Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Law Firm Events
Law Firm Deadlines
TCLA TV
Members
Leaderboards
Premium Database
Premium Chat
Commercial Awareness
Future Trainee Advice
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Brexit updates, news and resources
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oliver Gilliland" data-source="post: 5985" data-attributes="member: 490"><p><strong>Can we legally have a second referendum?</strong></p><p></p><p>In short yes. The first referendum was <strong>non-binding</strong> and the ECJ ruled today that the UK can unilaterally withdraw (not delay) from Article 50, so that the other Member States need not consent.</p><p></p><p><strong>So, the real issue is SHOULD we have a second referendum?</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>In favour of a second referendum</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>1. The Economic Reality: </strong>The governments own impact assessment has forecast the UK economy will be up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years under Mrs May’s (interestingly the government assessment was based on the now scrapped chequers plan not the withdrawal agreement) Brexit and 7.7% with a no deal.</p><p></p><p>So if the withdraw agreement goes ahead the figure will be between the no-deal and the chequers figure. A guardian reporter estimated 0.6-2.1% (although did not cite a source for these figures. (<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/uk-significantly-worse-off-under-all-brexit-scenarios-official-forecast-gdp" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/uk-significantly-worse-off-under-all-brexit-scenarios-official-forecast-gdp</a>)</p><p></p><p><strong>Phillip Hammond (Chancellor of exchequer) even came out and said <em>“</em></strong><em>If you look at this purely from an economic point of view, yes there will be a cost to leaving the European Union because there will be impediments to our trade.”</em></p><p></p><p>The analysis also covered two other potential routes, however these seem unlikely to materialise given the progress of Brexit negotiations.</p><p></p><p>- Under a Norway EEA we would be 1.4% worse off</p><p></p><p>- Under a Canada-style deal we would be 4.9% worse off.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Although these forecasts should be taken with a pinch of salt, as they do not predict how much the economy will grow over the next 15 years bur rather the impact of specific changes in Britain’s trading relationships.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>2. What about the will of the people?</strong></p><p></p><p>This phrase that frankly no one really seems to know what it exactly means has been blasted all over the media. The entire Brexit negotiation process has been fuelled by Mrs May carrying out the ‘will of the people’. As a result, one of the main arguments for a second referendum is that if Brexit is truly about the ‘will of the people’ then the people have the right to change their mind. To quote Caroline Lucas during PM Question Time earlier in November (addressed to Mrs May) “<em>Will she acknowledge that the will of the people can change and that the will of the people has changed? Does she therefore think that the way forward is a people’s vote, or does she think democracy ended on 23 June 2016?”</em></p><p></p><p>A lot of these problems are a direct result of the fundamental flaw in using referendums to decide such complex issues that are intertwined with speculative outcomes on future negotiations. Ironically the former Brexit Secretary David Davis aptly summarised this in 2002 “We should not ask people to vote on a blank piece of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards”</p><p></p><p>He went on to say “<em>Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested”</em></p><p></p><p><em><a href="https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-david-davis-referendums/" target="_blank">https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-david-davis-referendums/</a></em></p><p></p><p>So surely now the reality of all the options is on the table the electorate is in the best possible position to make a judgment?</p><p></p><p><strong>3. The deceit of the leave campaign and media propaganda</strong></p><p></p><p>A slightly more sensitive issue revolves around the legality and morality of the leave campaign itself. Whistle-blower Shahmir Sanni, who previously worked for Vote Leave highlighted that the campaign had overspent by £675,000 and in turn had broke the law. This leads to the argument that the vote itself had been ‘tainted’.</p><p></p><p>Closely linked with the misconducted is that many voters feel like were sold a lie and now that the ‘truth’ has been revealed should they not be entitled to make an informed decision?</p><p></p><p>Most significantly the £350m promised for the NHS each week, which Boris Johnson is now claiming he did not intend to be taken so literally.</p><p></p><p>The reality is that the source of this money was the UK’s net contribution to the EU. In fact, our net payment to the EU is £250m and when EU spending into the UK is accounted for that figure falls to a net payment of £160m a week. Moreover, it is in no way clear how much of this could go to the NHS.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/18/boris-johnson-350-million-claim-bogus-foreign-secretary" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/18/boris-johnson-350-million-claim-bogus-foreign-secretary</a></p><p></p><p>The British media also played a role in misinforming the people or perhaps were being overzealous in their claims.</p><p></p><p>To quote a few headlines</p><p></p><p>“a free trade-deal with the EU will be the easiest thing in human history”</p><p></p><p>“two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe”</p><p></p><p>- In reality that figure is 15%</p><p></p><p>“Turkey is going to join the EU and millions of people will flock to the UK”</p><p></p><p>- This concern fuelled worries of rapid immigration, Turkey will not be joining the EU any time soon despite being in talks since 1999.</p><p></p><p>“Brexit will lead to Scotland renewing calls for independence”</p><p></p><p>“Brexit does not mean the UK will leave the single market” </p><p></p><p>- Following the European negotiator's rejection to remain within the single market as part of Mrs May's chequers deal it is clear the UK will no longer be part of the single market. The withdrawal agreement and no-deal scenario have only made this even clearer.</p><p></p><p>The European Commission even took the time to dispel every myth concerning the EU. <a href="https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/" target="_blank">https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/</a></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Arguments against a second referendum</strong></p><p></p><p><strong>1. The undermining of democracy</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>This erosion of democracy is the fundamental and probably the most powerful argument against holding a referendum. Many politicians have argued by simply holding a second referendum this would suggest that the rule by majority is an insufficient condition for democratic legitimacy. Simply put, the people have already exercised their democratic right and that right becomes meaningless if it can be undone 2 years down the line. Moreover, it would shroud all future political decisions in uncertainty if votes can simply be reversed at ‘will’.</p><p></p><p>This has also lead to the argument of “where will it stop” , suggesting that a second referendum would result in a call for a series of referendums changing with the ‘will of the people’ in what has been described as a ‘neverendum’.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, this argument revolves around a subjective perception of what democracy truly represents and frankly you could probably write an entire dissertation on the topic.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>2. Long-term benefit</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Intertwined with arguments against a second referendum is arguments for Brexit in the first place. Many believe the benefits outweigh the costs.</p><p></p><p></p><p>1. Control over our borders</p><p></p><p></p><p>This argument has been at the forefront of Mrs May’s plan to reduce low-skilled immigration and bring migration down to sustainable levels. Mrs May was famously quoted on the matter saying that <em>“"It will no longer be the case that EU nationals, regardless of the skills or experience they have to offer, can jump the queue ahead of engineers from Sydney or software developers from Delhi,"</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>2. Freedom to negotiate trade deals</p><p></p><p></p><p>This argument suggests that the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals with the rest of the world rather than being constrained as part of the EU bloc. However, only time will tell if these will actually materialise and even if they do whether the would outweigh the benefits of leaving the single market and customs union.</p><p></p><p>But with whom?</p><p></p><p>China? Zhang Ming has expressly stated China would not open up negotiations if the UK did not manage to conclude a withdrawal agreement.</p><p></p><p>US? Donald Trump has sent mixed messages concerning the prospect of future trade agreements. First, he told The Sun newspaper that the chequers plan killed of any chance of a trade deal with the US. He then told Piers Morgan that he would sign a “tremendously big trade deal with the UK”. After the Withdrawal Agreement was announced he then went on to say “a great deal for the EU that would stop the UK trading with the US”.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the UK’s future strength in negotiating a future trading deal I would encourage you to watch this short clip where the former WTO director states the UK would fall from division 1 to division 4.</p><p></p><p><em><a href="https://twitter.com/JezzyB/status/1070801726515625986" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/JezzyB/status/1070801726515625986</a></em></p><p></p><p></p><p>3. No constraints from the EU over our laws</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oliver Gilliland, post: 5985, member: 490"] [B]Can we legally have a second referendum?[/B] In short yes. The first referendum was [B]non-binding[/B] and the ECJ ruled today that the UK can unilaterally withdraw (not delay) from Article 50, so that the other Member States need not consent. [B]So, the real issue is SHOULD we have a second referendum?[/B] [B]In favour of a second referendum[/B] [B]1. The Economic Reality: [/B]The governments own impact assessment has forecast the UK economy will be up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years under Mrs May’s (interestingly the government assessment was based on the now scrapped chequers plan not the withdrawal agreement) Brexit and 7.7% with a no deal. So if the withdraw agreement goes ahead the figure will be between the no-deal and the chequers figure. A guardian reporter estimated 0.6-2.1% (although did not cite a source for these figures. ([URL]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/uk-significantly-worse-off-under-all-brexit-scenarios-official-forecast-gdp[/URL]) [B]Phillip Hammond (Chancellor of exchequer) even came out and said [I]“[/I][/B][I]If you look at this purely from an economic point of view, yes there will be a cost to leaving the European Union because there will be impediments to our trade.”[/I] The analysis also covered two other potential routes, however these seem unlikely to materialise given the progress of Brexit negotiations. - Under a Norway EEA we would be 1.4% worse off - Under a Canada-style deal we would be 4.9% worse off. Although these forecasts should be taken with a pinch of salt, as they do not predict how much the economy will grow over the next 15 years bur rather the impact of specific changes in Britain’s trading relationships. [B]2. What about the will of the people?[/B] This phrase that frankly no one really seems to know what it exactly means has been blasted all over the media. The entire Brexit negotiation process has been fuelled by Mrs May carrying out the ‘will of the people’. As a result, one of the main arguments for a second referendum is that if Brexit is truly about the ‘will of the people’ then the people have the right to change their mind. To quote Caroline Lucas during PM Question Time earlier in November (addressed to Mrs May) “[I]Will she acknowledge that the will of the people can change and that the will of the people has changed? Does she therefore think that the way forward is a people’s vote, or does she think democracy ended on 23 June 2016?”[/I] A lot of these problems are a direct result of the fundamental flaw in using referendums to decide such complex issues that are intertwined with speculative outcomes on future negotiations. Ironically the former Brexit Secretary David Davis aptly summarised this in 2002 “We should not ask people to vote on a blank piece of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards” He went on to say “[I]Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested”[/I] [I][URL]https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-david-davis-referendums/[/URL][/I] So surely now the reality of all the options is on the table the electorate is in the best possible position to make a judgment? [B]3. The deceit of the leave campaign and media propaganda[/B] A slightly more sensitive issue revolves around the legality and morality of the leave campaign itself. Whistle-blower Shahmir Sanni, who previously worked for Vote Leave highlighted that the campaign had overspent by £675,000 and in turn had broke the law. This leads to the argument that the vote itself had been ‘tainted’. Closely linked with the misconducted is that many voters feel like were sold a lie and now that the ‘truth’ has been revealed should they not be entitled to make an informed decision? Most significantly the £350m promised for the NHS each week, which Boris Johnson is now claiming he did not intend to be taken so literally. The reality is that the source of this money was the UK’s net contribution to the EU. In fact, our net payment to the EU is £250m and when EU spending into the UK is accounted for that figure falls to a net payment of £160m a week. Moreover, it is in no way clear how much of this could go to the NHS. [URL]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/18/boris-johnson-350-million-claim-bogus-foreign-secretary[/URL] The British media also played a role in misinforming the people or perhaps were being overzealous in their claims. To quote a few headlines “a free trade-deal with the EU will be the easiest thing in human history” “two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe” - In reality that figure is 15% “Turkey is going to join the EU and millions of people will flock to the UK” - This concern fuelled worries of rapid immigration, Turkey will not be joining the EU any time soon despite being in talks since 1999. “Brexit will lead to Scotland renewing calls for independence” “Brexit does not mean the UK will leave the single market” - Following the European negotiator's rejection to remain within the single market as part of Mrs May's chequers deal it is clear the UK will no longer be part of the single market. The withdrawal agreement and no-deal scenario have only made this even clearer. The European Commission even took the time to dispel every myth concerning the EU. [URL]https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/[/URL] [B]Arguments against a second referendum[/B] [B]1. The undermining of democracy[/B] This erosion of democracy is the fundamental and probably the most powerful argument against holding a referendum. Many politicians have argued by simply holding a second referendum this would suggest that the rule by majority is an insufficient condition for democratic legitimacy. Simply put, the people have already exercised their democratic right and that right becomes meaningless if it can be undone 2 years down the line. Moreover, it would shroud all future political decisions in uncertainty if votes can simply be reversed at ‘will’. This has also lead to the argument of “where will it stop” , suggesting that a second referendum would result in a call for a series of referendums changing with the ‘will of the people’ in what has been described as a ‘neverendum’. Ultimately, this argument revolves around a subjective perception of what democracy truly represents and frankly you could probably write an entire dissertation on the topic. [B]2. Long-term benefit[/B] Intertwined with arguments against a second referendum is arguments for Brexit in the first place. Many believe the benefits outweigh the costs. 1. Control over our borders This argument has been at the forefront of Mrs May’s plan to reduce low-skilled immigration and bring migration down to sustainable levels. Mrs May was famously quoted on the matter saying that [I]“"It will no longer be the case that EU nationals, regardless of the skills or experience they have to offer, can jump the queue ahead of engineers from Sydney or software developers from Delhi,"[/I] 2. Freedom to negotiate trade deals This argument suggests that the UK will be able to negotiate better trade deals with the rest of the world rather than being constrained as part of the EU bloc. However, only time will tell if these will actually materialise and even if they do whether the would outweigh the benefits of leaving the single market and customs union. But with whom? China? Zhang Ming has expressly stated China would not open up negotiations if the UK did not manage to conclude a withdrawal agreement. US? Donald Trump has sent mixed messages concerning the prospect of future trade agreements. First, he told The Sun newspaper that the chequers plan killed of any chance of a trade deal with the US. He then told Piers Morgan that he would sign a “tremendously big trade deal with the UK”. After the Withdrawal Agreement was announced he then went on to say “a great deal for the EU that would stop the UK trading with the US”. Regarding the UK’s future strength in negotiating a future trading deal I would encourage you to watch this short clip where the former WTO director states the UK would fall from division 1 to division 4. [I][URL]https://twitter.com/JezzyB/status/1070801726515625986[/URL][/I] 3. No constraints from the EU over our laws [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forums
Aspiring Lawyers - Interviews & Vacation Schemes
Commercial Awareness Discussion
Brexit updates, news and resources
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…