quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
At least we wouldn't get Boris.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, Farage did say that a 48-52 vote should lead to a re-run. Admittedly, he was talking about a narrow win by Remain and doesn't have the moral fibre to realise his argument is equally valid with a narrow win by Leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Perhaps I misunderstand ... if this is a petition about future referenda, then the cause is lost for the recent one. Anyone clarify?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
As an American, I don't have a dog in this fight.

However, it would set an extremely bad precedent if people could keep demanding new referendums whenever they didn't like the vote on the last one.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I haven't signed it, because I think a vote should be respected. But, if it turns out the leave campaign comitted significant misconduct - then I think it would be legitmate to allow mps a free vote on brexit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
... I think the portrayal of the UK as a troublemaker is unfair. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kittyville:
Thing is, Gramps49, a lot of the areas that voted to Leave are significant beneficiaries of EU funding . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I spoke to someone this afternoon who voted Leave as a protest against increasing power in Brussels and is now slightly stunned, and concerned by the result. It's affecting his business, people not buying things when they are uncertain about the future.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
There is one slight chance.

It's possible, given that Mr Cameron is going to spend the next three months in Downing Street drowning his sorrows, whilst Mr Johnson goes off on his coronation tour that Article 50 won't be invoked until Mr Johnson's accession. Whilst this happens the demerits of the vote become more apparent as 'Project Fear' turns into 'Project I Told You So You Fucking Fools'. It's also possible that Mr Corbyn will be replaced by someone who bears some resemblance to a credible PM. Mr Johnson then repeals the Fixed Term Parliament Act and goes for a snap election to give him a mandate for his specific leave proposals. UKIP run on a platform of 'Leave Means Leave' on the grounds that these give too much power to the EU. Meanwhile Mr or Ms Credible announces that a vote for the Labour Party will be taken as a vote to repudiate the referendum and that a Labour Party with a viable majority will have a Parliamentary mandate to do so. Mr Farron chips in to say the same about the Lib Dem Parliamentary contingent. The 48% vote, augmented by the worst case of buyers remorse since the 1992 General Election, get Mr or Ms Credible (and the Lib Dems) elected with a thumping parliamentary majority whilst Johnson and Farage have an unedifying scrap about immigration and get hammered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
... I think the portrayal of the UK as a troublemaker is unfair. ...

---

It is entirely fair. I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

Frankly, I can understand why Wales and the other outlanders voted overwhelmingly to exit the EU. They saw no returns for them staying in. Their wages have been stagnant of as long as American wages. There is a lot of anger out there on both sides of the pond. We are in this together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
There is one slight chance.

It's possible, given that Mr Cameron is going to spend the next three months in Downing Street drowning his sorrows, whilst Mr Johnson goes off on his coronation tour that Article 50 won't be invoked until Mr Johnson's accession. Whilst this happens the demerits of the vote become more apparent as 'Project Fear' turns into 'Project I Told You So You Fucking Fools'. It's also possible that Mr Corbyn will be replaced by someone who bears some resemblance to a credible PM. Mr Johnson then repeals the Fixed Term Parliament Act and goes for a snap election to give him a mandate for his specific leave proposals. UKIP run on a platform of 'Leave Means Leave' on the grounds that these give too much power to the EU. Meanwhile Mr or Ms Credible announces that a vote for the Labour Party will be taken as a vote to repudiate the referendum and that a Labour Party with a viable majority will have a Parliamentary mandate to do so. Mr Farron chips in to say the same about the Lib Dem Parliamentary contingent. The 48% vote, augmented by the worst case of buyers remorse since the 1992 General Election, get Mr or Ms Credible (and the Lib Dems) elected with a thumping parliamentary majority whilst Johnson and Farage have an unedifying scrap about immigration and get hammered.

---

That's the bit that won't work, because a sizeable proportion of the Remain vote and probably an even higher proportion of the buyer's remorse Leave vote will be made up of tribal voters who always vote for whoever is wearing the right colour rosette and would no more dream of doing otherwise than they would of eating their steak blue/well done* (delete as applicable)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

Frankly, I can understand why Wales and the other outlanders voted overwhelmingly to exit the EU. They saw no returns for them staying in. Their wages have been stagnant of as long as American wages. There is a lot of anger out there on both sides of the pond. We are in this together.

---

Wales voted Leave by a small but clear margin (a little smaller than the margin in England). The only "overwhelming" votes were to remain in Scotland, and obviously in Gibraltar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

Frankly, I can understand why Wales and the other outlanders voted overwhelmingly to exit the EU. They saw no returns for them staying in. Their wages have been stagnant of as long as American wages. There is a lot of anger out there on both sides of the pond. We are in this together.

---

Wales voted Leave by a small but clear margin (a little smaller than the margin in England). The only "overwhelming" votes were to remain in Scotland, and obviously in Gibraltar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
All the Welsh people I actually know are horrified; as with Scotland, they are seriously considering whether to push for Welsh independence and rejoining the EU as Wales.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Pause for thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
All the Welsh people I actually know are horrified; as with Scotland, they are seriously considering whether to push for Welsh independence and rejoining the EU as Wales.

---

And how are they going to manage meanwhile, while they wait to have their application assessed, and will they be able to meet all the criteria for membership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
Not necessarily endorsing the petition. Though who was it who said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way"?. If it had gone the other way, I doubt Farage would have shut up - how many times has he failed to be elected?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
All the Welsh people I actually know are horrified; as with Scotland, they are seriously considering whether to push for Welsh independence and rejoining the EU as Wales.

---

And how are they going to manage meanwhile, while they wait to have their application assessed, and will they be able to meet all the criteria for membership?

---

I think they'd hope to get things moving during the 2+ years before the UK exits. Do you have a better plan for them?

---

I must say that I have no sympathy.

I dislike all nationalist parties on principle. If they get their way they will have us all throwing nuts at one another from separate trees. But If I were a Scot I would be throwing in my lot with Nicola Sturgeon at the moment.

The Welsh, on the other hand, along with a number of the regions of England have voted to leave the EU and whilst bleating that they want to keep the EU funding they were happy to trouser before the wicked day of destiny.

Fuck 'em. They voted to impoverish themselves. They have their reward.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Bit of a blanket condemnation there really, Callan - the Welsh people I know didn't vote for this.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
If you look at the map of the in/out results then the North West of Wales - Gwynedd - voted to remain. I was surprised at Ceredigion and Powys ... but, sadly, not at the results in South Wales where, apart from the coastal areas/the Vale of Glamorgan, the vote was overwhelmingly to leave.

The reason for this is that it's a traditional Labour heartland and traditional Labour voters - like it or not - are alarmed by fear of immigration. Blaenau Gwent was solidly for leaving despite having the lowest proportion of non-UK born residents anywhere in the UK.

I'm afraid those of us on the liberal left, The Guardian reading chattering classes, are going to have to ask and answer some hard-questions.

We have let down the working class.

Big time.

Consequently, the siren-songs of Brexit have wide appeal.



There's a different dynamic operating in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Hence the way things worked out differently than they did in Wales and in the old industrial areas of the Midlands and the North.

On the idea of a second referendum. Even though I voted Remain I think it would be counter-productive and only fuel the paranoia of sections of the Brexit block.

Don't get me wrong, I respect those on the left who voted Brexit and would be the first to acknowledge that they raised some genuine concerns about Brussels, accountability and democracy etc.

However, what swung it, in my view, was a sense of abandonment and despair in the old industrial heartlands which all too easily translates into, 'We don't want foreigners coming here and taking our jobs ...'

This is an unpalatable pill to swallow for those, like me, who are on the liberal left. But swallow it we must.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've just spotted your post Callan.

I can't let that pass. Even though I'm living in England. I must ask you to step outside. Join me in Hell.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jack the Lass:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:

Frankly, I can understand why Wales and the other outlanders voted overwhelmingly to exit the EU. They saw no returns for them staying in. Their wages have been stagnant of as long as American wages. There is a lot of anger out there on both sides of the pond. We are in this together.

---

Wales voted Leave by a small but clear margin (a little smaller than the margin in England). The only "overwhelming" votes were to remain in Scotland, and obviously in Gibraltar.

---

And London.

Wales' result surprised me. I can't find it now, but did see an article recently with a map indicating that Wales (particularly the west coast) was one of the highest beneficiaries of EU funding in the whole of the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Pause for thought.

---

Best thing I've read today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Pause for thought.

---

Best thing I've read today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I'm afraid those of us on the liberal left, The Guardian reading chattering classes, are going to have to ask and answer some hard-questions.

We have let down the working class.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
He's hardly going to be consistent enough to realise the implication of something he said, is he?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
Pause for thought.

---

Best thing I've read today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I spoke to someone this afternoon who voted Leave as a protest against increasing power in Brussels and is now slightly stunned, and concerned by the result. It's affecting his business, people not buying things when they are uncertain about the future.

---

This is not rare. As I mentioned above, Canadians are experienced with referenda. In both the 1980 and 1995 referenda, I have Québecois non-nationalist friends votre for the Yes, on the grounds that Québec needed to: a) make a statement that it could control its destiny if it chose to do so, b) let other provinces know that Québécois needed to be respected more, c) renegotiate some aspects of the Constitution (no specifics in mind, however), and d) make a self-affirmative statement. None of them thought that a Yes vote would result in departure and I was variously told that I was silly, a scaremonger, and a puppet of corporate imperialism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Get on with triggering Article 50. Cameron should do it now while he still has the chance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

And should the UK somehow decide otherwise, it will discredit just about every current aspect of the democratic process. The best thing for everyone is to accept the result, translate it into the proper political form (invoking article 50) and move forward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The whole campaign, on both sides, was utterly UK-centric!

Everything was about Britain's national interest.

What about everybody else's interests?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The EU bods seem to be suggesting that the referendum itself was the note of intention needed to leave the EU, but that seems a debatable point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The whole campaign, on both sides, was utterly UK-centric!

Everything was about Britain's national interest.

What about everybody else's interests?

---

Again, I don't quite see why voters in the UK were obligated to take the welfare of other nations into account.

Norway is currently sitting out the EU. If it were determined that their joining the EU would somehow benefit the rest of Europe, should their electorate be urged to vote for that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The whole campaign, on both sides, was utterly UK-centric!

Everything was about Britain's national interest.

What about everybody else's interests?

---

Again, I don't quite see why voters in the UK were obligated to take the welfare of other nations into account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The whole campaign, on both sides, was utterly UK-centric!

Everything was about Britain's national interest.

What about everybody else's interests?

---

Again, I don't quite see why voters in the UK were obligated to take the welfare of other nations into account.

Norway is currently sitting out the EU. If it were determined that their joining the EU would somehow benefit the rest of Europe, should their electorate be urged to vote for that?

---

Duh, yes. You ought to do good things. That's the definition of "good".

They're not obligated to do them, of course. We've just witnessed that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The whole campaign, on both sides, was utterly UK-centric!

Everything was about Britain's national interest.

What about everybody else's interests?

---

Again, I don't quite see why voters in the UK were obligated to take the welfare of other nations into account.

---

Because unlike Norway, they were members. And to ignore the other nations' welfare is to take a position of supreme arrogance when they are the same people you hope are going to give you a nice trade deal quite soon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, since when is membership in an organization supposed to last forever? I can think of all sorts of instances where people or groups have withdrawn from mutual-benefit organizations, after determining that they're not getting enough benefits for themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, since when is membership in an organization supposed to last forever? I can think of all sorts of instances where people or groups have withdrawn from mutual-benefit organizations, after determining that they're not getting enough benefits for themselves.

---

That argument works fine - provided you want to walk away and never have anything at all to do with them again, ever. The latter is simply not an option when you are neighbours and destined to remain neighbours.

Whatever the terms, the UK now has to deal with the EU. It has every interest in not antagonising it by factoring in the EU's interests, in order to get the best possible deal in the circumstances. Every day of uncertainty that passes decreases the leverage for favourable terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It would, however, be transparently selfish to argue along the lines of "Let's stop sending foreign aid to Africa! It's clear that this aid doesn't benefit Britain at all - in fact, it's costing us money!"

Some people do argue along these lines, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think there's any question at all this side of the Channel that the only question about invoking article 50 is when, not if. The EU repeatedly warned UK voters that this was a one-shot decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes but reading the link by Ariel, perhaps BoJo and Gove are hoping that informal talks could lead to a position in which another referendum could be called.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris styles:
[B]If you are supportive of this - however - I fail to see why this is different from re-visiting the decision as a whole anyway.{/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
It would, however, be transparently selfish to argue along the lines of "Let's stop sending foreign aid to Africa! It's clear that this aid doesn't benefit Britain at all - in fact, it's costing us money!"

Some people do argue along these lines, of course.

---

Well, like I said, I think there is a difference between the acceptable motivations for foreign-aid, and the acceptable motivations for staying in a trading-bloc.

I might, for altrusitic reasons, send money to an organization that helps the homeless. However, if I'm shopping around for a new car, I don't think I'm morally obligated to buy it from the car-dealer who is the most hard-up for cash, because he really needs the money to keep his mortgage payments going.

---

quote:

---

To return to an example similar to your "African Economic Union", I would argue it was historically selfish and disastrous that the USA did not join the inter-war League of Nations - whereas it was selfless and vital that the USA supported liberal democracy worldwide against first Fascism and then Communism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Turqoise Tastic:
The EU is more than just a trading bloc - it is the effective post-war settlement for Europe. This should not have been put at risk because we British think we might be able to get a better used-car deal elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

First, if you are a big regular customer of that car dealer and you know that cancelling your own company's order will have a huge impact on that car dealer's business, I would say you most definitely do have a moral obligation to at least factor the impact on the other guy into your own business decision.

---

quote:

---

The EU is more than just a trading bloc - it is the effective post-war settlement for Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I spoke to someone this afternoon who voted Leave as a protest against increasing power in Brussels and is now slightly stunned, and concerned by the result. It's affecting his business, people not buying things when they are uncertain about the future.

---

This is not rare. As I mentioned above, Canadians are experienced with referenda. In both the 1980 and 1995 referenda, I have Québecois non-nationalist friends votre for the Yes, on the grounds that Québec needed to: a) make a statement that it could control its destiny if it chose to do so, b) let other provinces know that Québécois needed to be respected more, c) renegotiate some aspects of the Constitution (no specifics in mind, however), and d) make a self-affirmative statement. None of them thought that a Yes vote would result in departure and I was variously told that I was silly, a scaremonger, and a puppet of corporate imperialism.

---

I believe Newfoundland held a second referendum on joining Canada, only weeks after "Join" was voted down in the first one. Never quite understood how that could be seen as legitimate, though I guess since Canada wanted them to join, it was easy to convince Ottawa to go along with it.

I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's take on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The EU bods seem to be suggesting that the referendum itself was the note of intention needed to leave the EU, but that seems a debatable point.

---

quote:

---

If Cameron refuses to give the "official" notice to the other EU leaders, the question remains whether there is anything they can do to hasten things along.

---

quote:

---

On the one hand, I think it is quite possible that the majority of EU countries would want the thing begun as quickly as possible, but constitutionally, it appears that the Prime Minster cannot do it unilaterally and refuses to anyway.

---

quote:

---

If it is true that the Scottish parliament could on some level have a veto on leaving (which would be hilarious if it turned out to be true)

---

quote:

---

or if there was a rapid GE where pro-EU parties were elected, then it is tough to see what the EU could do about it.

---

quote:

---

Conversely if the EU states acted together to give the UK the boot before they'd actually officially given the notice, then that leaves open all sort of nasty options relating to other states they might not really want in the club.

---

quote:

---

Interesting times. Almost the prisoner's dilemma whichever way you look at the problem.

---

My prayers are with you all
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Cod posts:

quote:

---

The only way I could see to stop Article 50 being triggered is by Bremainers petitioning their MPs to pass a vote of no confidence in the current government and forcing a general election - and hoping that the MPs elected in that Parliament form a government that refuses to notify under Article 50.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The only way I could see to stop Article 50 being triggered is by Bremainers petitioning their MPs to pass a vote of no confidence in the current government and forcing a general election - and hoping that the MPs elected in that Parliament form a government that refuses to notify under Article 50.

God knows what the markets would make of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kittyville:
According to Der Spiegel, the EU's own lawyers have advised that the referendum result is not a de facto declaration in terms of Article 50. The UK government has to make a formal declaration of its intention to leave the EU.

---

quote:

---

I have often heard it stated that under Scots law "the people are sovereign", not Parliament. I've yet to hear an explanation or this and think it's probably a myth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

It strikes me that invoking Article 50 could be more rightly seen as a preliminary to that "steering" than doing the steering itself.

---

True. I think the UK wants to keep the full period of 2 years after triggering Article 50 for substantive negotiations (rather than having some it wasted over procedural wranglings). I think the hardliners in the EU are saying, in effect, "bugger that, you're going to get gruel anyway AND you deserve it".

Angela Merkel is sounding quite moderate at present! If I were the UK government I would be doing my level best to keep her in that frame of mind. That would be a free and prudent choice by a sovereign nation enjoying its new independence.

The BS rhetoric about "taking our country back" is going to have worse decisions to face than a bit of give and take over when the negotiations start in earnest.
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
If there is any justice through it all then it will be for a coalition of UKIP and the Conservatives with Boris at the helm to take everyone through the new dream they so espoused. Their slow motion car crash would be the lancing of the boil of xenophobia and racism, of the 'triumph' of ignorance about how political debates are conducted and the sort of international politics that only ever thinks in terms of money and what one country can grab for themselves. But I really do wonder if Britain is actually able to do that now. The country is divided, there's a rot set in in politics, there's the strong chance that union will crumble, the presence on the international stage is already very seriously diminished and the looming spectre of a long winter of recession. All of this is happening too with the backdrop of complete denial and a kind of collective blindness that still claims the whole campaign wasn't about racism and xenophobia and that 'leavers' should not be in any way way vilified. After it was all done I asked myself if I really did hear any good, sound, clear and strong arguments about leaving Europe that were not about immigration and fear of Germany (or France or both) and all those mixed up weird hangovers from a pre-EU Europe and I think the honest answer is, no. It is one hell of a price to pay to lance a boil. The alternative is just too dreadful to even contemplate - and I never, ever thought that I would ever say such a thing in my lifetime!
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's time for strong benevolence.

That would have reassured the non-metropolitan working class whose identity was overwhelmed by Polish cake shops.
 

---

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
I voted Remain- and seeing the bullying from Farage types took me right back to how afraid I felt in school when I was constantly bullied...
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's time for strong benevolence.

That would have reassured the non-metropolitan working class whose identity was overwhelmed by Polish cake shops.
 

---

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
I don't know how useful the petition is. But it goes up and up by the minute by a considerable degree. It's up to nearly 3.1m names.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
If it can get into double figures it will be something that can't be ignored. I doubt it will get that far though.
 

---

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Amusingly, it appears it was started by a Leave voter who thought that Remain might win:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/william-oliver-healey-referendum-petition_uk_576f8b28e4b0232d331e1b39
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
There have now been petitions launched to re-run last Friday's Euromillions lottery because the wrong numbers were drawn and to replay the forthcoming England v Iceland football match if England loses. I think they have just as much legitimacy as this one.
 

---

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
How embarrassing for the poor chap


Huia

Crossposted with Anglican't

[ 26. June 2016, 11:10: Message edited by: Huia ]
 

---

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
If it can get into double figures it will be something that can't be ignored. I doubt it will get that far though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
it would set an extremely bad precedent if people could keep demanding new referendums whenever they didn't like the vote on the last one.

Moo

---

In Canada, we're sort of used to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beenster:
Is this accurate?

http://keithharris.org/petition/

it appears to align with the official site?

---

quote:

---

It's time for strong benevolence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Martin60:

quote:

---

It's time for strong benevolence.

---

Benevolence for what and to what is the question. It would be very difficult to now act all benevolent to one 'winner' of a campaign who conducted that campaign in veil of racism dressed up as normal politics and yet I think that is the very real danger that Britain is facing; the very real possibility that these ideas become somehow acceptable in mainstream politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Referendums are one step from mob rule. General election NOW on stay or go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beenster:
Is this accurate?

http://keithharris.org/petition/

it appears to align with the official site?

---

It seems to be keeping time with it all right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I spoke to someone this afternoon who voted Leave as a protest against increasing power in Brussels and is now slightly stunned, and concerned by the result. It's affecting his business, people not buying things when they are uncertain about the future.

---

This is not rare. As I mentioned above, Canadians are experienced with referenda. In both the 1980 and 1995 referenda, I have Québecois non-nationalist friends votre for the Yes, on the grounds that Québec needed to: a) make a statement that it could control its destiny if it chose to do so, b) let other provinces know that Québécois needed to be respected more, c) renegotiate some aspects of the Constitution (no specifics in mind, however), and d) make a self-affirmative statement. None of them thought that a Yes vote would result in departure and I was variously told that I was silly, a scaremonger, and a puppet of corporate imperialism.

---

I believe Newfoundland held a second referendum on joining Canada, only weeks after "Join" was voted down in the first one. Never quite understood how that could be seen as legitimate, though I guess since Canada wanted them to join, it was easy to convince Ottawa to go along with it.

I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's take on that.

---

On paper, it was legitimate because there was no absolute majority for any option on the first referendum, the Commission of Government (status quo) option got a significant margin of votes on the first round.

In practice, Canada had made a deal with the UK that Newfoundland would be pushed into Canada's arms, to which end Mackenzie-King turned over to Joey Smallwood a 'hit list' of the Liberal Party's top donors, who wrote generous cheques for Newfoundland's Confederation cause. Which was legal, as there were no electoral financing laws of any kind in Newfoundland at the time.

There have also been persistent rumours that the second vote was 'canted'; that the actual result was against Confederation but the Returning Officer falsified the result, on London's orders.

Strong-arm tactics in Confederation Elections/Referendums are nothing new in Canada. When the country is at stake, no expense is spared.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joesaphat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Martin60:

quote:

---

It's time for strong benevolence.

---

Benevolence for what and to what is the question. It would be very difficult to now act all benevolent to one 'winner' of a campaign who conducted that campaign in veil of racism dressed up as normal politics and yet I think that is the very real danger that Britain is facing; the very real possibility that these ideas become somehow acceptable in mainstream politics.

---

I'm sick to the back teeth of being told by people who have been campaigning against a much greater referendum majority for forty odd years that I should really chew up and swallow their victory without complaining.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the Scottish issue is actually really interesting.

As I understand it, the Westminster legislation which delegates powers the Scottish Parliament and executive says that it must act in accordance with EU law. Clearly that'd need to be changed for Brexit, however who now hold the power to change that legislation?

---

quote:

---

“Holyrood has no power to block Brexit. It is not clear that a legislative consent motion would be triggered by Brexit, but withholding consent [NB from Cod: a power Holyrood does have] is not the same as having the power to block. The Scottish parliament does not hold the legal power to block [the UK exiting the EU].”

---

quote:

---

Mr Cheesy If the power is reserved for the Scottish Parliament, then they're clearly not going to vote to change it. If Westminster retains the power to unilaterally change it, then boom, bye bye Scottish parliament.

---

quote:

---

I don't know whether similar wording exists in other British legislation, but presumably there would need to be debate in the HoC to substantially change significant pieces of legislation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Cod:

quote:

---

I have often heard it stated that under Scots law "the people are sovereign", not Parliament. I've yet to hear an explanation or this and think it's probably a myth.

---

This claim originates in the Declaration of Arbroath, which includes the words "we have been set free... by our most tireless prince, King and lord, the lord Robert... Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy... and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King" i.e. the King reigns only for so long as the people (or more historically accurately, the landed nobility) want him to.

This is the reason that Scottish sovereigns are designated King / Queen "of Scots" rather than "of Scotland" - they are rulers of a people, not a country.

It is, as you say, a myth; but myths have a function. This myth helps illustrate an understanding of our national identity.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And "England and Wales" can leave the UK, and so in the process leave the EU, and make their own way...

---

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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Get on with triggering Article 50. Cameron should do it now while he still has the chance.

---

If he dithers too much, I think it not unlikely that the EU Council of Ministers will soon take Article 50 as invoked de facto by the referendum.

Before anyone laughs that idea off, it seems (again, from this side of the Channel) at least as plausible than pretending the referendum wasn't supposed to lead directly to Article 50. If not more so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not entirely sure whether the power to invoke article 50 rests with the Queen-in-Parliament or the Queen-in-Council,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not entirely sure whether the power to invoke article 50 rests with the Queen-in-Parliament or the Queen-in-Council,

---

Of course, if we are drifting in the realms of fantasy, there is always the possibility of the Queen saying 'If I can't do this at 90, when can I do it?' and feeding whatever she is given to sign to the corgis ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't really think that many people in the UK (and particularly on the Brexit side) give too much of a shit how it looks from that side of the channel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I'm not entirely sure whether the power to invoke article 50 rests with the Queen-in-Parliament or the Queen-in-Council,

---

Of course, if we are drifting in the realms of fantasy, there is always the possibility of the Queen saying 'If I can't do this at 90, when can I do it?' and feeding whatever she is given to sign to the corgis ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I am a republican, always have been and always will be, but as far as anyone know publicly, HM has acted with perfect propriety throughout her reign. When told to, she'd smile at the Ceacescus. She followed tradition and invited the Thatchers to Balmoral for a fortnight every August.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I spoke to someone this afternoon who voted Leave as a protest against increasing power in Brussels and is now slightly stunned, and concerned by the result. It's affecting his business, people not buying things when they are uncertain about the future.

---

quote:

---

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...

---

quote:

---

I wonder if there will be any calls to restore the monarchy, in the days to come?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:

Britain needs to leave; and soon. Trying to sort through it's own political mess at the same time (or before) as exiting Europe is an insanity that could well poison politics and social cohesion for many decades to come.

---

quote:

---

London becomes a free trade zone like Hong Kong. The rest of England, which voted more than 55% to leave then leaves. Wales too if they want to.

Everyone gets what they wanted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:


Restore the ancient Viking kingdom of Jorvik!

---

quote:

---

You're part of England so either suck it up or move.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Funny, that's what the Brexiteers are saying.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, once the wheels start turning how easy would it be to stop the juggernaut to exit? If in two years time there is no deal on the table acceptable to the UK, would the EU accept a "Ooops, sorry. We were wrong to vote to leave the EU. Please, let us stay"? Or, rather, on what terms would the other nations in the EU accept that apology? If in two years the UK is faced with an unacceptable trade deal with the EU, and the options are leave the EU and trade with the EU under WTO terms or come back into the EU fold without any of the special terms successive UK governments had negotiated (no rebate, no automatic exemption from Schegen or the Euro, no additional limits on migration from new member states ...) does that qualify as a choice between a rock and a hard place?

---

quote:

---

To now not leave by some kind of slight of hand would look like treason/betrayal.

---

Yeah. But we ain't leaving now. We're leaving at some point within two years of the activation of Article 50. Let's see how enthusiastic everyone when the recession begins to bite.
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Alan Cresswell: which is why I hope that everyone in the EU knows that we don't really want to leave and will let us play games until we have another referendum ( ).
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Mr Cheesy:

quote:

---

To now not leave by some kind of slight of hand would look like treason/betrayal.

---

Yeah. But we ain't leaving now. We're leaving at some point within two years of the activation of Article 50. Let's see how enthusiastic everyone when the recession begins to bite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
Early days, but one more data point to suggest that buyers remorse is going to kick in over the next few weeks.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Again, from this side of the Channel, any suggestion that Brexit isn't going to happen (indeed has already started to happen in every respect bar Article 50), appears delusional.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Angela Merkel has upped the ante on delay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Any company with a significant share of business in the EU is, I'm persuaded, either putting any decision to invest in the UK on hold or choosing to invest in a EU-27 country. EU-27 students considering Erasmus are crossing the UK off their list of potential destinations because there's absolutely no guarantee their tuition fees will be met. And so on and so forth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So I think at this point the only game in town is to proceed with Brexit in an orderly fashion. I don't think this requires the triggering of article 50 immediately, though. I think it's entirely rational for the formal notification to come from whoever is picked to replace Mr. Cameron, so the invocation of article 50 can start the actual negotiations (it makes no sense at all to have a lame duck Cameron administration begin negotiations.)

---

quote:

---

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

<snip>

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

<snip>

If [Boris Johnson] runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Angela Merkel has upped the ante on delay.

---

AIUI there was a statement by France, Germany and Italy, and the content of the statement was "no informal negotiations prior to invoking Article 50".

That doesn't look like upping the ante to me; it seems entirely reasonable. Cameron had previously assured everyone that article 50 would happen immediately after a Leave vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Angela Merkel has upped the ante on delay.

---

AIUI there was a statement by France, Germany and Italy, and the content of the statement was "no informal negotiations prior to invoking Article 50".

That doesn't look like upping the ante to me; it seems entirely reasonable. Cameron had previously assured everyone that article 50 would happen immediately after a Leave vote.

---

Officials normally have "talks about talks" to set up formal negotiations. They clear protocols, set up agenda. If these preliminaries have been ruled out, which seems possible, then her position has hardened. The ground clearing will need to take place within the two year period.

And, as you know, the two year timetable works in favour of the EU. They can wait out serious disagreements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Someone just uploaded this flowchart allegedly by Credit Suisse to twitter.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Note the date: I agree with Croesos
 

---

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 

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.

---

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)

---

quote:

---

b) with the EU-27?

---

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.
 

---

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

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)

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
On the thread topic (!), I think opinion is shifting rapidly as the real consequences unfold.

---

• 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]

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The UK Gvt can twiddle their thumbs and wait.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

It seems unbelievable that no-one has put together a roadmap of what the Brexit future looks like.

---

quote:

---

How could so many words have been written and spoken on this topic without clarifying what people were actually voting for or against ?

---

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...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0