|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Move to reverse or negate the referendum decision.
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Not sure if this has already been mentioned but the influence of Sun newspaper was very noticeable with the result in Liverpool bucking the National trend, (Liverpudlians don't read it).
If the sun changed it's stance then a second Referendum would no doubt produce a Remain victory. Maybe grievances in the Remain camp need to focus on who, or what controls the bias of our Country's best selling newspaper.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Surely the reason Liverpool went Remain was because of its Irish Catholic links rather than anything to do with Mr. Murdoch's publication.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Not sure those things are entirely unrelated. Jengie
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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.
The problem with that petition is that it doesn't specify how many times yoi have an inconclusive referendum before giving up in despair.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
Thank you, SPK. I suspected that my query might have you along in short order with an answer.
I wasn't aware of the plurality as the rationale for the second referendum, but it makes sense. Also hadn't heard the stories about possible fakery.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
Most understandable, 2/3rds of 2/3rds who voted. I can understand the need for that referendum when the main parties weren't differentiated by the issue. How could Cameron have avoided the gamble? I imagine he assumed there wasn't one and was he just grandstanding at a non-event.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
With respect to the Newfoundland referenda, the British government's decision to let the province go to Canada was determined well before the questions were asked. Britain was unable and unwilling to continue to support Newfoundland until it was able to go on its own, and Canada was the least problematic place to put it. While there was some chicanery (in Canada! no!), most Newfoundlanders knew what the eventual result would be. I remember a dinner where Roger Simmons (once an MP from Burin Saint George) saying that, if it had been left up to the Newfoundlanders, they really would have preferred continuing government by the appointed Commission, as it was the most effective and honest that they had ever seen. I asked what would have been the upshot had the voters chosen another option, and I was told that they would have been asked again until they came up with the right answer.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The petition tally is increasing at that rate of about 10 a second and is now over 3.4 million. But there has been fraudulent voting as well.
[ 26. June 2016, 18:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well there have been people listing their area as Vatican city and Korea, that is either fraud, confusion or sarcasm
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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?
All the legislation does is clarify that Holyrood is bound to act according to EU law and can't pass laws that, for example, contradict regulations made by the EU. Brussels' power to make law for the UK is granted it under Westminster legislation. The obligation is probably there to ensure there is no inconsistency between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
In any event, notifying under Article 50 wouldn't be by Holyrood or in fact by Westminster but the Government.
This is what Adam Tomkins, professor of law at Glasgow University has to say
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].”
Pretty clear from Prof Tomkins.
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.
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.
If Scotland was granted independence then a) it would have unlimited powers (subject to whatever the Scottish constitution says) and b) Westminster would surrender power to legislate for Scotland. The same procedure has has happened probably dozens of times since WW2 as various colonies became independent.
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.
I haven't looked but I expect the same rule applies to the Welsh and NI Assemblies too.
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.
Thanks - the best explanation that I have had, but on what you say it is not something that limits the powers of the Westminster Parliament.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Pratically, if Holyrood decided to unilateratelly organise an independence referendum - how exactly would we stop them ? Invade ? If they want to hold a plebicite they will, but the SNP won't want it unless they can get a clear win.
If they hold a vote and get a 60% independence vote - politically, what could the UK do ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Reply to Doublethink -
Work out where the unionists live and offer them devo-max, with the rest of Scotland forming a defacto free-state, perhaps having a civil war, and regularising things with England 10-15 years after that?
Well, that's the traditional approach.
[ 26. June 2016, 20:40: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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...
This is sort-of what happened when the British government "sold off" British Waterways.
In England and Wales the powers which were previously in the hands of the BW, an arms-length government agency, were delegated to a charity set up for the purpose.
In Scotland they just continued with having British Waterways as part of the government.
A similar situation I think happened with the water supply system in Scotland when England privatised it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
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...
It would be interesting to see what UKIP would campaign for. What this would lay bare, is that the English think they rum the UK and would be horrified at the possibility. More practically states with gaps in are very difficult to defend. However, I may try and tweet someone who might know.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
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. The rules are quite clear. Article 50 may be invoked by a country following its normal procedures. I'm not entirely sure whether the power to invoke article 50 rests with the Queen-in-Parliament or the Queen-in-Council, but it's clear that the recent referendum was not set up as formally binding anyone, so functions as a mere indication of the opinion of the British public.
There is no mechanism for the EU to expel a member state, although there are procedures for various kinds of sanction. Presumably it must be possible for the EU to invent a way of expelling a particularly uncooperative member - if by no other mechanism than by dissolving the EU and forming a new EU with a member missing.
Now, the UK government organizing a referendum on EU membership and then refusing to follow it does have slightly awkward democratic implications, but there's a built-in democratic resolution provided by the election process.
(I agree, of course, that jerking around people you're about to try and make a deal with is usually not a terribly smart move.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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 ...
Queen-in-Parliament is legislation, no? And Queen-in-Council the usual executive powers, either by prerogative or by legislation. If she did that, she has to have a PM handy willing to take responsibility-- mind you, that might not be as hard as would have been the case a week ago, when it would have been unimaginable. We have moved into science-fiction and alternate history territory of late.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
That is precisely the thinking that delivered the Leave vote, in that it utterly fails to take into account the neighbouring realities.
It's the UK's prerogative to ignore how dithering will go down with the EU-27, but it's madness to think that dithering will be without its consequences; I can't see any that are good (with the possible exception that seeing how much of a mess the UK is in might just reduce the risk of contagion to other member states).
As to science fiction, it makes House of Cards look even more like a boring documentary than the current US presidential race.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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 ...
.
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. The only brief break has been not by her but by the likes of Cameron. Remember his post-Scottish referendum phone call?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
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.
Quite. I wonder if there will be any calls to restore the monarchy, in the days to come?
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
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.
As a former boss of mine used to say: "There's only one thing worse than being shot up the ringpiece, and that's shooting yourself up the ringpiece".
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht: 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...
So did a few other regions of England and Wales. York voted nearly 2 to 1 to Remain. So did Manchester and Leeds.
In fact you can pretty well see where most of the universities in the country are by looking at the BBC map that shows the referendum results by region: here. See that tiny yellow dot in the middle of East Anglia? That's Norwich (with two universities).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Ariel: quote:
I wonder if there will be any calls to restore the monarchy, in the days to come?
Assuming you mean 'restore the historic powers of the monarchy'... only if Charles agrees to take himself out of the line of succession. She is 90, after all, and he's not as popular.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
The more I think about it, the more I like this idea.
Scenario:
1. Scotland blocks implementation of Brexit in the HoCs
2. UK government takes Scottish government to court
3. Deadlock because this is an unexpected situation which nobody is sure of how to determine the constitutional ground
4. Meanwhile the uncertainty is causing the economy to tank big time
5. Pressure is pit to bear by UKIP to leave and by the EU to get the hell on with doing something
6. It is determined that the legal process is going to be inconclusive and divisive and the economy can't take it much longer
Then
7. The compromise is suggested that the UK remains but England leaves
8. Referenda in Scotland Wales and NI as to whether to stay in the UK or leave with England.
Benefits to NI are that they can continue with building the economy of the whole island of Ireland and the Unionists can tell themselves they're still in the UK. Benefits to Scotland are that they can tell voters it isn't another Independence vote and that they can set terms of what the UK looks like after England leaves.
The UK then negotiates terms of trading with England as a bilateral agreement. Trading between NI Wales and Scotland continues as they're part of the EU.
The rUK possibly devalues, but England is freed of the costs of the other countries. Everyone gets to decide which side of the partition they want to live in once they understand the costs and benefits.
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.
[ 27. June 2016, 08:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
What is far more likely is that ECB simply stops propping up the pound. The EU might start to withdraw certain agreements in a 'sanctions' style if it goes on and on without being addressed, essentially giving the British public what they voted for while their elected leaders continue to sit on their hands. Whatever way it pans out the whole thing is currently extremely volatile and if there is no action soon - as in really very soon - I think peoples' patience will be put to the test.
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.
[ 27. June 2016, 09:10: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
I feel sick.
I wanted to stay.
I don't trust BoJo etc AT ALL.
But - I'm not in a position to move and was born in Bromley - so I'm stuck.
I hope the Thames Valley is added to London in that zone... reading voted heavily to remain.
[ 27. June 2016, 09:31: Message edited by: Alex Cockell ]
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
I'm not sure anything is going to happen any time soon. Even a GE is looking less likely if both parties are without leaders.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
...except the other regions of England and Wales that voted to stay in.
Restore the ancient Viking kingdom of Jorvik!
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Restore the ancient Viking kingdom of Jorvik!
True but tough. Wales, Scotland and NI are distinct devolved parts of the UK and Yorkshire isn't. You're part of England so either suck it up or move.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Apparently Kelvin McKenzie, former editor of the Sun, unreconstructed bigot and lying scumbag, is now wondering if voting to Leave was such a good idea.
Early days, but one more data point to suggest that buyers remorse is going to kick in over the next few weeks.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
mr cheesy: quote:
You're part of England so either suck it up or move.
Funny, that's what the Brexiteers are saying.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Funny, that's what the Brexiteers are saying.
OK so how are you suggesting the situation is resolved?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
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.
I do wonder what is really going on in Europe (given that politicians never tell us the background to their statements, making it impossible for us to know what is spin and what is not).
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Seems increasingly possible that the brexiteers will not be able (with the support of the remainers not being willing to try very hard) to produce acceptable terms: thus a referendum to vote on the terms and, hey presto, the brexiteer public who woke up to find they had made a mistake will be able to vote with the remainers (who always knew they were right) to stay… hope so, anyway.
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?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
Well one thing we do appear to have clarity on today is that the EU leaders are not taking that the Article has been invoked until it officially has been by the UK government.
So, presumably, if they never invoke the article then the UK continues as an EU country as before. Unless the other EU countries somehow manufacture a way to force it out.
To me the whole "have they invoked or not" question is less important than the home question of what the hell happens if the country does not now leave the EU having had a single referendum that voted in favour of it.
I haven't done the exact numbers yet, but it appears that in England more than 55% of people voted Leave, which is a fairly comfortable and sizeable majority.
To now not leave by some kind of slight of hand would look like treason/betrayal.
Yet another reason why this fucking referendum was the stupidest thing that anyone has ever thought of. Whoever won, we were screwed. As Leave won - and as they've got various bullyboys on their team who might well be looking to disrupt things in undemocratic ways - we'd be looking for double-trouble if there we no signs that it was ever going to happen.
At times like these we need one of those face-in-hands emoticons.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Correction, it was 53.4% in England, although I'm not sure if that includes Gibraltar.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
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 ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
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.
Yep, that too. A week is a long time, let alone two leadership elections and a General Election and people finding their pockets are empty.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
Bregret?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Seems increasingly possible that the brexiteers will not be able (with the support of the remainers not being willing to try very hard) to produce acceptable terms: thus a referendum to vote on the terms and, hey presto, the brexiteer public who woke up to find they had made a mistake will be able to vote with the remainers (who always knew they were right) to stay… hope so, anyway.
There is no "thus".
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.
The question is not "if" but "when" - and tied up with the "when" is the "how", in other words, on what terms. As Alan hints, any idea of "unbrexit" would be on very different terms to the situation on June 22.
[ 27. June 2016, 15:58: 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
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.
Bullshit games matter. Let's suppose the UK has enough of a political "oh, shit" moment to not trigger article 50 - then what happens?
First is that there's no Brexit - the UK remains in the EU, on its existing terms. Second is that the UK has pissed away all of its negotiating power on acting like a dick. It does indeed remain in the EU, but its ability to persuade other nations to accommodate its preferences will have been significantly reduced. Third, it's possible that the EU will notice a wider disgruntlement and engage in some reform (but I wouldn't hold my breath). Even if that happens, the UK will have little hope of directing that reform - everyone else will ignore it.
Once the UK triggers article 50, there really is no turning back. Article 50 starts the 2-year clock, and the UK is out of the EU when (or before) the clock runs out. If at any point in that two year negotiation, the UK decides that it doesn't like the deal it's being offered, and would like back in to the EU, there's no chance at all that it would be allowed back in on the old terms.
You might be able to negotiate not joining Schengen (the reality of being islands means that the UK being out of Schengen isn't a big deal), but you can say goodbye to Maggie's rebate, to the various derogations that the UK has negotiated, and to the pound.
The latter is guaranteed, I think. If the UK wanted back in, the EU is going to require a demonstration of commitment, and the Euro is pretty symbolic.
[ 27. June 2016, 16:18: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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
And Angela Merkel has upped the ante on delay. Which I am sure has been noted in No 10 and Whitehall.
Meanwhile the number of petitioners keeps rising, looks like topping 4 million. As Croesos said, Bregret.
The pound and the stock market both had bad days. The lack of confidence and the uncertainty are have created an ideal playground for Big Bears and I doubt very much whether we've seen the last of the turbulence.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
