The Date is Set.

[jockscott]

23rd of June folks. Your chance to make Britain Great again.

 

[Doug99]

Bring it On - Cameron has done a deal which delivers very little, and even that still needs the full approval of the European Parliament. My worry are the 1-1 discussions Cameron held with all the individual EU leaders over the last few months. 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' comes to mind, so what under the table sweeteners has Cameron offered them all to sway their agreement?

 

[Himaginn]

... and even that still needs the full approval of the European Parliament.

Sorry Doug, but your information is not correct:

Any agreement on changes to the UK's membership of the EU would be "legally binding", papers released ahead of next week's crunch summit have indicated.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35536890
And this comment has been out there since 9th Feb!
Additionally:

Professor Sir Alan Dashwood QC, Emeritus Professor of European Law and Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, indicated that he could envisage using either a Decision of the European Council or a Decision of the Heads of State and Governments meeting within the European Council, both of which are binding, to adopt interpretative text

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmeuleg/458/45806.htm
Further reading and substantiation of the 'Legally binding status'
http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/...-by-Sir-Alan-Dashwood-QC-19-February-2016.pdf
And more:

Pressed about Mr Schulz's remarks during a visit to Copenhagen, Mr Cameron said of the deal: "If it is agreed, it will be agreed as a legally binding treaty deposited at the United Nations.
"It would only be reversible if all the 28 countries, including Britain, agreed to reverse it."
"Given its the treaty that Britain wants there's no way we are going to agree to reverse it.

"So while you can argue it's technically reversible if we agreed to reverse it, it is not in fact reversible

"It will be legally binding and irreversible."

http://news.sky.com/story/1636228/eu-deal-irreversible-insists-david-cameron

My worry are the 1-1 discussions Cameron held with all the individual EU leaders over the last few months. 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' comes to mind, so what under the table sweeteners has Cameron offered them all to sway their agreement?

Unsubstantiated speculation.
In fact some parts of the agreement that Cameron has been arguing for have been welcomed, and will be processed by other EU countries.

 

[Himaginn]

In case of a Brexit, the current deal will be negated:

Belgium emerged as a tough negotiator, and won a clause stating that the whole UK deal would be binned if British voters said No to EU membership.
That was to prevent any attempt by British Eurosceptics to wring more difficult concessions out of the EU in any future renegotiation of membership

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35620705

 

[jockscott]

In case of a Brexit, the current deal will be negated:

Belgium emerged as a tough negotiator, and won a clause stating that the whole UK deal would be binned if British voters said No to EU membership.
That was to prevent any attempt by British Eurosceptics to wring more difficult concessions out of the EU in any future renegotiation of membership

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35620705

Well Cameron has said this referendum is a one off. If the country vote overwhelmingly to leave the EU, then that's that as far as we should be concerned. There's absolutely no need for any further negotiation.
Knowing the EU (based on past experience) There will be a flurry of negotiating if we vote to leave. (only got to look at the Irish vote some years back, when they voted against something) So based on that, we might be voting in a referendum until the EU gets the result they want.

 

[Himaginn]

In case of a Brexit, the current deal will be negated:

Belgium emerged as a tough negotiator, and won a clause stating that the whole UK deal would be binned if British voters said No to EU membership.
That was to prevent any attempt by British Eurosceptics to wring more difficult concessions out of the EU in any future renegotiation of membership

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35620705

Well Cameron has said this referendum is a one off. If the country vote overwhelmingly to leave the EU, then that's that as far as we should be concerned. There's absolutely no need for any further negotiation.
Knowing the EU (based on past experience) There will be a flurry of negotiating if we vote to leave. (only got to look at the Irish vote some years back, when they voted against something) So based on that, we might be voting in a referendum until the EU gets the result they want.

The Irish vote was about Treaty Change, not the same thing.

There is some precedent for this in the arrangements entered into by Denmark and Ireland in response to the rejection in referenda in Denmark of the Maastricht Treaty and in Ireland of the Lisbon Treaty.....

if a treaty change were presented and repeatedly failed to get through a referendum in a single country, in the end there would have to be some way of resolving the impasse, but in the meantime we would rest on the international law agreement we had between the member states.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmeuleg/458/45806.htm

 

[Dave54]

Why do I feel that should the vote be a resounding "NO" then the powers that be will say the equivalent of, "Best of three?" in some way

 

[Himaginn]

Why do I feel that should the vote be a resounding "NO" then the powers that be will say the equivalent of, "Best of three?" in some way

Belgium has already said that in the event of a 'No' the current deal will be torn up, forcing any re-negotiation to start from scratch.
Apart from that, there will be a political reshuffle which ever way the vote goes.

In case of a small majority either way, I wouldn't disagree with a re-run of the referendum, albeit it is an extremely expensive undertaking. I would have thought that the rules for the percentage of an acceptable majority would have been laid down, but there aren't any. So a .001% majority could be sufficient.

On another point, in the event of a Remain win, will the Eurosceptic MEPs resign and allow a by-election?

 

[Doug99]

My worry are the 1-1 discussions Cameron held with all the individual EU leaders over the last few months. 'You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' comes to mind, so what under the table sweeteners has Cameron offered them all to sway their agreement?

Unsubstantiated speculation.

As is the scaremongering of the 'stay in' campaign.

 

[PBC_1966]

I would like to think that a "Leave" result would be the end of the matter, bar all the necessary legal wranglings to put the withdrawal into effect, but I too fear that it wouldn't be that straightforward.

I suspect there will be another flurry of negotiations with the EU, the U.K. government will win some tiny concessions on a few relatively insignificant things (probably only in the usual form of temporary derogations), but will claim it as some great victory and say that the EU has been reformed, therefore the result of the referendum is no longer valid because "things have changed now." Then they'll either declare that another referendum will be held at some future unspecified date (in order to give plenty of time to pour out more propaganda about how great the EU is now in order to swing the vote over), or worse yet they'll just declare that because the EU has been "reformed" another referendum is no longer needed and the U.K. will be staying in.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It worked in Scotland, didn't it?

Not a peep since from the independence wanters.

 

[Doug99]

I would like to think that a "Leave" result would be the end of the matter, bar all the necessary legal wranglings to put the withdrawal into effect, but I too fear that it wouldn't be that straightforward.

I suspect there will be another flurry of negotiations with the EU, the U.K. government will win some tiny concessions on a few relatively insignificant things (probably only in the usual form of temporary derogations), but will claim it as some great victory and say that the EU has been reformed, therefore the result of the referendum is no longer valid because "things have changed now." Then they'll either declare that another referendum will be held at some future unspecified date (in order to give plenty of time to pour out more propaganda about how great the EU is now in order to swing the vote over), or worse yet they'll just declare that because the EU has been "reformed" another referendum is no longer needed and the U.K. will be staying in.

That's why we need a resounding 'leave' result. Anything close would give the government room for manoeuvre and resumption of EU negotiations.

 

[PBC_1966]

So based on that, we might be voting in a referendum until the EU gets the result they want.

After which, of course, the government will say something like "The people have spoken" and that no future referenda will be considered, at least not for a very long time. And that would happen even if the "Remain" vote were by a smaller margin than the previous "Leave" vote.

The leadership of all of the "Big Three" British parties is committed to remaining within the EU at any cost. They'll try any trick in the book to avoid withdrawal.

The Irish vote was about Treaty Change, not the same thing.

It's the same principle: Keep getting the people to vote, tempting them with a few minor concessions each time and increasing the propaganda until they give the "right" answer, then say "That's it, it's settled for all time."

 

[PBC_1966]

In case of a small majority either way, I wouldn't disagree with a re-run of the referendum

And what if the result of that second referendum were equally close, or closer? What if the two results were both extremely close but different - Would it really then come down to "the best of three" approach, even if the result of the third came out just as close one way or the other?

On another point, in the event of a Remain win, will the Eurosceptic MEPs resign and allow a by-election?

Why should they resign?

 

[rideforever]

He got a DEAL !
He got a DEAL !
He got a DEAL !

... oh yeah ... what ? He got nothing.

It's time to leave.
We want it, and Europe wants it.