", if there's ever a thing, would presumably only start to kick in some years down the line assuming that the UK didn't get a good deal and started suffering as a result -- and probably not even then.
The main factor will probably be apathy, or perhaps some lack of belief that the vote will make a difference. There are sound democratic reasons why we might hold a second referendum, but it's hard work to persuade people that it's anything other than a cynical attempt to reject the result in 2016*, so maybe the less strongly-committed Leave voters might just not turn up, allowing Remain an easy win by default.
Well, possibly. I
*I mean, obviously it's also exactly that cynical for some people, but I do think you can legitimately defend a second referendum even if you wanted to Leave the EU in the first place, just as long as the question is different, and the consequences of a vote against whatever's proposed, presumably the "deal", would still result in leaving the EU.
Most polls seem to suggest that views haven't really changed much at all since the 2016 referendum, and in practice I think that's likely to remain the case for another couple of years. "Regrexit", if there's ever a thing, would presumably only start to kick in some years down the line assuming that the UK didn't get a good deal and started suffering as a result -- and probably not even then.
The main factor will probably be apathy, or perhaps some lack of belief that the vote will make a difference. There are sound democratic reasons why we might hold a second referendum, but it's hard work to persuade people that it's anything other than a cynical attempt to reject the result in 2016*, so maybe the less strongly-committed Leave voters might just not turn up, allowing Remain an easy win by default.
Well, possibly. I
*I mean, obviously it's also exactly that cynical for some people, but I do think you can legitimately defend a second referendum even if you wanted to Leave the EU in the first place, just as long as the question is different, and the consequences of a vote against whatever's proposed, presumably the "deal", would still result in leaving the EU.
jim; From your link; "Concluding the negotiations,
Closing the chapters.
No negotiations on any individual chapter are closed until every EU government is satisfied with the candidate's progress in that policy field, as analysed by the Commission."
In other words, if the requirements are complied with (and they either are, or are not) then entry is permitted automatically. No question of vetos. Also, as stated, the final decision rests, as in all matters, with the Commission, not the Parliament.
Closing the chapters.
No negotiations on any individual chapter are closed until every EU government is satisfied with the candidate's progress in that policy field, as analysed by the Commission."
In other words, if the requirements are complied with (and they either are, or are not) then entry is permitted automatically. No question of vetos. Also, as stated, the final decision rests, as in all matters, with the Commission, not the Parliament.
“…but as long as there are separate countries then there will be respect for their constitutional processes in matters such as this.”
Then you have far, far greater confidence than I have.
“But those who believe that a more unified EU is a bad thing might almost regret causing the UK to leave it if it allows the rest to hasten the process.”
Frankly I couldn’t give a tuppenny toss what they do after we have left. As far as I believe, their quest for further integration will actually hasten the much needed demise of the EU. That will ultimately be to everybody’s advantage, especially the young people of the southern nations. They have become a "lost generation", having seen their unemployment rates soar to 40% to 50% courtesy of the imposition of the single currency which is probably the most catastrophic economic strategy of modern times.
Then you have far, far greater confidence than I have.
“But those who believe that a more unified EU is a bad thing might almost regret causing the UK to leave it if it allows the rest to hasten the process.”
Frankly I couldn’t give a tuppenny toss what they do after we have left. As far as I believe, their quest for further integration will actually hasten the much needed demise of the EU. That will ultimately be to everybody’s advantage, especially the young people of the southern nations. They have become a "lost generation", having seen their unemployment rates soar to 40% to 50% courtesy of the imposition of the single currency which is probably the most catastrophic economic strategy of modern times.
Oh, come on Khandro, you are deliberately misrepresenting the link. As I pointed out, the negotiations can't even begin without a unanimous decision from the EU Council, made up from the leaders of the member states, any one of which may therefore kill the process before it starts. Even your quote implies an effective veto.
Give it up. You're simply wrong. Do your research properly, as well as thoroughly, next time.
Give it up. You're simply wrong. Do your research properly, as well as thoroughly, next time.
I don't think anyone wants to ask the same question again though, Daisy, for various reasons:
-- Leavers don't want to risk losing round two (and inevitably, if that happens, there wouldn't be a deciding round)
-- Some Remainers just want to get on with it now. Probably most of them, to be honest.
-- Others might genuinely want to offer a referendum specifically on the terms of the deal because they think it's democratically consistent with the 2016 referendum to continue to give back ultimate control of our country's future relationship with the EU and World to the people.
-- Or, more likely, others really want a rematch to overturn the result, but don't want to sell it as such for fear of being called out as anti-democratic ***.
I am not sure which of the last two camps Vince Cable falls into. For myself, I don't actually know if I want a second referendum or not, as I'm still not recovered from the last one, so I'm probably in the "get on with it but please make sure you do it well rather than quickly" camp.
-- Leavers don't want to risk losing round two (and inevitably, if that happens, there wouldn't be a deciding round)
-- Some Remainers just want to get on with it now. Probably most of them, to be honest.
-- Others might genuinely want to offer a referendum specifically on the terms of the deal because they think it's democratically consistent with the 2016 referendum to continue to give back ultimate control of our country's future relationship with the EU and World to the people.
-- Or, more likely, others really want a rematch to overturn the result, but don't want to sell it as such for fear of being called out as anti-democratic ***.
I am not sure which of the last two camps Vince Cable falls into. For myself, I don't actually know if I want a second referendum or not, as I'm still not recovered from the last one, so I'm probably in the "get on with it but please make sure you do it well rather than quickly" camp.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.