2 ms·

> had Brexit actually been ... Hindsight is 20/20; but this was Cameron's major oversight. The referendum should've been "more or less EU", not "yes or no EU".

by Beldin 4y ago

> had Brexit actually been ... Hindsight is 20/20; but this was Cameron's major oversight. The referendum should've been "more or less EU", not "yes or no EU". He would've gotten a very strong mandate for less and the EU would've been forced to accommodate. (They wouldn't want to risk losing the UK.) Alas.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
This seems counterfactual. The EU was fine losing the UK. They may not have wanted it, but nobody broke down in tears over it.
- Beldin 4y ago
  The UK already had exceptional status on various rules - they were more a half-member than a full member. So clearly, the EU already cared enough to make exceptions. The Brexit vote was different: the UK government chose[1] to interpret its results as a requirement to leave the EU. That's not something an outsider can upend without interfering in the day-to-day governance of the state. And no member state wants the EU to interfere with its sovereignty on that level. So the only possible outcome was acceptance. On the other hand, had Cameron gone to the EU with a 90% "less EU" mandate in hand, the EU would either have to accede or kick the UK out. Kicking out a member state... pfffft. I would guess it can be vetoed by any member state - or at least any other (not being kicked out) member state. And some would - their EU track record is such that they could be next. Basically, the EU had no choice whilst respecting sovereignty of Member States. A less/more vote would have put the onus of kicking out a member on the EU, something I don't see the member states reaching a unanimous decision on. Which would leave negotiation.
native_samples 4y ago
The referendum was set up that way specifically because Cameron felt he couldn't lose such an "extreme" choice, and then when people voted for less EU - as they always do in every country - the question would be sufficiently vague that it could have been ignored. As it always is. The binary choice was really quite a stroke of luck because it made it impossible for the government to pretend the decision had been implemented when it hadn't been, despite obviously being desperate to do so. As for the EU being "forced" to accommodate, that tactic was also tried. That was Cameron's pre-referendum negotiations. It was a total failure, he was rebuffed on everything and hardly talked about his supposedly great deal after he returned because it was clear to all that the EU had compromised on nothing. Both during the process and after it, the EU's position was always the same and boiled down to "we don't care what voters think, you obey entirely or quit and accept that we'll blank you from then on".
- Beldin 4y ago
  > The binary choice was really quite a stroke of luck because it made it impossible for the government to pretend the decision had been implemented when it hadn't been, despite obviously being desperate to do so. I believe there was a referendum in Wales on more independence, with a stronger result (60+% in favor), which was basically ignored. (That is: much handwringing and discussion whether the mandate was clear enough). There was a link with Theresa May - she may have been in Welsh parliament. Could be this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Welsh_devolution_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Welsh_devolution_refere... If that recollection is roughly correct, political implications of the Brexit result would be "whatever suits you best".

by Beldin 4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

This seems counterfactual. The EU was fine losing the UK. They may not have wanted it, but nobody broke down in tears over it.

Beldin 4y ago
The UK already had exceptional status on various rules - they were more a half-member than a full member. So clearly, the EU already cared enough to make exceptions. The Brexit vote was different: the UK government chose[1] to interpret its results as a requirement to leave the EU. That's not something an outsider can upend without interfering in the day-to-day governance of the state. And no member state wants the EU to interfere with its sovereignty on that level. So the only possible outcome was acceptance. On the other hand, had Cameron gone to the EU with a 90% "less EU" mandate in hand, the EU would either have to accede or kick the UK out. Kicking out a member state... pfffft. I would guess it can be vetoed by any member state - or at least any other (not being kicked out) member state. And some would - their EU track record is such that they could be next. Basically, the EU had no choice whilst respecting sovereignty of Member States. A less/more vote would have put the onus of kicking out a member on the EU, something I don't see the member states reaching a unanimous decision on. Which would leave negotiation.

native_samples 4y ago

The referendum was set up that way specifically because Cameron felt he couldn't lose such an "extreme" choice, and then when people voted for less EU - as they always do in every country - the question would be sufficiently vague that it could have been ignored. As it always is. The binary choice was really quite a stroke of luck because it made it impossible for the government to pretend the decision had been implemented when it hadn't been, despite obviously being desperate to do so. As for the EU being "forced" to accommodate, that tactic was also tried. That was Cameron's pre-referendum negotiations. It was a total failure, he was rebuffed on everything and hardly talked about his supposedly great deal after he returned because it was clear to all that the EU had compromised on nothing. Both during the process and after it, the EU's position was always the same and boiled down to "we don't care what voters think, you obey entirely or quit and accept that we'll blank you from then on".

Beldin 4y ago
> The binary choice was really quite a stroke of luck because it made it impossible for the government to pretend the decision had been implemented when it hadn't been, despite obviously being desperate to do so. I believe there was a referendum in Wales on more independence, with a stronger result (60+% in favor), which was basically ignored. (That is: much handwringing and discussion whether the mandate was clear enough). There was a link with Theresa May - she may have been in Welsh parliament. Could be this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Welsh_devolution_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Welsh_devolution_refere... If that recollection is roughly correct, political implications of the Brexit result would be "whatever suits you best".