|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Move to reverse or negate the referendum decision.
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Pause for thought.
Best thing I've read today.
This piece, like so much I've read on this thread so far, is so utterly utterly UK-centric.
It creates the impression that the EU-27 is simply going to put the rest of the business of the EU on further hold (lots was already on hold pending the UK referendum) while politicians of the country that's clearly voted to leave the club act out their own psychodrama.
However bad for the EU the UK leaving might be, dithering about the result would be worse for the EU (let alone the UK). 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.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
The whole campaign, on both sides, was utterly UK-centric!
Everything was about Britain's national interest.
What about everybody else's interests?
Get on with triggering Article 50. Cameron should do it now while he still has the chance.
[ 25. June 2016, 21:42: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
[ 25. June 2016, 21:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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:
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.
This is quite true, but to argue the other side of what I said earlier, leaving the EU isn't exactly a clear cut process. 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.
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. 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.
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) 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.
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.
Interesting times. Almost the prisoner's dilemma whichever way you look at the problem.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
Again: it clearly wasn't the actual "note of intention", but as far as I'm concerned, the consequences of pretending it was anything other than something that would automatically trigger Article 50 are far, far worse than the alternative. All of them.
--------------------
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
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Well, I don't think we should confuse trade-agreements with foreign-aid here.
It can be argued that the UK "ought to do good things" for poor nations in Africa by sending them foreign-aid. I don't think that's the same thing as saying that the UK ought to join the African Economic Community, even if it could be shown that joining the AEC would be to the bebefit of poor nations in Africa.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
[ 25. June 2016, 22:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
I agree with this. But it IS an appeal to self-interest.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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.
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. Article 50 is irreversible. Much as I disliked the result, it can't be reversed or negated unless a serious change in circumstances warrants asking the question again. When Cameron found himself in the position of having to honour his ill advised promise to hold the referendum, instead of kicking it into the long grass as he'd hoped, the EU leaders could have given him a bigger fig leaf. Perhaps if they'd known how seriously the British public take the question of immigration, right or wrong, they would have tried harder.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
For some reason I am reminded of the famous lines by Bertolt Brecht:
....the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Months ago that was Boris' suggested position - at least initially, of course when challenged on this (that we could vote leave and enter a further period of negotiation), he did his normal act of denial with bluster.
If you are supportive of this - however - I fail to see why this is different from re-visiting the decision as a whole anyway.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
If someone walks away from an organisation which they could benefit, simply because of lack of benefit to themselves, they are acting in a selfish and wrong fashion.
OF COURSE people do this all the time. This is simply to say that people are imperfect.
As the Bible puts it "Anyone who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins".
And nations do this all the time. This is simply to say that people are imperfect.
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.
[Cross-post - reply to Stetson's earlier post]
[ 25. June 2016, 22:47: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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]
I'm not against revisiting the decision if new proposals were to be put. I'm against saying that it's the wrong decision so it isn't binding. That's profoundly undemocratic.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
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.
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.
Secondly, at international level the geopolitical implications of these decisions are so much greater that the moral obligation to consider the impact on others is greater as well. 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.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Well, the League Of Nations is a complicated example, because US non-involvement allegedly led to World War II, which the US then entered. So, assuming that the US joining the League would have prevented World War II, then entering the organization would have been in US interests.
And, for the record, I don't think either the US fight against fascism nor against Communism were undertaken for altruistic reasons. Nor do I think that countries which stayed out of either fight were neccessarily doing anything wrong.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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.
So are you saying that nobody is entitled to challenge the vision of the Euro federalists? Personally I think that successive British governments have negotiated enough opt outs for the UK, that I wouldn't have voted for Brexit, but I would never have accepted being forced to take the Euro or be part of Schengen, and I agreed with Cameron's most recent opt out from "ever closer political integration." It's not only about getting a better deal. The British view of the future of Europe has been at odds with the French and German view from the get go.
When John Major ousted Thatcher he promised a less confrontational approach to Europe, but ended up getting serious opt outs at Maastricht. Tony Blair promised to put Britain "at the heart of Europe." But they all came up against the same problem. We don't see Europe the same way this side of the Channel. So while I think we have put a lot at risk in this vote, I've always supported our less integrated position within the EU.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
I think it would depend on how much I personally regard that car-dealer as a friend. If I just know the company by name, no idea who the personnel are, I don't think I need to worry about whether or not changing my supplier is gonna have a negative effect on anyone's well-being. I mean, really, there is always someone who is gonna get the short end of the stick, no matter what decision I make.
quote:
The EU is more than just a trading bloc - it is the effective post-war settlement for Europe.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, though I suspect it's meant to be scored to Ode To Joy?
Seriously, though, if you mean that the EU is what's kept Europe out of war since 1945, well, I personally have never bought that theory(I'm pretty sure it was the stalemate of the Cold War that kept everyone from going off the rails). And anyway, was Europe at more risk of Bad Things happening when the UK wasn't in?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kittyville
Shipmate
# 16106
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 291 | From: Sydney | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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.
It's not even debatable. It's flat wrong.
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.
Diplomatic pressure and, I expect, undiplomatic pressure.
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.
Notification from a member state obviously means a request by that state, not its public. For the UK this means the Queen acting through her ministers in power at the time being. So the PM could not do it unilaterally but the current government could.
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)
It isn't. The Scottish Parliament's powers entirely derive from Westminster. 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:
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.
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:
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.
There is no mechanism that I'm aware of for the expulsion of a member.
quote:
Interesting times. Almost the prisoner's dilemma whichever way you look at the problem.
My prayers are with you all ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
There is another (even more unlikely) alternative. That the House withdraw its confidence from the Government, and a new government intending to not-article-50, with then receives a vote of confidence (part Con, with Lib Dem participation, with Labour support???). Now the new government would be in for a lot of barracking from the popular press, and would be very challenged at election time, but it is possible. Just not likely.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
I agree with this - both parts of it.
--------------------
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 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.
This BBC article doesn't seem to be quite so sure.
The most hilarious part of it, however, is the suggestion that the Brexiters could challenge any tacit recognition of Article 50 having been invoked - before the European Court of Justice.
--------------------
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
The result will not be set aside. The referendum does not notify the EU under Article 50. There is at present no coherent negotiating strategy and no negotiating team or leader in place to conduct the settlement of the U.K. exit terms.
In short it is a bugger's muddle. I suspect there will be a compromise between the Cameron 3 months and the E.U. 27 more immediate needs. I suspect such a deal is already being worked on behind the scenes. The U.K. needs to preserve some level of goodwill before the exit discussions begin. So it needs to trigger Article 50 as early as is practically possible. Practicailities include agreeing to the form and order of exit discussion. Officials will be working on that behind the scenes to produce a preliminary formula to be ratified at the first official meeting post Article 50 triggering. Something like that will need to be done anyway.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
edit: this is a response to Euty
I don't think anyone really knows because the Article wasn't written clearly enough for them to know.
I think the referendum probably isn't notice as per the Article simply on the basis that this has no precedent - referenda in other countries have not been treated like this, ie final decisions. But I also think that Brexiters who are suggesting that Article 50 is only invoked when the British government say it is are stretching credibility.
It would be interesting how the European Court of Justice work this one out, but my guess is that it'd rule in favour of the wishes of the majority of countries and the views of the European Commission. Because it'd be ridiculous to rule that the country wishing to leave holds the rest to ransom until it is convenient to it.
Ultimately, I suspect the EU position will be determined by France and Germany. And that'll come down to a determination of the economic impacts.
[ 26. June 2016, 06:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
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.
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.
So... good luck with trying to do anything else in Parliament for the next x years.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm just speculating really. I agree with B62's analysis above.
As I've already posted on the other thread, I'd be astonished if Article 50 isn't formally invoked (in a manner recognised by both sides) before October.
Even if UK politicians haven't got their act together, informal discussions between officials on both sides will have already commenced to thrash out how a suitable compromise (somewhere between tomorrow and October) can be reached. As I say, the question is not "if" but "when".
That is reflected in the subtly shifting public declarations of the politicians on both sides.
(Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Cameron was careful not to mention a date in his original speech; he said it should be "by the time of the Conservative Party conference in October").
[ 26. June 2016, 07:06: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've just listened to Cameron's speech again. He described the vote as "an instruction that must be delivered". He expressed a preference for his successor, three months on, to be the one who phase "steers our country to the next destination", but left unsaid exactly what that meant.
It strikes me that invoking Article 50 could be more rightly seen as a preliminary to that "steering" than doing the steering itself.
So his speech leaves no question as to Article 50 being the next step ("delivering the instruction"), but leaves the precise question of when - and by whom - entirely open.
[ 26. June 2016, 08:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's time for strong benevolence.
That would have reassured the non-metropolitan working class whose identity was overwhelmed by Polish cake shops.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's time for strong benevolence.
That would have reassured the non-metropolitan working class whose identity was overwhelmed by Polish cake shops.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beenster
Shipmate
# 242
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1885 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
If it can get into double figures it will be something that can't be ignored. I doubt it will get that far though.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
How embarrassing for the poor chap
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Huia
Crossposted with Anglican't
[ 26. June 2016, 11:10: Message edited by: Huia ]
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beenster
Shipmate
# 242
|
Posted
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.
No, I doubt it will get to double figures either. I believe 3m or even 5m smacks of disappointed voters, 10m would indicate a flurry of people who didn't know what they were voting about. i hope Farage signed it tho as it aligned with what he said ahead of the vote.
Posts: 1885 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
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.
It's a deplorable attitude - that we who know what's best for the country can keep on asking the question until we get the answer we want. And then the people will have spoken and everyone should respect that.
The Irish govt did it on the Treaty of Nice referendum. The Scottish nationalists are arguing for it.
On both sides of the Atlantic we're seeing disillusionment with politics - is it any wonder ?
David Cameron seems a beacon of integrity by contrast. Perhaps the art of losing gracefully is not yet entirely dead...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Referendums are one step from mob rule. General election NOW on stay or go.
[ 26. June 2016, 11:31: 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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
