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="Abstruser" data-source="post: 5988" data-attributes="member: 260"><p>Nice overview of the policy arguments [USER=490]@Oliver Gilliland[/USER] <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> I have a few things I would also like to add, mostly regarding the logistics of holding a second referendum:</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Do we have enough time to hold a second referendum?</strong></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A referendum takes a long time to be organised - the original Brexit referendum took 13 months to be organised. The UCL Constitution Unit wrote an excellent blogpost on this issue earlier this August (<a href="https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/" target="_blank">https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/</a>) - I highly recommend a quick read as it explains the necessary legal steps to hold a referendum.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It could be possible to cut some corners and accelerate the timeline, but given the controversy around overspending in the previous referendum, abiding by legalities seems more important than ever.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The authors of the blogpost concluded that if preparations had begun in October, the earliest date for a referendum vote would be on March 28, 2019 - a day before Brexit Day.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At this delayed stage - with holidays around the corner, no less - it seems an unavoidable conclusion that unless an Article 50 extension is obtained, there will simply be no time to have a second referendum.</li> </ul><p><strong>Can we obtain an Article 50 extension?</strong></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Article 50(3) TEU states that an extension of the 2-year period can only be granted with the unanimous consent of the European Council (comprised of EU Member Heads of State) <u><strong>and</strong></u> the agreement of the exiting Member State (ie, the UK).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Let alone the consent of all 27 EU Member States, would the UK government under Theresa May even request such an extension? Given she is seeking political assurances from the EU to back the current deal, it is not at all obvious whether such an extension would be requested under the current government</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Of course, as noted above, this is subject to the possibility of another GE or motion of no confidence - which would again eat into a very tight timeline.</li> </ul><p><strong>What would the voting options be, actually, on a second referendum?</strong></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There is a nice FT article on this, for those who can access it (<a href="https://www.ft.com/content/04f05488-f887-11e8-8b7c-6fa24bd5409c" target="_blank">https://www.ft.com/content/04f05488-f887-11e8-8b7c-6fa24bd5409c</a>). For those that can't, this is also a great piece - <a href="https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/WP_SITEURL/blogs/peter-kellner/what-to-put-on-the-ballot-paper-seven-options-for-a-second-referendum" target="_blank">https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/WP_SITEURL/blogs/peter-kellner/what-to-put-on-the-ballot-paper-seven-options-for-a-second-referendum</a>.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Essentially, there is fierce disagreement about what the options on the ballot paper should be.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Should Remain be an option? That might risk undermining the democratic will of the previous referendum.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Should Canada/Norway style Brexit be on the menu if it is unclear that the UK can actually deliver such a Brexit? After all, the failure of the government to live up to its original Brexit promises is a key point of dissatisfaction with the original referendum (as noted above).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Would no-deal be an option? What about Theresa May's current deal? Would Parliament really be prepared to back either of these outcomes if they won the popular vote?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">An interesting point I heard in an FT Politics podcast a while ago (I can't remember which one exactly, but will try track it down if anyone is interested) was that too many poll options might actually lead to a result that is not preferred by a majority of the electorate. This is the classic first-past-the-post vs preferential voting issue (<a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61098/first-past-the-post-alternative-vote.pdf" target="_blank">https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61098/first-past-the-post-alternative-vote.pdf</a>).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The UK does not operate preferential voting, so as long as FPTP is the chosen voting method, it would seem that only 2 or 3 of these many options would practically be offered as polling options. The question that arises is therefore how to decide which ones will be offered.</li> </ul><p>An interesting scenario would also be to forego any sort of people's vote altogether, and just unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notification, thereby 'cancelling' Brexit. The ECJ's judgement today stated only that the withdrawal of the notification be done in accordance with the leaving Member's constitutional requirements. In the UK constitution, that would simply mean passing an Act of Parliament - there is no requirement that referendums be held prior to passing an Act. That would also frustrate the democratic will expressed two years ago in the original referendum.</p><p></p><p>What a time to be alive! Definitely see this as a potential interview discussion topic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Abstruser, post: 5988, member: 260"] Nice overview of the policy arguments [USER=490]@Oliver Gilliland[/USER] :) I have a few things I would also like to add, mostly regarding the logistics of holding a second referendum: [B] Do we have enough time to hold a second referendum?[/B] [LIST] [*]A referendum takes a long time to be organised - the original Brexit referendum took 13 months to be organised. The UCL Constitution Unit wrote an excellent blogpost on this issue earlier this August ([URL]https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/[/URL]) - I highly recommend a quick read as it explains the necessary legal steps to hold a referendum. [*]It could be possible to cut some corners and accelerate the timeline, but given the controversy around overspending in the previous referendum, abiding by legalities seems more important than ever. [*]The authors of the blogpost concluded that if preparations had begun in October, the earliest date for a referendum vote would be on March 28, 2019 - a day before Brexit Day. [*]At this delayed stage - with holidays around the corner, no less - it seems an unavoidable conclusion that unless an Article 50 extension is obtained, there will simply be no time to have a second referendum. [/LIST] [B]Can we obtain an Article 50 extension?[/B] [LIST] [*]Article 50(3) TEU states that an extension of the 2-year period can only be granted with the unanimous consent of the European Council (comprised of EU Member Heads of State) [U][B]and[/B][/U] the agreement of the exiting Member State (ie, the UK). [*]Let alone the consent of all 27 EU Member States, would the UK government under Theresa May even request such an extension? Given she is seeking political assurances from the EU to back the current deal, it is not at all obvious whether such an extension would be requested under the current government [*]Of course, as noted above, this is subject to the possibility of another GE or motion of no confidence - which would again eat into a very tight timeline. [/LIST] [B]What would the voting options be, actually, on a second referendum?[/B] [LIST] [*]There is a nice FT article on this, for those who can access it ([URL]https://www.ft.com/content/04f05488-f887-11e8-8b7c-6fa24bd5409c[/URL]). For those that can't, this is also a great piece - [URL]https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/WP_SITEURL/blogs/peter-kellner/what-to-put-on-the-ballot-paper-seven-options-for-a-second-referendum[/URL]. [*]Essentially, there is fierce disagreement about what the options on the ballot paper should be. [*]Should Remain be an option? That might risk undermining the democratic will of the previous referendum. [*]Should Canada/Norway style Brexit be on the menu if it is unclear that the UK can actually deliver such a Brexit? After all, the failure of the government to live up to its original Brexit promises is a key point of dissatisfaction with the original referendum (as noted above). [*]Would no-deal be an option? What about Theresa May's current deal? Would Parliament really be prepared to back either of these outcomes if they won the popular vote? [*]An interesting point I heard in an FT Politics podcast a while ago (I can't remember which one exactly, but will try track it down if anyone is interested) was that too many poll options might actually lead to a result that is not preferred by a majority of the electorate. This is the classic first-past-the-post vs preferential voting issue ([URL]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61098/first-past-the-post-alternative-vote.pdf[/URL]). [*]The UK does not operate preferential voting, so as long as FPTP is the chosen voting method, it would seem that only 2 or 3 of these many options would practically be offered as polling options. The question that arises is therefore how to decide which ones will be offered. [/LIST] An interesting scenario would also be to forego any sort of people's vote altogether, and just unilaterally revoke the Article 50 notification, thereby 'cancelling' Brexit. The ECJ's judgement today stated only that the withdrawal of the notification be done in accordance with the leaving Member's constitutional requirements. In the UK constitution, that would simply mean passing an Act of Parliament - there is no requirement that referendums be held prior to passing an Act. That would also frustrate the democratic will expressed two years ago in the original referendum. What a time to be alive! Definitely see this as a potential interview discussion topic. [/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…