|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Move to reverse or negate the referendum decision.
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Someone just uploaded this flowchart allegedly by Credit Suisse to twitter.
Spot what's missing? Article 50.
B62, I very much doubt that a public announcement of "no talks about talks" means there are none, even if only back-channel talks. But it is reasonable for call in public for the formal process to move forward. Weeks or months, perhaps, but I still can't see everyone waiting until September 2 for Article 50.
Croesos, I think a really good leader could take the job nobody wants and turn it into a truly great achievement. The problem is finding a candidate with the available calibre.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Spot what's missing? Article 50.
B62, I very much doubt that a public announcement of "no talks about talks" means there are none, even if only back-channel talks. But it is reasonable for call in public for the formal process to move forward. Weeks or months, perhaps, but I still can't see everyone waiting until September 2 for Article 50.
The more I think about this, the more I'm wondering if actually the British are playing a stronger hand than it appears at first. Yes, there are economic ruptures in the UK, but these are being felt in the EU, in Japan and the USA and everywhere else.
If it is true that the EU economy is inherently unstable then the British might actually be well to bide their time and see how much pain the EU can take because there is nothing anyone else can do about Article 50.
Which is a dangerous strategy, but I suppose it is possible that in time the markets would recognise a decisive British position (even if the decision was not to decide until they're damn well ready to decide) and stabilise.
I don't know enough about economics to know if that's true or whether the British economy would survive longer than the Eurozone economy given that the latter has some countries which are very near to being broke to deal with. I wonder how well Greece is coping with the extra shocks of Brexit, for example.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Seems increasingly possible that the brexiteers will not be able (with the support of the remainers not being willing to try very hard) to produce acceptable terms: thus a referendum to vote on the terms and, hey presto, the brexiteer public who woke up to find they had made a mistake will be able to vote with the remainers (who always knew they were right) to stay… hope so, anyway.
Yep, that's the way to go - at least if you believe what you read in the papers:
fightback-against-brexit-on-cards
stop brexit
I've written to my MP urging him to support a general election or 2nd referendum based on a coherent plan.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Just how do you think that will play
a) with the Leave voters (yes I know everyone's been posting comments from the Bregretters, but that's not all 17 million of them)
b) with the EU-27?
Whatever happens now, the UK is already in a far worse bargaining position with the (rest of the) EU than it was before Thursday. Telling the (rest of the) EU that it's basically been having a domestic identity crisis at the EU's expense these past few days is not going to go down well.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
the Leave voters (yes I know everyone's been posting comments from the Bregretters, but that's not all 17 million of them)
Idle Googling led me here, which suggests that when you take into account people changing their minds on both sides, Leave still comes out ahead.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Telling the (rest of the) EU that it's basically been having a domestic identity crisis at the EU's expense these past few days is not going to go down well.
It's also not likely to resolve the crisis of confidence investors are already feeling towards future dealings in the UK. Suddenly switching back to "Remain" will not be regarded as credible since in implies an equal ease with which switching back once again to "Leave" could be accomplished. Investors may be willing to do business with a UK outside the EU, but what they really hate is uncertainty.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Until article 50 is triggered, there is no Brexit, whatever anyone thinks. Until that happens, all we have is a bunch of politicians playing bullshit games.
I really don't think we do.
...
It's unrealistic to expect everyone in the EU-27 to work on the hypothesis that the UK will somehow trample all over the expressed wish of its people, however much the referendum, question and campaigns sucked, or wait until the politicians have done all the paperwork.
And yet even if all those people give up on the UK, if the UK doesn't pull out, in a couple years they'll be back or people like them. New students new, or the same companies, etc. If the UK does pull back then none of those people come back at all. That doesn't make hurrying up and leaving an obviously better proposition for the UK in my eyes.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It wouldn't be the first time that the EU has accepted a re-run of a referendum would it? And I think that give that the UK is a net contributor and the world's sixth biggest economy might incline people to be a little bit forgiving.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Note the date: I agree with Croesos ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I've written to my MP urging him to support a general election or 2nd referendum based on a coherent plan.
Although the referendum result isn't binding on parliament, I couldn't accept parliament just setting it aside, with or without a general election. That shows utter contempt for democracy. Another example of the political elite thinking they know better than the people. I would be perfectly happy in trying to reverse the vote in a new referendum, but it would have to be based on what HS has called a coherent plan. I don't think it's worth doing unless there is something new to offer, otherwise it's by no means certain that it would produce a different result.
Misguided though many us us feel it to be, it was fear of uncontrollable immigration, often in Labour heartlands, which tipped the vote in favour of Brexit. But it is absolutely clear that in any future negotiations with the EU, access to the single market can't be achieved without the acceptance of free movement. We could probably get a deal as good as Norway, but they still pay into the EU budget and accept free movement. Although this was always obvious, the Remain campaign should have stressed this point rather than talking in apocalyptic terms about a third world war.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
a) with the Leave voters (yes I know everyone's been posting comments from the Bregretters, but that's not all 17 million of them)
If a clear majority of the country (not another 52-48 split) were to switch allegiance, it doesn't matter how it would go down with the Leave voters.
Of course they'd be angry, and would feel that they almost had their way and were robbed at the last minute. But if there was a convincing majority in favour of remain, then it doesn't matter what the Leavers think. This isn't a game - it's real life, and people are allowed to change their minds. There's no rule that says you have to play a piece just because you touched it.
But it would have to be a convincing majority, and I don't expect that to happen.
quote:
b) with the EU-27?
Badly.
If the UK changes its mind before invoking article 50, it remains in the EU and there's nothing the EU can do about it. But the influence of the UK in the EU will now be basically zero (well, maybe the Polish might still talk to us every now and then).
quote:
Whatever happens now, the UK is already in a far worse bargaining position with the (rest of the) EU than it was before Thursday.
I think if you're a Brexit believer, this isn't true in a meaningful sense. Before the referendum, Cameron went to the EU, laid his cards on the table and basically said "I need something to convince my country to stay in the EU", and what he got was basically meaningless platitudes.
The rational part of Brexitland thinks that it an get a trade deal that is better for the UK than being an EU member. This isn't impossible, depending on your point of view.
It is clear that the EU isn't going to offer the UK more benefits for less cost. The question is whether some kind of partial agreement would suit both parties better, and the answer could well be yes.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
I think we might need a total political realignment.
In the General Election which I expect to see quite soon, I would like there to be parties (which might not be the same parties that we have at the moment) which express a clear view on what direction we should take now:
* Brexit-lite (Norway option)
* Brexit-medium (maybe like Switzerland)
* Brexit-plus (as separate as USA)
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
Talks are taking place behind closed doors and we have absolutely no idea who is saying what to whom. Is it not conceivable that Cameron et al are making it clear to EU leaders that they have a cunning plan to remain?
The UK has been guilty of messing with the EU. But in spite of this, to some it might appear to be a failure of the EU as an organisation if a member wishes to leave. So perhaps there might be more tolerance by the EU towards UK than we might think (or deserve).
Just a thought - wishful thinking probably. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I've written to my MP urging him to support a general election or 2nd referendum based on a coherent plan.
Although the referendum result isn't binding on parliament, I couldn't accept parliament just setting it aside, with or without a general election. That shows utter contempt for democracy.
But it wouldn't mean setting aside the vote - that's the beauty. Take seriously the fact that the people have voted against the EU. Build a plan for what the exit deal could look like. Will it include zero immigration? (no). Will it include 350 million a week for our NHS? (no). Will it include continued subsidies for farmers? (perhaps). Will it include continued support for disadvantaged communities? (it needs to). Will it involve free access to the European market? (no). Etc.
Once we know what we voting for, not what we're voting against, then we should be asked to vote.
The people have not spoken yet. They have simply blown a raspberry.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Perhaps you should first seek a referendum on whether the campaign arguments and promises on both sides prior to the real, actual, honest-to-goodness-this-one-counts second referendum* are "legal, decent, honest, and truthful". ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
*Errors, omissions, and unfavourable results excepted.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think we might need a total political realignment.
In the General Election which I expect to see quite soon, I would like there to be parties (which might not be the same parties that we have at the moment) which express a clear view on what direction we should take now:
* Brexit-lite (Norway option)
* Brexit-medium (maybe like Switzerland)
* Brexit-plus (as separate as USA)
Such a party political realignment would, of course, be a total disaster. Yes, EU-UK relations and the form that takes is a vital issue that needs to be resolved. But, it is just one issue. Parties based around different forms of that relationship are unlikely to have much else in common, so one of them is going to form a totally useless government with no agreement on domestic policies - and, for many people, how the NHS is run is probably more important for many. As is the state of our schools, being able to walk the streets safe etc.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps you should first seek a referendum on whether the campaign arguments and promises on both sides prior to the real, actual, honest-to-goodness-this-one-counts second referendum* are "legal, decent, honest, and truthful".
*Errors, omissions, and unfavourable results excepted.
But you'd have to have a referendum on that referendum concerning the new referendum first, surely?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I've written to my MP urging him to support a general election or 2nd referendum based on a coherent plan.
Although the referendum result isn't binding on parliament, I couldn't accept parliament just setting it aside, with or without a general election. That shows utter contempt for democracy.
But it wouldn't mean setting aside the vote - that's the beauty. Take seriously the fact that the people have voted against the EU. Build a plan for what the exit deal could look like. Will it include zero immigration? (no). Will it include 350 million a week for our NHS? (no). Will it include continued subsidies for farmers? (perhaps). Will it include continued support for disadvantaged communities? (it needs to). Will it involve free access to the European market? (no). Etc.
Once we know what we voting for, not what we're voting against, then we should be asked to vote.
And if, during the second Referendum, one or both of the sides puts forth further false claims or inapplicable promises that don't get properly refuted(by someone's standards, anyway), are you going to set aside THOSE results as well, on the grounds that the public once again wasn't making an informed decision?
The Second Referendum crowd make it sound as if the Brexit vote was unique in terms of dodgy statements being made to mislead the public. It wasn't. That happens in almost every election or referendum that takes place, and it's considered the duty of voters to use discernment in evaluating the various platforms. If they don't do that, well, that's unfortunate, but it's usually not considered sufficient grounds for re-holding the vote.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Although the referendum result isn't binding on parliament, I couldn't accept parliament just setting it aside, with or without a general election. That shows utter contempt for democracy. Another example of the political elite thinking they know better than the people.
It's debatable as to whether a 52-48 result gives a clear indication of the will of the people in any unambiguous way. For a sudden, disruptive, and irreversible change to a longstanding status quo (like the Brexit) I'd personally prefer some kind of supermajority standard (>60%, for instance) so that the result is definitive, rather than subject to schizophrenic wobbling back and forth due to the shifting opinion of a public largely in equipoise.
Or a supermajority requirement could be approached from a practical standpoint. Noting that an important issue in the recent Scottish independence referendum was retaining EU membership and proceeding from the premise that maintaining the integrity of the UK is more important than either leaving or remaining in the EU, a standard could have been adopted that Leave wins only by carrying majorities in each of the four constituent members of the UK. Given the UK's largely unwritten constitution all kinds of options were available.
But the most destructive choice would be to change the standard post facto to achieve a predetermined preferred result. There was nothing that said Cameron had to use a simple majority vote of 50% + 1 for the Brexit (or hold a referendum on the subject at all!) but having made that decision the UK is stuck with it and all its attendant consequences.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It's another example of the stupidity of the whole damn thing that it wasn't set up in an unambiguous way. Most constitutional changes to charities and businesses require a 2/3 vote and a quorum to pass, maybe over two successive meetings. Cameron continues to shine as a beacon of chutzpah and a demonstration of how not to do things. And having got us into this mess his solution is to resign and wash his hands of any consequences.
Please can we just accept we're in this mess and rather than concentrate on ways of undoing what is done, use that energy to focus on how to move forward?
[ 28. June 2016, 05:27: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Please can we just accept we're in this mess and rather than concentrate on ways of undoing what is done, use that energy to focus on how to move forward?
I have sympathy with this, however I think it is important to try exhaust all legal ways to prevent it. Moving forward is a tricky concept when the only way Scotland could be Brexited would be by the will of the English over-and-above the will of the Scottish people.
Hence there needs to be some kind of resolution.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Please can we just accept we're in this mess and rather than concentrate on ways of undoing what is done, use that energy to focus on how to move forward?
It still begs the question, "move onto where?" If there had been a defined description of what position relative to the EU the Leave campaign wanted to try to obtain then wed simply get on with moving towards it. But, there wasn't. We still need to find out who from the Leave campaign will be leading us forward, and where they want to lead us. At that point we will know what question we were asked on Thursday, and where we are going. Until then we're just milling around with no where to go.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
That was pretty much implicit in my desire to focus on going forward, a plan for how we exit, rather than trying to find ways to negate the vote.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The question is, to what extent can we contribute to defining that way forward? Especially those of us who chose to Remain, for whom any option other than staying in the EU is a disaster, what can we contribute when we're now faced with a range of options we don't want, all of which are hugely problematic.
Get specific, how do I contribute to that debate when what I want to say is that any solution should include free movement of labour and unlimited migration between the UK and the EU? Or, that we need a central bureaucratic structure to coordinate standards, a central policy and administration on fisheries, environment, and a host of other trans-national issues. And, a central fund for research and development across Europe. Where does a Europhile who would have prefered to be in a situation where the UK is in the Eurozone and Schengen ahead of where we were at the start of last week fit into a national debate to take the country in what to the depth of my bones is the wrong direction?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm very out of touch with UK party politics, but I think this makes Theresa May a good candidate to replace Cameron. Wikipedia tells me she's "a Eurosceptic but campaigned for the Remain campaign in the 2016 EU referendum". That puts her in a position to take Remain's lumps and work in line with her ideals to lead a position outside the EU.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the two short listed candidates are likely to be May and Bojo. And May may attract grassroots support because of her loyalty, despite her Euroscepticism. Boris as a party unifier is a bit of a joke, really. Very different circumstances, but post-Thatcher, the party didn't go for Hezza, despite his barnstorming. Maybe they would have, if the election rules had been different?
We live in surprising times, so I'm prepared to hear that a wild card turns up. I'm Labour, as is well known, but given the current shambles in my party, I'm more than a little interested in who the Tory Party chooses.
Anyone, but Bojo, PLEASE! I think he'd be a complete disaster.
On the thread topic (!), I think opinion is shifting rapidly as the real consequences unfold. Anything that looks like a "fiddle" isn't going to run. But a General Election which showed public regret and a change of heart would not be a fiddle. Particularly if it happened in the early stages of Brexit negotations.
A genuine national repentance might make a difference. Things cannot be the same, there has been too much damage for that. But it might be possible to repair and restore relationships, recover some good will. It's a very long shot, but I guess under those circumstances the exit process could be abandoned.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beenster
Shipmate
# 242
|
Posted
Just watching Jeremy Kyle. Sad to say that he models reconciliation but happily I don't think he is a contender.
Posts: 1885 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
Just watching Jeremy Kyle. Sad to say that he models reconciliation but happily I don't think he is a contender.
Jeremy Kyle for PM. That'd be something.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the thread topic (!), I think opinion is shifting rapidly as the real consequences unfold.
Maybe, but I'm wary of confirmation bias.
From the 24-25th June Post-Brexit Poll Eutychus mentioned earlier, with a sample of 1033 people:
- 7.1% of Leave voters and 4.4% of Remain voters regret their vote.
- Responders are pessimistic about the effects of Brexit on their income, tax and pension, but not employment.
- "If the European Union offers further concessions to the UK regarding its membership, should there be a second referendum?" [No 47.1%, yes 41.0%.]
- "If the European Union agreed to exempt the UK from the free movement of people, how would you vote if there was a second referendum?" [Remain 49.1%, leave 37.4%]
- Was Cameron right to call the referendum? [Yes 55.1%, no 33.9%]
- Was Boris Johnson primarily motivated to join the Leave campaign by the good of the country or the desire to become PM? [36.0% for the good of the country; 38.3% to become PM]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That was pretty much implicit in my desire to focus on going forward, a plan for how we exit, rather than trying to find ways to negate the vote.
The thing is how we exit is going to be as divisive as whether we exit Broadly speaking supporters of Leave, like Gaul, can be divided into three parts.
The first part are those who supported Lexit, the people who opposed the EU on allegedly left-wing grounds. We can disregard them on the grounds that their opinions are neither salient or relevant. People who voted a coalition of turbo-capitalists and angry nativists as a road to socialism score ten out of ten for boldness, from which, I fear, we must subtract several million for good judgement. Whilst we, on the remain side, peer at our enemies through a fog of mutual suspicion and distrust we can, like Tommiy and Fritz on Christmas Day 1914 come together in the shared appreciation of the fact that Giles Fraser is a bit of a pratt.
Our serious enemies are the angry nativists for whom this was a vote to reduced immigration to the 10s of thousands and the turbo-capitalists for whom this was a vote to make Britain a kind of libertarian tax haven off the coast of Europe. If you think of this as a kind of peasants revolt led by romantic aristocrats then the guys on horseback with the flowing locks are Boris, Gove and co. and the guys with pitchforks and torches are the people who want to get rid of the ethnics. Like many peasant revolts they have scored a striking early success. They have decapitated a royal official (Mr Cameron) and scattered the loyalist garrison (The rest of us) and they are now marching on the Keep of Queen Angela to present their demands. Unfortunately for them, wicked Queen Angela has the economic equivalent of cannon. They have two choices. They can have access to the single market and accept the principle of free movement whilst being outside the juridical structure of the EU in part or they can have restrictions on freedom of movement and trade with the EU on WTO terms. This presents the turbo-capitalists with a dilemma. Do they say "fie upon thee, base Queen, we have pledged our word to these good men and true and will stand by them no matter the costs. We shall have no ethnics in our free realm". Or do they say "sorry chaps, whilst we might have given you the impression that we would end free movement there was nothing about it on the ballot paper Caveat Emptor as we say at Eton. When I say this is a dilemma, I exaggerate somewhat. There is very little in the career of Boris Johnson that indicates that he would have scruples about betraying working class voters in order to keep the City of London in the style to which they have become accustomed. So frankly the vox populi is going to be set aside one way or another, anyway. Those of us who want to see it put aside by remain merely have the virtue of greater candour.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
The Second Referendum crowd make it sound as if the Brexit vote was unique in terms of dodgy statements being made to mislead the public. It wasn't. That happens in almost every election or referendum that takes place, and it's considered the duty of voters to use discernment in evaluating the various platforms. If they don't do that, well, that's unfortunate, but it's usually not considered sufficient grounds for re-holding the vote.
Except, unlike in an election, there isn't a chance to have another go in 4-5 years time...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Maybe in 40 or 50 years' time.
[ 28. June 2016, 12:06: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I exaggerate somewhat. There is very little in the career of Boris Johnson that indicates that he would have scruples about betraying working class voters in order to keep the City of London in the style to which they have become accustomed. So frankly the vox populi is going to be set aside one way or another, anyway. Those of us who want to see it put aside by remain merely have the virtue of greater candour.
Except it looks like Johnson is back-peddling furiously with various Leave MPs in order to pick up support for his leadership bid.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I like it Callan, but, are you, chris stiles, inferring that BoJo will go with politics rather than economics? I thought so initially. The marginal people that will keep him in power are those against the EU free mobility of labour. But 'ang on, they've got what they want. Why should Boris take any notice of them? He MUST let the City let rip. Introduce an Australian points based immigration system. The leavers will pay ANY price, so membership of the Single Market is irrelevant. They've wiped over a trillion dollars off world markets. The value of the pound and our credit rating are nowt to them. Food price inflation? Dah. It's win-win for Boris. Ignore the adoring multi-racial working class, while in their magnanimous victory they persecute Poles, Balts and Romanians, and make money for the elite. London can have its cosmopolitan cake AND eat it. What a wonderful world. You know it makes sense.
Who needs Satan?
[ 28. June 2016, 15:05: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Wee...ee..ee..ll, what if Labour & LDs completely self-destruct (looking quite likely ATM) and UKIP (or worse) become the opposition? Then PM Boris might feel compelled to pull up the drawbridge in order to avoid future PM Farage (or worse).
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He MUST let the City let rip. Introduce an Australian points based immigration system. The leavers will pay ANY price, so membership of the Single Market is irrelevant.
But yesterday Boris was suggesting that preserving access to the single market was a higher priority than controlling immigration. I've always believed that fear of immigration from the EU is misguided, but it was the single biggest factor in the Leave vote. Besides if we accept a Norwegian model, why did we have a referendum? They pay into the EU budget and accept free movement. The long term possibility of securing better trade deals unfettered by EU regulations still exists, but nothing will be materially different between the Norwegian model and what we have now, except that we won't have a seat at any of the tables where the rules are made.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OK. He's actually got more economic than political sense. Which is good! Bugger.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Wee...ee..ee..ll, what if Labour & LDs completely self-destruct (looking quite likely ATM) and UKIP (or worse) become the opposition? Then PM Boris might feel compelled to pull up the drawbridge in order to avoid future PM Farage (or worse).
Ye Gads, don't even think that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The Scottish Parliament has no power at all other than what is granted it under the Westminster legislation that created it. It's a statutory creation with limited power, and not a re-creation of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament. If the UK did exit the EU the Scottish Parliament would carry on doing what it was designed to do - passing legislation for Scotland. The EU law clause would become otiose as there would be no EU law having force in the UK for it to take note of.
Yes. I think that is most likely how it will be resolved, but I don't think it is quite as straightforward as you suggest above.
It is obviously true that the Scottish Parliament has powers which are delegated from Westminster under a specific Act which gave it those powers. And it seems obvious that the delegated power doesn't have a direct say in the Act of Parliament which gave them those powers.
On the other hand, Westminster changing the Act is to change the rules of the game under which Holyrood was set up. So one might think (for politeness if for nothing else), it would require the consent of Holyrood to agree to change the rules.
You are right - and accordingly there is a convention (which in legal terms is rather like a gentleman's agreement) that Westminster will seek Holyrood's consent before legislating in an area that falls within its delegated powers.
quote:
Even if that isn't the case and that any Holyrood vote wasn't binding on Westminster, clearly the vast majority of Scottish MPs wouldn't vote to change the deal because they're mostly SNP.
So you'd have a situation whereby English MPs would be forcing through a change unwanted by the majority of MPs, MSPs and the popular vote in Scotland. To force things through over the heads of those combined objections is to render the Scottish Parliament a pointless institution - because any other legislation that MSPs decide upon can, under that precedent, be overruled by Westminster.
This is a political issue rather than a legal one, and of course it might be just as much of an obstacle. However, politics tends to change far more quickly than the law does. And in any event, for present purposes it can't mean that the Scottish Government can legally prevent the Prime Minister from notifying under Article 50.
quote:
I think it is very unlikely that powers that are legally delegated to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and NI Assemblies and the London Assembly can be so hastily recalled whenever Westminster feels like it.
Constitutionally speaking (notwithstanding the convention above) that is the position. The British constitution (and the NZ one for that matter) are both very simple indeed on this point) - the Westminster Parliament has the power to legislate in whatever area it chooses (although of course judges get the final say on how it is interpreted - and they are going to make life difficult for bad law).
quote:
I also see your expert and I raise this one:
Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, Former Judge
of the Court of Justice of the European Union
In evidence to the House of Lords on "the process of withdrawing from the European Union" he said
quote:
We asked Sir David whether he thought the Scottish Parliament would have to give its consent to measures extinguishing the application of EU law in Scotland. He noted that such measures would entail amendment of section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, which binds the Scottish Parliament to act in a manner compatible with EU law, and he therefore believed that the Scottish Parliament’s consent would be required. He could envisage certain political
advantages being drawn from not giving consent.
It isn't clear who is right. But suggesting that the opinion of a law professor means that the whole notion is dead in the water is clearly just an opinion.
Other opinions are available and it looks likely that it will require a fight in court to see who is correct.
True, and I haven't had the time to read the paper (sorry for delay in replying btw), but I think what Sir David Edward says is only relevant to the process of removing EU law from the UK statute book, not the triggering of Article 50. Removing UK law from the EU statute book could only happen after the Article 50 negotiation is complete. This is because in the meantime the UK remains a member of the EU, and accordingly repealing the legislation that gives EU law force would be a gross treaty breach. It is possible that Westminster should, under the convention, ask Holyrood its consent to legislate on the basis that once the Article 50 process is complete Westminster will need to legislate to remove EU law from the Scottish statute book. Or possibly the convention should simply give way in the fact of a UK-wide majority leave vote.
Once again, it's amazing no one thought about this until the last minute. I note this report wasn't published until June. I am dismayed.
I did see an article by Geoffrey Robertson QC saying Scotland did have the legal right to block. It's somewhere on the Guardian website. I haven't time to find it now, but I do remember that he didn't give his reasons for this view. I prefer Tomkins' view myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So the UK is an EU member. At the time of the Scottish referendum, the consensus opinion was that if Scotland left the UK, it would leave the EU and would have to be readmitted as a new country.
England and Wales have voted to leave the EU. Scotland (and NI, just) voted to remain.
So in principle, couldn't England and Wales leave the UK? That would leave "the UK" (Scotland and NI) as an EU member with all the UK's exemptions from Schengen, the Euro and so on. It would have to move its capital, or course, although given that London voted to Remain too...
And "England and Wales" can leave the UK, and so in the process leave the EU, and make their own way...
Possibly. It would depend which was the genuine "successor state" at international law. The successor state gets to keep the rights and obligations (ie, membership of treaties, the currency, debts, investments and so on). Had Scotland broken away from the UK its argument to be a successor state would have been very weak. Given the sheer comparative size of England and Wales I don't think they would have the same problem.
I think overall there are two conclusions to bear in mind.
1. The Government, as the Queen's currently appointed representatives ("state" ultimately means "the Queen" in UK constitutional law) can notify under Article 50 right now. If they break a convention in the process, that's tough, but it can't impeach the process. The only way to prevent this is for Parliament to bring a no-confidence vote and force their resignation and replacement with a government who won't exercise it.
2. There is no legal way the EU can force the UK government to exercise Article 50. This is really, really very clear, and any politician who says otherwise is just talking guff. The UK Gvt can twiddle their thumbs and wait.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Currently unofficial pro-eu demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The UK Gvt can twiddle their thumbs and wait.
It can. I do not think that when the 52% of the UK voted to leave the EU they meant twiddle your thumbs and wait. Wait for what? Till everyone has forgotten about it?
It's pretty obvious that nobody has a clue what the 52% did mean, but indefinitely twiddling thumbs is not a candidate. The campaign for a second referendum shows more respect for the result than that.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I exaggerate somewhat. There is very little in the career of Boris Johnson that indicates that he would have scruples about betraying working class voters in order to keep the City of London in the style to which they have become accustomed. So frankly the vox populi is going to be set aside one way or another, anyway. Those of us who want to see it put aside by remain merely have the virtue of greater candour.
Except it looks like Johnson is back-peddling furiously with various Leave MPs in order to pick up support for his leadership bid.
This is a bloke who spent the last month driving up and down the country on a bus emblazoned with the claim that leaving the EU would lead to £350m per week extra spending on the National Health Service, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that he might not be the most honest man in British public life, at the moment.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Please can we just accept we're in this mess and rather than concentrate on ways of undoing what is done, use that energy to focus on how to move forward?
When a relationship dies, you can't move forward until you've worked through the shock, denial, and anger.
Seems like this is the denial phase...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, it seems like classic mourning, can't remember all the stages, but certainly, rage, denial, bargaining, depression and acceptance. But crucially, they are not linear. People don't move through them in neat stages at all.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Oops, I forgot guilt. How could I?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
It isn't that I don't recognise the grief, but there's all those recommendations that people don't do things they will later regret when in the first 6 - 12 months after the event?
(Which is why we should have had a plan for what we did in the event of a Brexit before we went into the referendum.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The UK Gvt can twiddle their thumbs and wait.
It can. I do not think that when the 52% of the UK voted to leave the EU they meant twiddle your thumbs and wait. Wait for what? Till everyone has forgotten about it?
It's pretty obvious that nobody has a clue what the 52% did mean, but indefinitely twiddling thumbs is not a candidate. The campaign for a second referendum shows more respect for the result than that.
It's been pointed out (I forget where I read it - I think in a paper published in a journal on constitutional law) that 2 years is a hopelessly short time to amend the statute book, let alone negotiate brexit. Plus, the Guardian reports today that the Civil Service are insufficiently staffed to take on the extra burden of amending the laws, and amending their own operations so that the amended laws can be administered. That being so, I don't think anyone is going to want to press the button in a hurry.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
we should have had a plan for what we did in the event of a Brexit before we went into the referendum.
Undoubtedly. This referendum has been on the cards for how long ? UKIP has existed for how long ?
It seems unbelievable that no-one has put together a roadmap of what the Brexit future looks like.
How could so many words have been written and spoken on this topic without clarifying what people were actually voting for or against ?
Once upon a time Britain was a serious country with a professional approach to international relations. Now we ignite this bombshell under the current world order and then say we'll elect someone to sort out the mess in three months time ??!!
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It seems unbelievable that no-one has put together a roadmap of what the Brexit future looks like.
As noted elsewhere, the leave vote is a coalition of people with basically opposite interests. Putting together a roadmap would imply picking some of those interests, which means that the disfavoured Leave voters probably wouldn't vote Leave.
So it's in the interests of the people who think they hold the dominant Brexit opinion to string the others along until after the referendum, and then dump them.
Guess what happened?
quote:
How could so many words have been written and spoken on this topic without clarifying what people were actually voting for or against ?
Almost nobody was voting for anything. People were either voting against not being in the EU, or against the EU. Apparently, half the country thinks the EU is worse than not-the-EU. Probably more than half the remainder would go as far as "the EU is a bit shit, but leaving would be worse." Having an actual positive opinion about the EU is very much a minority sport in the UK.
On another note, I note that Geraint Davies MP and others have tabled an EDM proposing a second referendum on the terms of a Brexit deal, with the option of remaining in the EU if the terms aren't popular. That's a nice idea that makes no sense at all from the EU's point of view.
The EU has made it clear that they won't begin negotiations until after article 50. Once article 50 has been invoked, the UK has lost its right to remain in the EU - it's on the exit train, and has left the station. It can, I suppose, remain in the EU after invoking article 50, but that would require the agreement of all the other EU members as if the UK was a new country, and there's certainly no guarantee that the UK would be able to remain on its old terms. In fact, it's likely that the EU will require something fairly big to consider re-admitting the UK in those circumstances (perhaps the Euro, which would be nicely symbolic).
Before it invokes article 50, the UK can change its mind and remain in the EU at any point, at the cost of being EU pariah with no friends and no influence for a while. But the EU's not going to negotiate with it until article 50, otherwise "threatening to leave the EU" becomes a sensible negotiating tactic for a member state wanting a better deal, and the EU has good reason not to want that...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Please can we just accept we're in this mess and rather than concentrate on ways of undoing what is done, use that energy to focus on how to move forward?
When a relationship dies, you can't move forward until you've worked through the shock, denial, and anger.
Seems like this is the denial phase...
The relationship isn't actually dead. One party has, to use the popular analogy, decided that aren't in love with the other party any more. There are to be negotiations about the use of and access to the formerly shared home.
Because the relationship isn't dead, I think we are in the anger stage, but then anger got Britain into this mess in the first place.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
