UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

I have great sympathy for Scottish separatist, coming from a country that was also lumbered with their bigger brothers, but managed to get away just at the right time. Scotland, like Catalunya and others, weren't so lucky. Their bigger brother was bigger and more powerful, and the difference in population numbers in the two countries means Scotland will never have their voice democratically heard in any important policy decision. Not with deaf, dumb and blind tory government and an aging reactive populists English population running the show at any rate. Yes, the Scots had a choice, but they had the choice the tories made for them, a hard secession or nothing. A large majority in opinion polls before the Scottish referendum came out as wanting large scale devolution. But they were never given that choice, that was arguably closer to what all sides wanted than a hard secession. There is no surprise that Scottish people are outraged. They are stuck in a political situation where a liberal, pro EU, immigration friendly country and population is being dragged to the far right by their wildly more populous neighbour straight against their own political wishes. I'll add against the express statements of the UK government and the remain side that the UK would remain in the EU if the Scots voted to stay in the UK. In the perspective of lies and rigged questions and as long as these political issues aren't addressed or even cared about by the UK government, I have every understanding for every outburst, wish and opinion from a Scottish person re: the madness going on in England.

And, I'll add, even in these "post fact" times, so have I for every person who narrowly lost a referendum to the wildly FACTUALLY worse choice. Because you are not hindered, just because there has been a referendum to the contrary, to keep your opinion, to keep stating it, and to keep working to change in policy what FACTUALLY was a baaaaaaad decision.

The Scottish just have a lot more reasons to complain than the rest of you, imho

People made some bad choices in 2016, now is the time to start working to change them.

And why was it factually as bad decision Bluke? You put it is capitals so you must have some evidence worth putting in capitals too. I assume you are bearing in mind the majority who voted to stay in the UK and each reason as to why when you talk about it?

From you commentary you seem to be making some very contradictory points. Scotland lumbered with the UK? You don't think that is what those that thought voted out of the EU also thought about that big lump of bureaucracy?

To stress, I voted to stay in. Only arguing here because I feel people are making some stupid statements.

I'm sorry, this stuff makes me kind of angry, which might affect my tone. But Your question is an interesting one.

I would say that the fact that 50% of UK imports and exports going from and to the EU  makes the case simply enough. It has been falling With the economic crisis, but is still that high.

Some sources to further debate:

The long run

In this blog, we focus on two scenarios: WTO and WTO+. In both cases, the UK would have no free trade agreement with the EU, which seems to be the preferred option of the Leave campaign and of Economists for Brexit. In the WTO+ scenario, we also add a -5 per cent productivity shock, to capture some of the dynamic impacts of reduced openness on productivity.[1]  We base our estimates of the declines in EU market share and FDI, and the size of the productivity shock on the academic literature. We summarise these estimates, which feed into our modelling, in table 2.

In all scenarios, the reduction in demand for UK exports  leads to both declines in export prices and to a long-run and persistent depreciation of sterling to around parity with the euro, as shown in Figure 3 below. While the fall in sterling does allow export demand to rebound somewhat, this is still outweighed by the loss of access to EU markets, and total exports fall by between 21 per cent and 29 per cent compared with a world in which the UK remained in the EU (Table 3).

Not only is the UK projected to trade less if it leaves the EU, but we would also expect to benefit less from our remaining foreign trade. The reason is that a weaker pound would also lead to higher import prices, feeding through into higher prices faced by households. Lower prices for our exports, coupled with higher import prices, leads to a persistent deterioration in the terms of trade.

The losses in gains from trade after leaving the EU would reduce prosperity. In the longer run, our analysis suggests that leaving the EU would lower GDP by between 2.7 per cent and 7.8 per cent in 2030, compared with a world in which the UK voted to remain (Figure 4).

In addition, if consumers face higher import prices and a persistent deterioration in the terms of trade, we should see consumption fall by more than GDP. This is indeed what our analysis shows. By 2030, aggregate consumption is projected to fall by between 4.0 per cent and 9.2 per cent also compared with a world in which the UK remained in the EU. This would translate into declines in annual consumption per capita of between £900 and £2,000 (at 2012 prices, rounded) by 2030 (Figure 5).

In terms of labour markets, our analysis shows that the UK's flexible labour markets would ensure that unemployment would not be perceptibly higher by 2030 (Figure 6), but real wages would bear the brunt of the adjustment. By 2030, we estimate that real consumer wages would be between 4.6 per cent and 7.0 per cent lower outside the EU than they would be remaining in the EU.

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/long-and-short-it-what-price-uk-exit-eu

The economic effects of Brexit: the OECD’s estimate
Near-term effects

Our analysis looks at the effects of a decision to leave the EU over two horizons. From the moment of a Brexit vote until the arrangements for “divorce” are definitively settled -- years later -- there would be heightened economic uncertainty, with damaging consequences. Brexit would lead to a sell-off of assets and a sharp rise in risk premia. Consumer confidence would fall, as would business confidence and investment, thus holding back growth.
Were the United Kingdom to leave the EU, it would have to negotiate new trading relationships. Brexit would mean that the UK would not only give up full and automatic access to the Single Market, but would also lose the benefit of trade agreements covering 53 markets that it currently enjoys and which it helped shape.


Supporters of Brexit argue that the UK would actually achieve a more liberal trade regime outside the EU than it enjoys now. But this is a delusion. Bilateral and regional trade agreements take years to negotiate and absorb substantial energy and resources. The United Kingdom would be starting from scratch. The first priority would be to negotiate with the rest of the European Union, which accounts for nearly half of UK exports. Facing an embittered, freshly-rejected and much larger partner with an incentive to make exit costly, is not a good basis for a favourable outcome. Regarding non-EU trading partners, as President Obama reminded us last week, the UK on its own would not be exactly their top priority for negotiating trade deals or granting generous trade concessions. The rewards for potential partners would have considerably shrunk.


Taking into account the effects of heightened uncertainty and the less favourable trading environment while new arrangements are negotiated, we put the “Brexit tax” at some 2200 pounds per household by 2020.

 
Longer-term effects

Over the longer term, the supply side of the British economy would also be negatively affected by Brexit. Without full access to the Single Market, the lure of the UK, which currently receives the largest inflows of foreign direct investment in Europe, would wane. Some foreign businesses that set up here to access the European market could even decide to relocate. The same would apply to many British multinationals. The negative impact on net FDI would hit total investment, innovation and productivity and would also aggravate the adverse trade effects.


Bear in mind also that well over two million UK citizens benefit greatly from the freedom to live, work and study anywhere in the EU. These are some of the freedoms that we should not take for granted. This is a particularly relevant issue for those of who already see yourselves as British, Europeans and citizens of the world. That would be put in jeopardy by Brexit.


Less investment, reduced flows of goods and people, costlier credit and lower exposure to ideas and skills across borders would ultimately undermine productivity and the long-run economic capacity of the UK economy. We estimate that in a Brexit scenario, GDP per household in 2030 would be lower than the baseline by at least 3200 pounds and up to 5000 pounds in the most pessimistic case.


While no one knows precisely what the costs would be, what is striking about our estimates and those produced by most others is that all the numbers under a Brexit case are negative. The best outcome under Brexit is still worse than remaining an EU member, while the worst outcomes are very bad indeed. The Brexit tax just gets bigger. We see no economic upside for the UK whatsoever. The only question is where, on the spectrum of possible losses, the outcome winds up. The bigger question is why spend so much wealth, well-being, time, energy and talent in order to compensate the damage of a bad decision when you can simply avoid taking such decisions. Why spend so much effort trying to recover the benefits of membership in a club you don’t have to leave?


Some are invoking the question of the UK’s sovereignty. But they are invoking a false dichotomy. It is not about the UK being sovereign or not. All countries take decisions on whether to pool their sovereignty depending on the issues involved. The UK does this as a member of NATO, the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank, the ILO and ultimately the United Nations. Taken to the extreme, it would have to leave all these institutions in the quest for “sovereignty”.
In reality, the UK, like other countries, weighs the costs of membership against the benefits. Sovereignty is not lost. It is simply used wisely. As a part of the EU, the UK always retains the right to withdraw from the EU, but it leverages its sovereignty to shape a Europe more aligned with the interests of the United Kingdom itself. Such was the case of the deal struck by Prime Minister Cameron last February. If the UK chooses to give up the opportunity to help steer Europe in the right direction, it would be doing so at its own peril.

http://www.oecd.org/about/secretary-general/to-brexit-or-not-to-brexit-a-taxing-decision.htm

"In my opinion is is unlikely that prime minister May is actually going to remain in power. Already she has a very divided cabinet, a very small majority in parliament.And I think she will not last.

At the moment the people in the UK are in denial. The current economic situation is not as bad as was predicted, and they live in hope.But as the currency depreciates, and inflation will be the driving force, this will lead to declining living standards.

This is going to take some time, but when it does happen they’ll realise that they are earning less than before because wages won’t rise as fast as the cost of living.

The divorce is going to take a very long time. Its much harder to divorce than to get married, so I think the desire for rapprochement will develop, and in theory or maybe even in practice you could have a situation in 2019 or 2020 when Britain will leave the EU because it does have to take place, but they could leave on a Friday but join over the weekend and have the new arrangement in place in Monday morning."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/jan/19/davos-2017-theresa-may-addresses-the-world-economic-forum-business-live?page=with:block-5881261de4b0f0efb00f5e50#block-5881261de4b0f0efb00f5e50

"In summary, membership of the EU has boosted Britain’s trade and
investment. Far more trade in goods appears to have been created than
diverted; and while services integration has been slow, the UK has been
the largest benefi ciary of foreign direct investment from outside the
EU seeking a country within the single market as a base. But would a
British exit from the EU mean that these gains would be lost?"

https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/smc_final_report_june2014.pdf p. 27

"While it is impossible to know exactly what terms a departing Britain
could negotiate, it seems unlikely that all those trade gains would
disappear: Britain and the EU would probably negotiate an FTA, although
it is impossible to know how comprehensive it would be. But life would
be uncomfortable on the outside: the UK would be powerless to push for
liberalisation of EU services markets; it would fi nd that, in some sectors,
inward investors would switch their money to countries inside the EU;
and it would fi nd it very diffi cult to negotiate trade agreements with non-
EU countries as comprehensive as those that the EU regularly agrees.
The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is based on a series
of misconceptions: that a medium-sized, open economy could hold
sway in an increasingly fractured trading system, dominated by the US,
the EU and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to penetrate
emerging markets; and that foreign capital would be more attracted to
Britain’s economy if it were no longer a part of the single market."

p. 37-38

And that's without going onto the lies of the "leave campaign":

https://www.indy100.com/article/8-of-the-most-misleading-promises-of-the-vote-leave-campaign-ranked-in-order-of-preposterousness--WyxD59VO3Nb

and nearly half of the English population did NOT want to leave the EU, they were held captive by kippers. which stinks.

I must admit, even as a hardcore Remain voter my vote was more driven by fears over the economy and what the Tories could do with the EU Courts out of the way than any huge love for the EU or greater integration, although I've never really identified as European I wasn't convinced at all by any of the economic or political arguments for leaving, and I know of at least one person who didn't bother voting because he was similarly on the fence and viewed the vote as a giant waste of time and money that was largely driven by splits in the Tory party.

what this amounts to is you not getting your way in 2 votes.- Lance


{{I accepted both results-- I dont like either but I accept them.
Scotland is still part of the UK- I favour further devolution of powers now we are leaving the Eu- it makes no sense for fishing to go anywhere else but Scotland given we have over 90% of the fishing fleet and waters of the UK.
Agriculture similarly needs devolved now and we much greater control over taxation and benefits. And the moment the oil price returns to something profitable- and it will eventually- we need an oil fund immediately created whilst its still worth doing, but we don't have the legal power to create one as all oil revenue goes to the Treasury. That needs sorted too.

If you look back through the Freedom thread you will see I have been arguing Sturgeons case post both votes- which is working within the situation that exists and looking to improve and strengthen Scotland's democracy as we do so.

At this stage in the game a federal UK seems the most logical outcome to me rather than independence.

So I dont accept the idea I am just a sore loser- all my arguments are on the basis of the results of those two votes.

On the case of the Eu vote it simply beautifully highlights the heart of the issue for most Scots- the demographic deficit we face on all UK wide votes- so far its seen us saddled with Tory governments we never voted for ruling over us, and now leaving the EU which we overwhelmingly voted to stay in.
For most Scots the feeling is its not even worth voting on UK level events- its irrelevant- we just get what England wants regardless so whats the point of even bothering?

And its been further compounded by the growing gulf in politics between the two nations. Scotland has more and more been looking towards typical Scandinavian style north European social democracy, and England has been going ever further into isolationism and right wing rhetoric and policies. So its not even as if England do vote the other way we will just get some middle ground compromise- no we get the exact opposite, politically and socially of what we voted for.

And this has been building up for decades.

As to people thinking the Uk was going to leave the EU in 2014- very few took that prospect seriously then.
The government in fact didn't take it seriously at all which is why they took the line of attack that Scotland would be forced out the EU if we became independent and that the ONLY way to safeguard staying in was to vote NO. Now that was either a lie and they thought we were going to leave the EU, or more likely they were super confident it would never happen and so could make this argument (which obviously has since come back to haunt them as we did vote NO as a nation and we are being dragged out of the EU anyway as a result of it!)

"42% say they would either definitely or probably vote to stay in, against 36% who would probably or definitely vote to leave."- The Guardian, 2014


'you were being told by the EU itself yet Salmond somehow knew better that you would just be let in because..... well just because.'

No not just because.. because Scottish law and indeed the parliament is founded on the EU charters, our legal system is entirely compatible and has fully incorporated into EU law, we contribute to the EU funds of course, we have over 60% of the best locations for EU renewable energy particularly wave, and take us out and the EU actually fails to meet some of its environmental standards, and very importantly a huge swathe of the fishing waters in the north of Europe is ours, currently under the control of the EU which allows other memberstates to fish there. Oh and a democratic nation, already members would be voting to remain members- do you really think under those circumstances had they happened Scotland would not have got membership?

But the very important point is the SNP policy, as you point out with Salmond, was always to retain EU membership. So the government accusation at PMQ's the other day- that the SNP were the ones who would take Scotland out the EU- is a nonsense- and its unbelievably hypocritical from a government who told us vote NO is the ONLY way to remain members- then took us out of that membership.


'those 1m votes made a difference Petty'

Yes, they did. No denying that. But it was as I said before its a referendum that should never have happened as it was all about Tory backbench infighting in the face of political losses to UKIP not the national interest.
Two parties- UKIP and the Tories- with almost no presence in Scotland or in Scottish politics- especially then. Cameron only called the referendum as a means to silence is own dissenters, never thinking through the possibility people might actually vote to leave. As a solution to a party problem its probably one of the worst in British political history.
And as it something which, to solve an English based problem, risks every part of the UK, that makes it even worse as a solution to a temporary party problem. Rather than protecting the national interest- the very basic job of any government- Cameron risked it for purely short term political gain}}}

I think its fair that if the Scottish people want to remain in the EU they should be allowed to do so, while remaining part of the UK so they get the best of two worlds, its too risky leaving the UK because of fluctuating oil prices, and of course you voted to remain in the UK so it should be respected, but it is definitely not fair to impose leaving the EU on Scotland or Gibraltar or N. Ireland as they voted to stay and why should they suffer for Daily Mail reading kipper fools? and btw why should half the English population have to suffer it, when we know its lunacy.

{{A big problem for the government is the solution they are promising to NI (which will be out the EU and outside the Single Market)- that there will be no hard border with Southern Ireland (in the EU and in the Single Market) and trade between the two will continue as normal despite one being in one being out- that is exactly what the SNP propose, but in reverse, Scotland (stays in the single market), no hard border with England (out the EU and out the Single Market) and trade that way continues normally.

So far Westminster says no to that but yes to basically exactly the same thing in NI- that does not seem like a tenable argument to sustain to me as crunch point gets closer. }}

Will address Figgy first here. Scotland voted to stay part of the UK. This vote bound Scotland to being part of an overall democracy. They contribute ideas, arguments and eventually votes to the mix but whatever the overall result is, well that is how democracy works. I am not sure why the EU referendum is any different here. I want to stay part of the EU too... I think the right wing, populist movements are a big step back (as much as the EU needs a kick up the arse) but I have to respect the vote.

Petty- the whole 'SNP taking Scotland out' thing is because the EU chiefs themselves said that Scotland is not the recognised nation currently in the Union. If the UK succeeded then Scotland would need to reapply on its own. Given their current 'no negotiation' stance I imagine they probably wouldn't have spoken to you until after article 50 either.

And what I mean about ignoring the vote is the continuing support for this IndyRef2 that is being threatened every 5 minutes (the irony when compared to project fear accusstions). What the UK could do with is someone with Sturgeons character getting in to Westminster and work towards the collective good because we are all fed up with the current situation. Like the US election, what is the least worse choice when my vote counts? I haven't had the option of a choice I like yet!

Oh... as an aside. You will have seen some headlines suggesting banks are 'threatening' to move some operations to Europe.

The amount of bile I have seen from people since these announcements is crazy. If anyone here is in the 'I'll close my accounts then' or 'Loyal British workers don't want your jobs' camp.... please educate yourself on the situation and realise that if you are a Leave voter... this is what you voted for.

It is not a threat, it is a reality that banks have no choice about. They don't want to move those operations, and they are specific operations, but there is no choice.

That 300 million a week that we are apparently saving, well double that in the amount of tax receipts that will now not go to the treasury.

Well done!

is because the EU chiefs themselves said that Scotland is not the recognized nation currently in the Union- Lance

{{Some did. Just as Obama said if we vote to leave the EU we'd be at the back of the US trade deal queue. But now its happened, change of Pres, and apparently we are at the front of the queue!
Point is it was not put the test with Scotland- everything before that was words, many of them favours bought in by Westminster.
The SNP position was always to retain membership, and indeed to negotiate that membership during the period we'd have been negotiating independence from RUK- with the plan by the time we become independent our membership is already sorted so there is no break in continuity of membership. That was the plan.

Wether it would have worked is open to speculation- but that being the plan is not- that was it.
The only people who said we would leave were the NO side. The SNP and the opinion of the Scottish people has consistently been- we want to be members of the EU.

And that brings me neatly onto-

'the continuing support for this IndyRef2 that is being threatened every 5 minutes'

Firstly its not being threatened every 5 minutes. This one is clear as day and simple.

After the indie vote to stay the SNP were again standing for the Scottish Parliament.
I mentioned before that Cameron, in a line destined to haunt Westminster promised . "only a vote for the Union can guarantee that Scotland stays in the EU, it gave the SNP all they needed.
So in the SNP manifesto they stated the circumstances under which a 2nd referendum might be held- chief among them was a 'fundamental change in circumstances'- in other words if the deal we voted for- to stay in the UK and by doing so the EU- changed fundamentally then the people had a right to a say on that change of deal as it would not be the same club any more that what we voted to stay in.
In the manifesto they gave as the no1 example of what might constitute such a change- the UK leaving the EU against the wishes of the Scottish people.


Fast forward to the EU vote and the UK votes to leave, triggering the manifesto pledge the SNP made, hugely published at the time, and on which they were overwhelmingly voted back into power.

So they are on technical grounds well within their rights to say there is a case for a 2nd referendum- its what they promised, the exact change they cited needed to justify it has happened, and the people of Scotland voted for it.

But oddly enough, despite your 'every 5 minutes' claim the SNP have barely mentioned indie 2- it only comes up in interviews at the interviewers instigation- and in fact the people who talk most about it are the opposition parties who are, and have been for years, trying to desperately spin the line that the SNP are not taking care of domestic policy because they are obsessed with independence.
They are the ones who talk about all the time. Not the SNP.

You need only go look at the records form the Scottish Parliament to see that the subject, 90% of the time has only been raised by the opposition parties, not the SNP.
The best example of this was when the SNP set out their legislative program- it contained 43 domestic policies and  1 on independence- the one saying they were going to prepare draft legislation for a 2nd referendum.
The right wing dominated press and the opposition however cited this as evidence the SNP were obsessed with independence, only reported on that one small measure in the program and ignored the other 43 policies to do so, simply not reporting on them and banging the line that the SNP had taken their eye of the day to to day job to focus on independence. In short Lance, you've bought a press/opposition lie on this one- that everything the SNP do is related to independence. There is a simple way to prove this false- for the SNP to have won the elections they have they need the votes of NO voters not just YES voters- and they get them. Why? Because compared to everyone who has had a go so far, the SNP have run things domestically much better so far than anyone else has.


Lastly if you'd followed my comments on the Freedom thread you will see that I am completely onboard with how Sturgeon has used the 2nd referendum- which is as a stick to bargain with.
Post EU Sturgeon is aiming to get a lot- control of immigration, retaining membership of the single market, control of agriculture and fisheries, full control of benefits and a raft of other stuff. Without the threat of a 2nd referendum she has nothing to negotiate with.

Heres what Brian Taylor the BBC's excellent Scottish politics editor says on the 2nd referendum- 'At this stage, the threat or promise of another vote (depending on your point of view) is being used as a lever to try and secure such a deal.'

How it will play out depends a lot on Westminster and what they offer the Scottish government out of the Brexit deal. But Sturgeon is doing exactly what she was elected to do- represent the Scottish people who voted to stay in, protect Scottish interests in any deal by making Scottish based proposals (the SNP have already done this and sent their list of proposals to Westminster) and by yes threatening another referendum as a means to secure she (and therefore Scotland's voice) is heard and listened to in the negotiations. }}}

Lance, Scotland voted to stay in the EU so why should they be forced out? it doesn't make much sense, if Scotland had voted to leave the EU and Sturgeon kicked up a stink that would be a different matter, but I personally think there are distinct advantages for the UK to have a partner still in the EU, even if its only Scotland because for example, any business that was facing extinction in England due to leaving could, maybe in theory, move to Scotland which would be far more convenient than having to move to continental Europe.

{{So the English Courts have ruled- Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 can be invoked- wont change anything but its right nonetheless that the democratic process here is respected so glad about that.

Less glad on their decision regards the rights of the devolved administrations input.

This is slightly complicated as it involves the Sewel Convention.

The Sewel Convention was something written into the devolved Scottish settlement- the idea behind it is to give the devolved Parliaments a say when Westminster puts through legislation not directly involving the devolved admin but which will nevertheless have a profound effect upon them.


"during the passage of the Scotland Act, the UK Government announced that it "would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament." (In this context 'devolved matters' does not refer just to matters that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and could, therefore, potentially be included within an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It additionally is taken to refer to matters which, although reserved, affect the breadth of the devolved institutions' powers"- govt website on the Sewel Convention.

Now the reason the Court did not uphold the EU vote as fulfilling the criteria is, as far as I can tell, because the Court does not regard the Convention as legally binding (Blue your input would be appreciated on the legal definitions here)-

"The judges unanimously rejected Mr Wolffe's (Scottish Parliament lawyer) arguments, saying that the principle of legislative consent "does not give rise to a legally enforceable obligation".
They said the Sewel Convention, which provides that Holyrood should be consulted where Westminster legislation cuts across devolved areas, plays "an important role in the operation of the UK constitution", but is not a matter for the courts."

'Not a matter for the courts' and not 'legally enforceable."

In short what the Court seems to have said is that the Sewel Convention which it claims plays '"an important role in the ....UK constitution" isn't in fact worth jack shit.

A point quickly picked up on by the SNP- "It is now crystal clear that the promises made to Scotland by the UK government about the Sewel Convention and the importance of embedding it in statute were not worth the paper they were written on."

This is more serious than it might at first seem- there is already a sense that all the talk about Scotland as equal partners ect in the referendum debates, and the inclusion of stuff like the Sewel Convention that are meant to give us that voice- were in fact lies and a stitch-up.
This court decision seems to have exposed Sewel at least as a busted flush not worth anything when it comes to crunch time and in fact we still don't have an equal voice even on matters which we voted against, and which clearly have a huge effect on domestic Scottish policy.

In the end I think if we do go independent, it will not be nationalism, it will not be dislike of the English, it wont be major social differences between the two nations, it will be the simple fact its the only way we can have a democracy in which our votes and voices count for anything at all- that democratic deficit, which Westminster seems intent on widening at every turn, will in the and I believe be the deciding factor.}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{So the English Courts have ruled- Parliament must be consulted before Article 50 can be invoked- wont change anything but its right nonetheless that the democratic process here is respected so glad about that.

}}}

So can you explain how the mechanics of this will work?  Does this mean that Parliament will need to pass legislation, and will each MP have to take a public position? Is it likely to be a yes/no authorization or will parliament be able to add language that will influence the Brexit process?

This could be very interesting! Need more popcorn!!!    

Does this mean that Parliament will need to pass legislation- David

{{Yes- the government will put a paper before the House to debate and vote on.
All expectations are the paper will be as simple as possible and give as little wiggle room as possible to the opposition. Something which basically simply lets Parliament vote giving the government authority to trigger article 50.

My predictions are-
The SNP will definitely table amendments to it and so too will the Liberal Democrats, Labour may too but hard to tell under Corbyn.
All of which will most likely be rejected.
Then finally a vote will be taken- the bulk of Tories and Labour will vote for- the SNP and Lib Dems against and the government will carry it with ease overall.

This isn't really something which is likely to change any outcomes- its more a point of who has power- the Commons or the PM. And the Courts have decided power rests with the Commons not the PM. So whilst it wont change anything it was a very important constitutional matter to resolve.}}}

Interesting constitutional case certainly. Now it's up to each MP to vote and act With their conscience. The margin of victory in the brexit vote was narrow, and there can be raised several Points questioning its Level of legitimacy and whether it should automatically have mandatory nature. Is brexit actually a good idea? These are the issues that must be raised and debated in the commons, it will still pass, but it is important that this debate and these points are raised and that politicains and society at large reflect on them.

It'll probably not Reach the Level of interfering with the result. The one chance would be the House of Lords potentially substantially prolonging the process.

With the mess the Tories are making of this, and many other things, you can question whether they'll be in power by 2020. Someone raised the point that the Uk might trigger article 50, seceding, and then immidiately apply for reintroduction.

Time will tell. But at least there will be more of a democratic process post referendum now.

Mrs Figg wrote:Lance, Scotland voted to stay in the EU so why should they be forced out? it doesn't make much sense, if Scotland had voted to leave the EU and Sturgeon kicked up a stink that would be a different matter, but I personally think there are distinct advantages for the UK to have a partner still in the EU, even if its only Scotland because for example, any business that was facing extinction in England due to leaving could, maybe in theory, move to Scotland which would be far more convenient than having to move to continental Europe.

I voted to stay in the EU so does that mean I can? What about London? Does that stay in? Do the 1 millions leavers in Scotland get to come out?

A good friend takes the car keys off a friend if they know they are too drunk to drive.
- Thomas Friedman on Newsnight

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/24/remoaner-article-50-brexit-labour?

I voted to stay in the EU so does that mean I can? What about London?- Lance

{{{No. You or London are not a country. That's the difference. The UK is a contract between three countries, 1 principality and a bunch of Territories left over from Empire days like the Falklands and Gibraltar.
As 1 of those countries, and one who was told they were an equal partner, we have right to a say as a nation. If we don't have a right to a say then we are well within our rights to reconsider the contract that is UK membership. }}}}}


{{{In other news- Labour are putting forth 4 amendments- one which should pass and be trouble for the government- they are proposing the Government must put a detailed white paper (final stage of a bill) before the House at the end of the process before the final decision is taken- that's backed by the SNP, Lib Dems, and some Tory backbenchers who are remainers and has a good chance of passing.
The SNP are tabling 50 amendments with the backing of the other devolved parliaments- as they nearly all concern points to do with the devolved parliaments getting more of a say in the process. }}}

Well, if the Labour one passes, all the much the better. Good. That's how democracy should look like.

the White paper is a sop, wont change a damned thing, just hope the Lords put a spanner in the works. Labour have caved in. Who is looking after the 48%? no one that's who. if only the 2nd ref could happen before we pull the trigger.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I voted to stay in the EU so does that mean I can? What about London?- Lance

{{{No. You or London are not a country. That's the difference. The UK is a contract between three countries, 1 principality and a bunch of Territories left over from Empire days like the Falklands and Gibraltar.
As 1 of those countries, and one who was told they were an equal partner, we have right to a say as a nation. If we don't have a right to a say then we are well within our rights to reconsider the contract that is UK membership. }}}}}

The question was for the U.K. not Scotland (which, again, voted to stay part of the U.K.) You had the right to say whether the U.K. stays part of the EU. You didn't have the right to say if Scotland did so. The Scottish people gave that up when you decided you would stay part of the U.K.

I don't think its fair that devolved parliaments don't get a say on this. its a stitch up.

The question was for the U.K. not Scotland- Lance

{{Indeed and if you take the result based on how many constituent parts of the UK voted to leave or stay, rather than just whose got most folk living there- the UK voted to remain by 3 to 2 (Scotland, NI, Gibraltar v England/Wales) So it depends on how you count the UK- by population or by country/principality. We are all supposed to be politically equal to each other after-all.
And if you have a partnership of 5 nations, and 3 of them don't want to do a thing- then if the other 2 are going to enforce it on the other 3 then they have to work with the other 3, respect their choices too and make compromises- that's supposed to be how a Union of equal partners works- not dictation by one member.
But May is going about it by cutting the devolved governments out of the negotiations all together- rejecting out of hand and without serious consideration numerous compromises and proposals put forward by the devolved admins and to simply ignore the fact those countries of the UK voted to remain and given no concessions towards them.
In my view this is an approach will lead to resentment, a furthering of the sense no one but England's voice matters in the Union and a further erosion of our sense of democracy or that the Union works politically.}}}