***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 34 *****
==============================================================
Continuing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 16:37
|
I think the European Union will struggle without Europes 2nd biggest economy.
The point is will the rest of the European Union give the U.K a free trade agreement so as to be part of the single market.
The U.K are no longer part of the European Union since last weeks referendum.
|
Do you just bash the keyboard randomly with your forehead?
>>The U.K are no longer part of the European Union since last weeks referendum.
I guess the answer to my first question is: Yes.
|
|
I don't think he uses his head.
|
I think that he probably does use his head on the keyboard - he is then in such a position that he cannot possibly see the outflow of the stream of excrement .
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Thu 30 Jun 16 at 18:23
|
|
Has he got one? Appears to have survived without the necessary connection with the facts of life. Like the EU exit Fluffy thinks has already occurred.
|
>> The U.K are no longer part of the European Union since last weeks referendum.
>>
Incorrect. The U.K. Is still part of the EU and must abide by its laws until the exit process is complete and at the moment no one can say when that will be.
Furthermore the referendum is not binding on Parliament so there is a very small chance that MPs will reject it and we will remain a member of the EU.
The EU will not go easy on us as they want to dissuade other countries from leaving. We will very likely get a free trade agreement but the cost will be unrestricted freedom of movement.
|
The EU will survive without us, compared to the rest of the EU we are just a small part of the EU economy and other countries will benefit in the long term. However I think we will still remain in the common market we will just have a worse deal.
The reality is the UK needs the EU more than it needs us. However in the long to medium term there is a lot of political unrest in other European countries so who knows what will happen long term.
|
Not that simple, though, Rats, is it? The EU isn't neatly segmented and divisible, so you can't just nip off one piece and expect the rest to carry on as if nothing happened. It's a complex system; tear out one part and there will be adverse consequences for the system as a whole, not just for the part that's torn out.
In this case, consider the - ahem - socially illiberal factions in France, Austria, Greece and elsewhere. They've just seen an illiberal faction agitate its way towards the exit door and (possible) 'freedom' from the measures that prevent them from making life uncomfortable. Are they just going to watch us go, or are they going to wonder what they might achieve by agitating some more?
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 30 Jun 16 at 18:49
|
Our exit will also lead to loss of revenue to the EU coffers and there will have so be spending cuts or the countries that are net contributors will need to pay more.
Of course our contribution to be a part of the free trade zone could be the equivalent of our current net contributions! ;-)
|
>> Of course our contribution to be a part of the free trade zone could be the equivalent of our
>> current net contributions! ;-)
And it could be more.
|
At the moment exporting manufactured goods to the U.S.A comes with a 10% tariff.
There are no tariffs exporting to the European Union at the moment.
Please explain to me what the answer is.
I am confused.
|
>> Please explain to me what the answer is.
You didn't ask a question. You made two statements.
|
|
Are we going to be better off outside the European Union?
|
Cast into the wilderness if we leave:) Maybe the USA could make us the 50th state, as we flounder, as beset and surrounded by enemies as Elizabeth I.
We could aspire to being an offshore possession of the USA, like Hawaii,as the alternative Putin offer would be slightly more repugnant. They'd have to place our monarchy and Government under house arrest, but hey, it's tough at the top and it would all be done very peacefully, except for socialists. Our financial havens would have to fly the US flag in the settlement, and Gib and the Falklands would be sold off. On the bright side, it would save us having to pay for a Navy and an independent nuclear deterrent, and our taxes would be low, given the advent of a proper profit orientated health service.
|
>>, and our taxes would be low, given the advent of a proper profit
>> orientated health service.
>>
And pigs might fly!
|
|
No he retired on a police inspector's pension to Devon. I think he rides motorbikes though... they can fly down the roads of Dartmoor for fun.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 30 Jun 16 at 21:19
|
I know that.... some don't get irony I guess. :-)
But it's not irony that the EU commissioner for trade now says we cannot negotiate agreement with the EU or anyone else until we actually leave the EU! That's a bit of a blow. Why didn't we know that before?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 30 Jun 16 at 21:21
|
|
True fluffy everything is a bit of a mess right now.We have to wait and see how the cards are played.
|
He has a point once notice is given we are no more a part in the E.U. (We are waiting)
In the minds of the people who voted for out and many Europeans we have left.Just the paperwork to be sorted now.>:)
|
>> He has a point once notice is given we are no more a part in the E.U. (We are waiting)
But before notice is given we have to pass a bill through parliament. Both the house of commons and lords needs to pass it. Could be months. And then we've started the process to LEAVE. But not the process of NEGOTIATING anything anywhere.
|
|
Does the Daily Mail know of this conundrum? I think they should expand:)
|
It's starting to look catch-22 for MPs. They have to vote a bill through for article 50. But they can't know the implications at all when they do.
If this was an equivalent situation for us in our lives.... you would not choose a risky path with so many unknowns. Even betting on Leicester winning the title had a chance and most of us would rule out a bet. This is simply unknown.
Maybe one of us will win on the Premium Bonds tomorrow. Or Euro Millions. I might win both*.
* I only have £100 of Premium Bonds.... returns are poor unless you want to hang on for a big win.
|
|
I presume you mean they have to vote a bill to annul the 1972 Act. But given the majority of the commons currently, against Brexit, and the abyss facing the UKif we leave, I wonder if they will be so bold as to facilitate the exit process?
|
>> I presume you mean they have to vote a bill to annul the 1972 Act.
>> But given the majority of the commons currently, against Brexit, and the abyss facing the
>> UKif we leave, I wonder if they will be so bold as to facilitate the
>> exit process?
>>
Precisely. Could we let the referendum result stand (that's what the plebs want) but fail to annul the act. If they don't overturn the act from 1972... job done we remain in the EU I guess.
|
The country can't afford month's this is not a committee meeting of a amateur football club.
Hesseltine is having kittens attacking Boris.A week in politics.
|
We could be taking months to say we'll leave. Then leave. Then negotiate.
I might be in my mid 50s by then.
|
>> I might be in my mid 50s by then.
>>
I think the economy could be like it was in the mid 50's. ;-)
|
>> The country can't afford month's this is not a committee meeting of a amateur football
>> club.
>>
>> Hesseltine is having kittens attacking Boris.A week in politics.
>>
I reckon Heseltine is right!
|
Won't take that long to arrange to debate the 72 Act once the Tory leadership is sorted, but the commons may need to be called back from hols. As for the upper house, who knows.
|
I don't have a problem selling off the Falklands or Gib.
Come buy come buy
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 30 Jun 16 at 22:48
|
|
Well with the family silver, gold diamonds and rubies we might scratch through the next few years. Draw the line at more golf courses for the Trump royal family TM but other than that it's going to be a hard time for granny E.
|
|
Lucky for Westpig he has few neighbours.... We'd be borrowing boiled water let alone the tea bags and sugar.
|
Fluffy,
what part of my previous request - "stop keep creating separate EU & referendum discussions and post them in the thread that has been specifically created for it" did you fail to understand?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 01:50
|
I am starting to read up on Article 50 more and the constitution implications. And of course the EU are saying we can't negotiate and talk terms until you say you're leaving. But you might not leave if you knew the terms because you might change your mind.
So did the UK leave and remain camps know the process? They sure didn't share this. If they'd said well we'll tell them we're leaving and then we'll work out what deal we can get (so there was risk)... some might have thought hang on I don't know what I'm voting for. Or did the official leave and the stay camp both think we'd stay so why worry?
As for the process to leave, article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty says a state can only leave in accordance with "its own constitutional requirements". So we need to pass a bill that has to be agreed on in the House of Commons and then the House of Lords. And that's to say we're leaving. At that point we don't know what deal we'll get.
Isn't this a bit catch 22 for the MPs? Until you vote to leave you don't know the deal. You might not vote to leave if you knew the deal on offer.
What a can of worms. Boris perhaps figures this out too.
|
And then I just see this article relating to an interview with the EU Trade Commissioner:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222
Basically NO TALK AT ALL BEFORE FULL BREXIT. Where did the two years go? Someone messed up on our side. Didn't they ask how this would work?
"There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said.
:
:
Under EU law, the bloc cannot negotiate a separate trade deal with one of its own members, hence the commissioner's insistence that the UK must first leave.
It is also against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with outsiders, which means the UK cannot start doing this until after it has left the EU.
Well done those that asked to leave. But none of us knew how it might work - why didn't the Government tell us?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 30 Jun 16 at 21:17
|
Don't think anyone has made this point, but would the government that ignored the views of a higher number of voters than generally vote in elections survive a general election?
Sort of thing that although many folk think the UKIP are not the party to run the country they may just get enough votes to do so.
We do live in interesting times...
|
>> Don't think anyone has made this point, but would the government that ignored the views
>> of a higher number of voters than generally vote in elections survive a general election?
>>
Unless someone rocks the boat we have until May 2020 before the is a general election. When might a referendum become void???
I don't think Theresa May or whoever becomes PM will not try to get out of the EU. It just sounds a lot more difficult when you have some of the facts they should have already had!
|
...the no talks before exit is patently a "Gordian Knot" that someone is going to have to find a way of cutting.
There is obviously (much like this forum) an amount of posturing going on which wouldn't/won't necessarily happen in face-to-face proceedings, and as the realities further sink-in, so that position may well change.
However, I am concerned about the damage being done by the current uncertainty of process, and the rhetoric of the current situation. (For instance, until we invoke Article 50 we are still full members of the EU, so why was David Cameron described as "Excluded" from the recent European Council Heads of State meeting? I can see practical reasons for wanting a meeting without him there, but surely he should have been invited to "step outside" whilst the relevant bits were debated).
If, however, we don't see a chink in the "no negotiations without exit" armour, I think it is time, and as soon as we have a new PM, to play hardball.
I would make it clear that we have no intention of exiting without knowing the terms on which it will happen. What we would prefer to do is to start to explore those terms immediately (and for whatever reasonable length of time they will take to resolve), in parallel with the EU investigating what general changes it would like to make for ALL its members in an attempt to keep them happier and the UK in (Brexit will have crystallised some common fears across the membership).
We should then weigh each, and, on their merit take them back to the electorate as fully-formed proposals, and a mandated referendum.
In return for the EU agreeing this approach, whilst we still remain members we should promise full and continuing cooperation with their processes as a full member. If they don't, we should likewise promise (I don't like the word threaten) to disrupt and delay everything we can, by filibuster and veto, until/unless a reasonable process is agreed.
I don't envisage (though it is a threat) such an approach being presented in a threatening way, simply by explaining the Realpolitik of what we (and patently any other country in this position would) need, and about the only lever we can pull to try to achieve it.
|
Seems to me like you are advocating non-exit then, and a mvoe towards a second referendum, based on revised membership conditions of the EU?
The assumption being that a second referendum would come up with a different result. What's to suggest it would?
Undoubtedly people are more aware since the vote than they ever were before it but my feeling is that the first one has polarised people and made them even more convinced of the rightfulness of their position (on both sides) - and the fact that the sun is still rising and the FTSE is higher than it was before and Cameron has resigned etc etc etc etc may even cause some to switch from Remain - which may balance out any who leave the Outs as a result of the inaccuracies in their campaign.
I don't think we are in a position to play hardball, however it may be disguised. The motive would be obvious.
|
...I've always advocated non-exit, being aware of some, if not all, of the issues that have now had more of a spotlight put upon them.
The above approach doesn't cement that, though - it merely advocates putting the known terms of exit or staying back to a plebiscite, rather than having a "pig in a poke" vote, and (IMO) that would properly validate any result (whichever way it went, and I'm certainly making no assumption on that).
Unlike some, I think I have been somewhat more balanced and impersonal about my views on here. I don't deny the right of people to vote for whatever they wish (and for whatever reasons, though I may hold some of those reasons in contempt). I do believe, however, that (some) votes were cast in the recent referendum based on things that were undeliverable, and without cognisance of the circumstances that would result. I'd rather see a vote that was more concrete for such a seismic event.
I don't think, either that I was advocating disguising our willingness to (reluctantly) play hardball, or indeed hiding the motive from the EU of understanding the terms of any exit before we pull the trigger; in fact, quite the opposite. (Along the lines of "please don't give us a hard time, or we will have to reciprocate")
The current perceived situation of having to depart before knowing any of the terms on which we would do so is (or should be) untenable for any politician, so we do have a chance that the EU will relax somewhat - if not, it should be hardball time.
It really is like the old Irish joke "If you're going there, you shouldn't be starting from here".
|
It sounds like an essentially unworkable Article 50, although I suspect it was purposely designed in this way to be so nuclear as to prevent members using it as a negotiating tool.
To an extent, if we have to give notice first, we have 'signed the contract' unseen - the principal leverage remaining being that the default presumably would be WTO terms which would hurt the EU too. There will undoubtedly be a better position than that - in terms of whatever we want to offer in trade terms and EU movement of labour/capital in return for terms to us and migration controls.
It would make just as much sense from the EU perspective to seek negotiations ahead of notice being given, with one possible outcome being that we do not need to leave. That would entail a degree of climbdown (by both sides), and the difficulty of agreeing exceptional treatment for a member, unless it could be combined with a change to the general rules too, which seems as if it might be necessary to quieten the other grumpy members anyway.
Whilst it might be unrealistic (and wrong) to expect the government to renege on the commitment to follow the verdict of the referendum, for the PM to say
"...we have now provisionally agreed terms on which UK can remain a member that are materially better to those that obtained when the referendum took place, so we will put it to the country [in some way - e.g. a general election, or a free vote in parliament, not necessarily a referendum] instead of triggering Article 50..."
starts to look like a possibility. But only if there is earnest dialogue before the notice.
There would seem to be little downside to that, except of course the increased probability of a repeat by us or another member at some future date if the intended nuclear bomb of Article 50 is disarmed.
The Cameron negotiation was a flop, but it always was going to be - it's deuced hard to negotiate anything that doesn't improve the terms for the other side unless you have a credible-sounding walk option, and Cameron didn't. We do now - but we have rather over-succeeded with it, and broken the important rule of negotiating that you should not paint yourself into a corner. It always costs something to get out of the corner, and we only have a limited amount of negotiating capital to spend.
(My attempt to contribute to this thread again is not a signal to resume hostilities. I am still not playing that game)
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 10:44
|
With a change of leader to May, and a fair wind, given the new, Slovakian, EU President's remarks about giving some slack (to paraphrase) there may be a negotiable outcome.
Perhaps a friendly non-EU country could act as intermediary or proxy? I think this has been done successfully re N Ireland. How it registers politically with the UK divided almost half and half remains to be seen, but that could be one of the areas for prior analysis and careful preparation.
|
|
But hold on - over 50% of voters wanted to leave, so where is there any mandate or desire to stay? We could well get a "Brexit" PM who is unlikely to follow that course anyway...
|
>> But hold on - over 50% of voters wanted to leave, so where is there
>> any mandate or desire to stay? We could well get a "Brexit" PM who is
>> unlikely to follow that course anyway...
That is why any such decision would need to be revalidated in some way, as I suggested in my imaginary scenario.
|
But I don't see why anyone would have any motivation to even start down that route.
I understand that many people think the vote outcome was wrong but there is no appetite outside this forum for a second referendum is there?
|
|
Result was marginal. Parliament is quite strongly in favour of remaining, and the negative impact of leaving is only now being realised. So there are quite few questioning the wisdom of following an advisory referendum in the light of unexpected issues. Before Art. 50 can be legally triggered the 72 Act would need to be annulled, probably. Legal opinions on procedure: ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 12:14
|
>> Result was marginal. Parliament is quite strongly in favour of remaining, and the negative impact
>> of leaving is only now being realised.
FWIW John McDonnell seems to have ruled out blocking Art 50
(cannot find direct link but it's in Guardian rolling news)
|
>> But I don't see why anyone would have any motivation to even start down that
>> route.
The motivation for something would presumably come from a prospective solution to the implied problem that at the moment few voters seem likely to get what they voted for. That problem might need to be "created"; I wonder if that has been happening. I can't think of any other reason, except naivety, why people such as Philip Hammond should appear to be negotiating for the EU by underlining the supposed impossibility of limiting free movement at the same time as having preferential single market access.
>> I understand that many people think the vote outcome was wrong but there is no
>> appetite outside this forum for a second referendum is there?
No. One referendum bad, two worse. But it doesn't have to be a referendum, does it? But if it isn't that or a general election it could be politically unrealistic, unless the proposed agreement went a long way to satisfy the Leavers' concerns.
|
I get all your saying and I can understand it. I would like us to not leave (which was how I voted) and I'd like an outcome like you are suggesting.
But surely people would feel cheated if they weren't given a second opportunity to choose under any newly negotiated terms and the press would turn it into the end of democracy.
A general election wouldn't work as it isn't a party issue - people in both main parties have been on both sides. And anyway it would be wrong to be forced to choose a 5 year government based pretty much on one piece of policy.
I can't see how a 2nd vote can be avoided. I always thought having to have the first was a disaster. From May - www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=22415&m=497073
|
The trouble with a second vote of any kind is we probably can't know what deal we will get until you've actually left. At which point it is too late. A catch-22 situation. I don't think any of us on here saw this coming - the Government on the other hand should have known and shared this info.
I'm not suggesting either side needed a plan on how to leave - but they should have understood the framework.
I don't see how a general election solves the problem. You could argue that if we voted for a party saying they wouldn't take us out of the EU then we have signed up to it. And all parties would probably include that in any manifesto... but some idiots might vote UKIP in!
Maybe we need to have some sort of vote on whether or not to have another vote on in/out of the EU. :-)
|
Beginning to wish I'd have voted to stay in the EU now, instead of voting to leave.
If nothing else, it might have stopped me having to create yet another new volume every night!
;)
|
:-)
Boris is looking for work - maybe recruit him. He's smart.
|
Well, I'm back home to a proper broadband connection and have tried to catch up on this forum.
We have two grown men, presumably very well educated (WdeB and rtj) who think they know better than anyone else. That includes our politicians and government.
I suggest we appoint them as Prime Minister and Chancellor, then it will all be alright, won't it?
Whilst whipping yourselves up into an absolute frenzy, because just for once it has been proven that the vast majority who people voted think you are both wrong, I come across continual goading, derision and insults such as this >>(that's what the plebs want<<<.
Fill your boots, the pair of you.
What an utterly nasty pair or people you are.
I'm outa this thread as are many others simply because of your actions both before and after the vote.
You, and your ilk, have been the reason the vote went the way it did, and quite right too.
Pat
|
|
Hope you & Ian had a lovely time touring Scotland Pat, and that the weather was kind for you. Bet you have some wonderful pictures...Regards.
|
|
Glad you are both back safe and well, I was "up there" at the same time as you. At least the weather was better than the internet availability, if it is not hard wired it can be a bit patchy.
|
We did thank you LL, and the weather was kind to us.
We got so hung up on the solitude and beauty of the far north coastal areas, and the north west peninsula down to Ullapool, we left ourselves little time to explore the rest properly, including Knoydart:(
We have vowed to return though and finish the job properly.
Pure fresh air, absolute silence, no wifi and views I had never imagined are something I will never forget.
On the downside, it was a sharp lesson to learn that pub lunches and a takeaway Costa coffee were not around every corner!
Round trip was 2300 miles just to link the motoring connection!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 08:30
|
>> Round trip was 2300 miles just to link the motoring connection!
Many folk from "down there" don't realise how big Scotland is and how remote the far North is. Fuel for both car and it's contents can require a little planning. :-)
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 10:24
|
Pat, I suggest you save the self-congratulation for when you're within sight of getting what you wanted from this referendum.
You have some of it already, of course - protection from further Eurozone costs was already a given, as was control of access to benefits for EU migrants, but you were too full of righteous English fervour to bother to check. As for the rest, none of the people whose side you took had the faintest idea how to deliver it, so it's far from clear you'll get any of it. So what did you actually achieve, apart from some Pyrrhic victory against types like RTJ and me - whatever you think we are?
As for 'vast majority' - well, 37% or so of the electorate might still agree with you. But I'd be amazed if a good chunk of those weren't looking at the broken promises and admitted lies of the Leave campaign, or at the sheer futile disruption of whatever the exit process turns out to be, and wondering what on earth it was all for.
But congratulations from me on staying true to your principles. Whatever you think they are.
|
>> As for 'vast majority' - well, 37% or so of the electorate might still agree with you
Not 37% but 52% of public voted in favour of leaving EU.
Those who didn't vote their opinion don't count. In theory, split among those voters could be 50-50 or 60-40 or 40-60 etc.
The First Past the Post system always ensured all "elected" governments never got more than 35% or similar mandate.
At least in this referendum all votes were counted.
PS: Got bit bored about this referendum topic now. Will not post frequently from now on. But this does not mean that I am unhappy with the result or changed my opinion.
Last edited by: movilogo on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 11:16
|
No, 52% of voters, but 37% of the public.
>>Those who didn't vote their opinion don't count
Ridiculous, of course they do. Not voting is also a choice and an opinion.
Really, you are not very good at this, are you.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 11:20
|
>> No, 52% of voters, but 37% of the public. Not voting is also a choice.
>>
>> Really, you are not very good at this, are you.
And as a I pointed out previously 37% of the electorate would not give legitimate authority for a tube strike.
|
One of the several reasons I hate referendums is the spurious accuracy that is imputed to the result.
Never mind the turnout factor, 52-48 is a draw, either way round. To call it a decisive victory is just wrong IMO. The weather on the day could make 2 points difference to the way people vote, never mind the last thing that happened to be in the news (that includes poll results, which should be banned) If the government wanted to enact the will of the people it would be almost down the middle, not one extreme or the other.
I've said that part before, but it is different from the application of first-past-the-post to, say, a general election. In an election these close results, at least to some extent, cancel each other out. We don't have a general election to decide whether the Commons will consist entirely of Conservatives, or Labour-ers, or Liberal Democrats.
The use of referendums should be limited to things such as choosing a flag, or a national anthem.
|
>>The use of referendums should be limited to things such as choosing a flag, or a national anthem
I think using them is ok, or at least not the major issue, but they need better framing.
e.g. 70% to be binding.
I entirely agree that what we have with this one just is no sort of a majority, or even useful. But the Government framed it up and represented it inappropriately.
|
|
Precisely Manatee. Within margin of error, and during that Glastonbury festival! Hopefully Parliament will see this result as a draw, or set up a revised referendum with provisos on the outcome percentages.
|
>> Not voting is also a choice.
Not voting = happy with any outcome
|
No it doesn't. Dear God, put some effort into understanding.
It can mean exactly the opposite, as NOT happy with any outcome. It can be related to not recognising the legitimacy of the establishment, it could be disgust with the process.
It matters.
You keep stating opinions which reveal you have a very low understanding of the issues and the process. You should research and learn more.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 11:23
|
|
Movi, the fact that you keep popping up here to ask questions you could answer with a look at the website of any newspaper or the BBC suggests you've not been looking at such sites at all. So where did you get the information on which you based your solid Leave decision?
|
|
Oh I thank that was wanting to pull up the drawbridge after him. Its the only opinion he has voiced that rings true.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 11:50
|
>>You, and your ilk, have been the reason the vote went the way it did, and quite right too.
So you voted against the side with people you didn't like as supporters?
Doesn't seem the greatest or most perceptive of reasons for choosing a direction. Far better to understand the issues and use them to decide, no?
And I think nasty is over the top. Bit rude at times, as are you. But not more. As for whipping himself into a frenzy, having met WdB I struggle to imagine him whipped into a frenzy, shudder at the thought quite honestly, but I don't think this is one.
>>I'm outa this thread as are many others simply because of your actions both before and after the vote.
Running away because someone is a bit rude? Again, hardly a show of commitment. Still banging on about the actions of "many others" then. It'll be the two of them driving all those new members away next.
Also, you need to reconsider the words "vast majority", because I think you might have misunderstood some stuff.
What over emotional stuff and nonsense.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 12:05
|
|
This is the tactic Trump uses apparently. He was advised that facts were unlikely to be absorbed, so proceeded on the basis of emotional plays.
|
|
...indeed, the old "don't confuse me with the facts" issue........
|
And the Chancellor admits he will no longer be able to balance public finances by 2020:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36684452
That though may be a case of a good time to bury bad news.
|
>> That though may be a case of a good time to bury bad news.
Gives him all the excuses he ever needed. Some companies will use BREXIT uncertainty to do things that will be unpopular. EasyJet may move their HQ like Vodafone. Perhaps they both wanted to anyway but now they can blame the vote LEAVE campaign.
|
Pat, movilogo has admitted they don't understand a lot of this. I don't know all of it because I'm not a politician paid to know it - maybe I would make a better job than some. I know I'm more intelligent than the average person on the street. Quite probably more intelligent than you too - that's not a dig just fact.
The more the surface is scratched the more idiotic the referendum becomes. We did not have all the facts of how BREXIT would work and we still don't.
It seems from yesterday that the two year limit is to get out of the EU. So passing legislation and laws to undo the EU bits. I get that. And I get not being allowed to negotiate any deals with the EU or any other country or trade bloc too. But if that had been explained in simple terms before the referendum could Boris call those facts as project fear?
We'll probably know with about 10 years if you got even a small part of what you think you voted for. If you actually know what you wanted. I wonder if most of the vote leave citizens know what their hoped for outcome would be.
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty certainly seems to have been created as the nuclear option. And it makes you wonder why anyone would trigger it. Knowing the damage it will do can the MPs really vote for it? Will the house of lords approve their decision?
|
>> I know I'm more intelligent than the average person on the street. Quite probably more intelligent than you too <<
Modest, as well...
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 13:16
|
|
Doesn't matter, I'm prettier.
|
Not according to Will.
;)
|
|
He wouldn't know, he was too busy in his frenzy.
|
>> I know I'm more intelligent than the average person on the street. Quite probably more intelligent than you too - that's not a dig just fact.
But not bright enough to realise that the country is divided into haves and have nots and you were outnumbered.
|
>> Easy jet negotiating to move HQ out of UK:
>>
>> news.sky.com/story/1720169/easyjet-opens-talks-over-post-brexit-hq-move
>>
>> First of many I suspect
>>
The headline seems at odds with the story. It says a handful of people might move for legal reasons and they won't move the rest of the staff.
|
The headlines are always at odds that's one of the reasons Dodgy Rog used to post so much rubbish, he only ever read the headlines.
In the short term this move, if it happens, means little. However, it does tend to suggest that over a longer period of time their investment is likely to prefer elsewhere.
There seems little benefit in them moving assets at this time, but come the time they need to build or majorly refurbish one, then if their headoffice is elsewhere, and therefore presumably some of their business interests elsewhere, then why would they default to inveting in the UK.
I keep trying to explain that today's headlines are not the thing. *The* thing is what the trend and direction of travel will be. And I cannot see how that will be anything other than leaning away from the UK. And that will not cause dramatic headlines, but it will cause a gradual lessening of the UK economy and financial position.
You know, that thing that the Leavers said would stay the same.
|
Laughing my a*** off, needs sound really, not safe for work. Read carefully as it really gets going.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ
3.12 - Hilarious!!
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 13:21
|
>> >> Easy jet negotiating to move HQ out of UK:
>> >> First of many I suspect
>> >>
British Airways ? ... Sorry IAG ( created when BA took over Iberia....Sorry ...merged with IB )...
>>
>> .....a handful of people might move for legal reasons and they won't move the rest of the staff.
>>
BA have not moved out.
However IAG is Spanish registered so dividends from ex BA shares are taxed in Spain.
AGM held in Madrid. Even if I attend the AGM I cannot ask questions there.
All question have to be submitted in advance and vetted.
I too suspect there will be a few companies transferring their HQ registration.
|
...if this is a guide.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html
Confusingly, 3% of Remainers also regret enough to change, which suggests enough noise and confusion around the result to render it questionable. Certainly makes a nonsense of Pat's 'vast majority'.
If we move 7% of Leave votes (1.2m) to Remain, and 3% of Remain votes (480,000) to Leave, we have 16.8m to 16.7m in favour of Remain. Add in, say, 10% sampling error and who the knickers knows for certain what the British public wants? How can this possibly be a mandate for exercising the nuclear option of Article 50?
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 13:30
|
I remember posting an age ago to the effect that if the politicians did not get the result they wanted the referendum would be re-run or fudged. I can't be bothered to search for it but feel free if you want to.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 13:35
|
I remember posting an age ago to the effect that if the politicians did not get the result they wanted the referendum would be re-run or fudged.
That's not the issue here, ON. Regardless of what 'the politicians' want, has this referendum produced a clear and decisive public vote to justify such a fundamental economic, political and social change in the country as a whole? As I've been asking here, to reverse the question: what percentage of the electorate would be outraged if we did not change the status quo? And would it be greater than the percentage that would be pleased, relieved or indifferent?
Johnson on 'Independence Day' said that it was important to remember the views of the 48.1% who voted Remain. If it now appears that 48.1% is an underestimate of the Remain share of opinion, what confidence can the government have that the public is in favour of Leave?
Just in case, 'You lost, get over it' is not an answer to this. In a binding referendum it might be, or one in which there was no shadow of dishonesty or false promises over the campaign. But not here.
|
>> Just in case, 'You lost, get over it' is not an answer to this.
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but that has to be the starting point - and for it to be anything else, there needs to be some objective and compelling reason to deviate from it.
I think you need more than the 'shadow' of dishonesty or false promises which are the currency of political campaigning.
That might be, for example, the impossibility of implementing it for either practical or constitutional reasons, verifiable evidence that the will of the people is now different, the certainty of unacceptable harms, or serious and provable corruption. The last one might be the best bet if you really believe that is what has happened.
On a trivial scale we had a town council election locally last year in which a clique of councillors put out a leaflet (also illegal in that it did not include the name of the promoter and the printer) which included the phrase "You have to vote for eight candidates so you have to make eight crosses on your ballot paper". That was simply not true, and many people subsequently said they had been misled into voting for eight candidates including some they did not support which must have affected the result. There was a serious attempt to get the election re-run. The election supervisor in the LA referred the matter to the police, who said they did not intend to take any action. The LA agreed that what had been done was illegal, but because it was not deemed serious enough to prosecute they would take no further action.
This referendum is on a very different level of importance but I think that anybody who wants to challenge the validity of the result will have a much better chance if serious criminal acts can be proven and the culprits successfully prosecuted. If that can't be done, then I think the result will stand unless and until the people speak again.
|
Either result entails 17million p***ed off Brits. That is a lot of people and a big problem.
There was no possible result from this referendum that would avoid that. I'd rather we were Remain with 17m p***ed off people than be Leave with 17m p***ed off people, but its pretty s***e either way.
So what do we do?
We have to determine what the choice *actually* is. If we leave, what *will* our position *really* be. And likewise, what position is *really* offered if we stay.
Then we need the political parties with their shiny new leaders to go to the General Election and *TELL* us which of those they will support AND implement.
And then we vote for a new Government.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 13:41
|
If we had an election there's the risk there is no clear winning party. On the other hand, if the promises are:
- Conservatives - we'll staying the EU
- Labour - we'll also keep us in the EU
- Liberal Democrats - so will we
So it's not much of an election for the leavers. You might as well have a referendum with just one question on it.
Maybe this referendum should have been:
- Stay and keep the status quo and all the cr*p that brings
- Leave and accept job losses, recession, etc.
Because then if you voted leave you'd signed up to all the bad things so couldn't complain.
|
>>If we had an election there's the risk there is no clear winning party
Which means nobody has a clear mandate to do anything, which means nothing will be done.
Surely that would be appropriate?
You shouldn't need a mandate for the status quo, you need a mandate for change. Fundamentally this Referendum should not be sufficient to drive change. In fact it is probably NOT sufficient to drive change, but it is perceived as such.
And I don't expect people who voted Leave are complaining. I assume that the vast majority of them are pleased with the result. Its the people who either voted Remain or who are tasked with sorting out the mess who are complaining.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 14:14
|
>> If we had an election there's the risk there is no clear winning party. On
>> the other hand, if the promises are:
If there were an election tomorrow, on the newly gerrmandered boundaries, I suspect the Tories would win with a Thatcher size majority.
|
>>..newly gerrmandered boundaries
...is that gerrymandered or Germaned?
;-)
|
|
Their best effort so far.
|
An interesting but, of necessity, longish take:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-the-making
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 15:06
|
It would seem one of the Brexit supporting MPs running to be leader (Liam Fox) is a little stupid too. He has called the EU Trade Commissioner's stance "bizarre and stupid". But if she's technically correct then it's him that's stupid.
Maybe in reality there will be some talks but you'd have thought the EU Trade Commissioner knows her job and the rules. Liam Fox seems not to.
On that basis he should stand down from the leadership race.
|
>>www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-
th
e-making
I'm not one for sticking my fingers in my ears, but there has been so much outrageous drivel in the Guardian, the Independent and for that matter the Telegraph on this subject (I'm ignoring the Mail, Express, and the red tops) that I really can't bear to read them any more. Any serious points they might have are utterly discredited by the hysterical rubbish they print.
...
Some time later...after writing that I decided to read the article anyway before posting. Gary Younge is not Polly Toynbee. I agree with nearly all of it. The main theme is that when politicians lie (by half truths and omission) all the time, we are unlikely to believe them when they tell us something true. The bit I thought was missing (see first paragraph) is that the media do much the same thing!
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 1 Jul 16 at 16:11
|
can the European Union survive without the U.K. - fluffy
