The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

NEoldiron

If there was a re-run of the referendum, do you think the result would be the same in light of the current consequences?
If a referendum is not legally binding, is it not madness to act according to the result if that means following a path that is heading to disaster?

You're the captain of a ship and all the GPS and other navigational aids are broken. So you're steering on a particular course because the passengers had a vote to decide which direction to head and more of them voted to go in one direction than the others.
You can see that the ship is heading towards rocks, so do you ignore the passengers' vote and turn the ship around or do you carry on towards certain ruin?

Would it not be a dereliction of duty and responsibility to follow the passengers' instructions just because they made a democratic choice?

Or do you give them the choice of another vote?

OutcastLondoner

It's surprising how much political analysis there is on the idea that politicians might never use Article 50.

Jorderz_Moyes_will_be_Moyes

AKA,

A referendum is a glorified opinion poll. We do not live in a plebiscite or in Ancient Greece. Our elected MPs will ultimately make our decisions for us and the referendum is nothing but a gauge of public opinion.

Very difficult to ignore, ultimately, but not impossible. The referendum certainly isn't it all done and dusted.

I would be amazed if we don't see another referendum in two years time when the exact nature of our exit deal with the EU has been laid out for all to see.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Mrs Grey said: For the system to be racist, it would actually have to discriminate between people on the grounds of race. Which it doesn't. It distinguishes on the grounds of nationality.

But indirectly it does, discrimination what every way you badge it (positive, indirect etc.) is still discrimination because you are giving someone and unfair advantage. The majority of Europeans migrating to the UK through free movement are of white European ethnicity so non-white non-Europeans (who are the majority of non-EU Migrants) see this as a racist policy, as they have to follow another, more arduous process to gain entry to the UK, that is their perception - hence the reference to the person asking the questions race.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/

If you look at this on the BBC, it show ALL the Major Stock Markets are falling (Dow Jones, NASDAQ, DAX, CAC 30 the last two being the German and French)

And this one http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/stockmarket/default.stm

shows only 6 out of 36 have actually risen, of those falling the FTSE 25 has the higher % drop but the FTSE 100 has fallen LESS as a % than other European markets.

So is part of the fall due to GLOBAL factors rather than the Brexit result and why are the BBC not reporting the falls in the other markets as enthusiastically as they are with the UK markets - are the trying to create the news to support the remains experts predictions, (which they seemed to like a lot in the lead up to the vote as they were headline stories) in the belief that by continually saying and highlighting the negatives it will all go pear shaped they will talk it into happening whether it would have or not? - the old saying "if you repeat it often enough people will start to believe it is true whether it is or not" springs to mind. I always though, despite claiming impartiality, the BBC we in favour of remaining, so it would suit them for the doom and gloom predictions to come true.

I see the chestnut about age and education is still doing the rounds again on the BBC. What people forget (or in the case of the younger votes do not realise) is that unlike for most of them over the last 15 years, for most of those growing up in the 20th century, there was no option to go to University and study for a degree and to a certain level no encouragement. This does not make these people any less intelligent, in fact most of them have gain a lot of valuable life experience that the younger generation have not. Also in the 18-25 demographic, only 35% of those who could have vote actually bothered to so, if you had bothered to turn out in the numbers that the 'oldies' did, you would probably have swung the remain vote to win.

Dare I also suggest that that the SNP's and others running around suggesting the break up of the UK "Because some of us voted to stay and still want to" might also be contributing to the uncertainty. You can bet if remain had won they would be dismissing any leave antics like theirs with a "Majority voted to stay so deal with" type attitude. It was a UK wide vote and the UK voted to leave by a Majority. Instead of all the current goings on they should be pausing, seeing what will be on offer over the next several months and then deciding what to do.

Instead we have them, led by the SNP, charging around like a Bull in a China shop creating even more of a mess - it is clear that the SNP really do have a policy of "Independence at any cost". ;hmm Wonder if it might also be a bit of panic as the signs are up to close the station to the EU gravy train that many of them had an eye on, what are they going to do now once their domestic political career is over...

AdMeus_CaputFilius

MrsGrey said:


pardew, what's it got to do with you what currencies other countries want to use?

Dare suggest it may also have something to do with national identity? Maybe some of Pardew's colleagues feel that being part of the EU has eroded that and having their own currency would restore it somewhat.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

OutcastLondoner said:

It's surprising how much political analysis there is on the idea that politicians might never use Article 50.

Wishful thinking I think - So lets say they don't, at the next election UKIP base their campaign on "enacting Article 50 as the majority in the referendum voted for" and all the other parties went with not enacting - who do you think would form the next government or be the party with the most MP's in a coalition? Bearing in mind that 37% of the voting population who bothered to vote, voted leave and at a General Election would want to elect a Gov't that would carry out that wish and that the general rule of thumb is that a percentage of that amount is normally enough to get enough MP's with a Majority.

McHammer

i think we should put in a 2 million bid for Obamma.

TheMadcapLaughs

A couple of days ago The Lib Dems (remember them) promised that the cornerstone of their next election manifesto would be a promise to never invoke article 50. I think of the other parties the only ones with the courage to say they will invoke article 50 immediately are UKIP. The Conservatives and The Labour Party seem to be in complete disarray and I think both will fudge the issue. Perhaps the next general election will be a straight choice between The Lib Dems and UKIP. Blimey.

thornburyiron

Slav you say we do not live in a plebiscite but that's exactly what Ken Clarke called the voters. He said MPs can't leave it up to the plebiscite to decide what they want to do. It's for MPs to tell them what's best

NEoldiron

"Onme'eadson" said
Bearing in mind that 37% of the voting population who bothered to vote, voted leave.

And that 37% did so mainly on the basis of 2 blatant lies from the Leave side - control of immigration and 100's of millions for the NHS.
How many would vote the same way now that those lies have been exposed and in light of the current situation.
There should be a re-run with every eligible voter urged to participate - what have the Leave side to worry about if they are claiming that it's the will of the people to leave. For me 37% is not enough to continue with this.

billybondsbeard

Great article from the Grauniad...

" If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/25/brexit-live-emergency-meetings-eu-uk-leave-vote#comment-77205935

MrsGrey

AdMeus_CaputFilius said:

But indirectly it does, discrimination what every way you badge it (positive, indirect etc.) is still discrimination because you are giving someone and unfair advantage. The majority of Europeans migrating to the UK through free movement are of white European ethnicity so non-white non-Europeans (who are the majority of non-EU Migrants) see this as a racist policy, as they have to follow another, more arduous process to gain entry to the UK, that is their perception - hence the reference to the person asking the questions race.

I never said it wasn't discrimination (that is, distinguishing between 2 groups and treating them differently). It isn't even 'indirectly' it is direct.

What I said was, its not RACISM (which is what you originally posited): because the distinguishing isn't not being done on the grounds of race.

And whether it is the minority or majority of non-Europeans makes not a jot of difference. It's NOT racism; they ARE being treated differently from EU migrants, but not on the grounds of their race.

The non-EU rules cover South Africa, Australia, America .. as well as countries like India and Pakistan. All of those nationals, whatever their race, seeking entry to the UK are treated the same as each other.

Any immigration policy (even the harmonised one being proposed by the Brexiters will be discriminatory - on the grounds of profession, or age for example - however the points system is ultimately decided). If there was no discrimination, (that is, distinguishing between potential immigrants) we would just have an open door policy, or a blanket ban.

NEoldiron

billy

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

;ok

ASLEFshrugged

TheMadcapLaughs said:

A couple of days ago The Lib Dems (remember them) promised that the cornerstone of their next election manifesto would be a promise to never invoke article 50. I think of the other parties the only ones with the courage to say they will invoke article 50 immediately are UKIP. The Conservatives and The Labour Party seem to be in complete disarray and I think both will fudge the issue. Perhaps the next general election will be a straight choice between The Lib Dems and UKIP. Blimey.

The Lib Dems can definitely smell blood, if you look at a map of who voted what there are a lot of Tory seats in the Home Counties that backed staying in the EU, constituencies like Winchester or Lewes which were Lib Dem seats until recently

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

After the bloodbath of 2015 this could get them back in the game.

OutcastLondoner

The stuff about non-EU migrants is nonsense. UK chose to almost completely shut down migration from those places itself. Searching non-white people en masse at train stations for their documents was something they did themselves. I've worked in several non-EU countries and everyone will tell you the UK is the only one where it's almost impossible to get a holiday visa.

grey_til_I_dye

AdMeus

So lets say they don't, at the next election UKIP base their campaign on "enacting Article 50 as the majority in the referendum voted for" and all the other parties went with not enacting - who do you think would form the next government or be the party with the most MP's in a coalition?

If we had proportional representation you might be right, but we don't.

UKIP increased their share of the vote to 13% in the last election, and lost a seat, ending up with just 1 MP.

simonc

McHammer said:

i think we should put in a 2 million bid for Obamma.

You can have him on a free

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Herb,

Re Siemens in Hull.

http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSs2NQ13JXeQ4AlJlLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByZmVxM3N0BGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--/RV=2/RE=1467172816/RO=10/RU=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/28/siemens-freezes-new-uk-wind-power-investment-following-brexit-vote/RK=0/RS=uEyaCFc6ewRwlpSGMADeGqmPvNk-

Despite the scare headline in the Guardian today, Siemens did say prior to the vote (as has been repeated in the article above today) when they openly said they would prefer a remain vote, it would not affect the 1,000 jobs or investment already put in, but it would put a freeze on further investment until the situation was clearer (which is also repeated in that article).

I can only assume this re-hash of an article in the Local Humber Business news from 14th April based on a statement from Siemens around that time - so it is not 'News' and also if you actually read the Siemens statement some of the quotes attributed to it in both articles are not from it, but local MP's interpretation of the statement.

Also the 1,000 jobs the HSBC are moving to Paris - would it come as a surprise to anyone that this had been on the cards for some time and this was the perfect excuse. My Cousins son (who works in the city) said it was a bit of an open secret because some of the people he is friends with were offered a resettlement package to move to Paris a couple of months ago - these are the staff who work in section where transactions process in Euro's were carried out and he thinks that almost all of those 1,00 jobs will be taken by people currently working in the UK HSBC Office, se the hobs are not being lost, but transferred - so there will be little if any redundancies.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Mrs G, I did not say it was, it was the person on Question time who said it was and referenced himself being Asian. If he and others feel it is and have that perception, then their must be some substance in it for them.

Mr G. That was the last election, I point to the lib Dems at the same one, look what happened there because their supporters felt betrayed.

NEold: Although those two items were used as headline grabbers, that was not the sole or main reasons people voted leave. I have spoken t a few since the result an one thing that has not been picked up by either side that seemed to be a factor was:

The EU have a history of taking certain things as indicators for them to steam ahead with the 'EU Superstate' dream. When things don't go their way (e.g. Ireland first Maestricht Treaty vote - said no so should have been dead in the water - which the EU said it would be so they change the rules to allow another vote and won it.) they will change the rules to suit themselves to get what they want. So if it had been a remain vote there was a concern that the EU would take this as a green light for a lot of other changes to drive towards the EU Superstate, and we would have no option but to be dragged into it.

Also the Qualified Majority Voting so not all member states had to be in agreement was a concern. Despite the PM negotiating 'Opt outs and Veto's' and those already in place, it was questioned that would the EU see a remain vote as a green light to use the qualified voting to remove these and impose other changes not in the UK's interest.

Neither of these were discussed much and therefore for people with those concerns, a leave vote was the only option.

TheMadcapLaughs

For all the Remainers decrying the result and blaming the ignorant masses who voted out, consider this. Before the last election Mr Cameron promised the great unwashed a referendum on The EU, a simple in and out. All the experts (who are never wrong) claimed to a man that it was inevitable that there would be no overall majority at the last election, there would be a hung parliament, and the basic question was being asked of who The Lib Dems would sleep with this time. However, shock, horror:

Come the General Election: The Conservatives win a thumping majority, crikey: Popular Dave ;wave ;biggrin ;champagne

Now Popular Dave, true to his word, offers the great unwashed said referendum. He campaigns tirelessly for The UK remaining in the EU, what could go wrong.

Come The Referendum: Popular Dave takes a beating, The Outers win:
Not So Popular Dave ;nonono ;weep ;sbrew

Could it be that the Great British Public are not so thick after all, could it be that the only issue come last General Election was the promise of a referendum, and the Conservatives won a thumping majority based on this. If so then the experts, the politicians, the captains of industry et al got well and truly hoodwinked by the thickies.

























TWICE ;lol

grey_til_I_dye

Madcap

Your post seems to ignore the fact that the split of the vote was 52 - 48, so a great many of the 'great unwashed' are not included n your analysis.

SuzanneClaret

I washed.

I washed on the day I voted.

For all the good it did.

MrsGrey

All the experts (who are never wrong) claimed to a man that it was inevitable that there would be no overall majority at the last election,

I think you'll find it was opinion polls.

Who got it spectacularly wrong, again, in the referendum.

makes you wonder why people keep commissioning them. ;lol

NEoldiron

Admeus, suggest you listen to this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zjmdp

and I've read that there's about a million more Regrexiteers

Moojor

NEoldiron said:

Admeus, suggest you listen to this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03zjmdp

and I've read that there's about a million more Regrexiteers

and the same "poll" says that around 700,000 regretted voting remain, so the result would remain unchanged if those people had voted the other way.

MrsGrey

Poll, you say ;hmm

Moojor

It was taken by the Daily Mail...

MrsGrey

;lol

ASLEFshrugged

TheMadcapLaughs said:

Come the General Election: The Conservatives win a thumping majority

The Conservatives got 36.9% of the vote, 6.5% ahead of Labour with a 10 seat majority, hardly thumping when compared with Blair's 43.2%/177 majority in 1997 or Thatcher's 42.2%/102 majority in 1987, even John Major got 41.9%/21 majority in 1992.

Just sayin'