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

baracks_a_hammer

Mrs g

I've read and re-read the above

You have clearly made two separate inferences

One on the accuracy of what was said to me - ergo is this person telling the truth and/or have I accurately posted what this person has told me.

The second on sweeping statements etc.

And even if it were only one school that displayed these behaviours, it is one school too many. Luckily my daughter is not at that school else I'd be straight on to the governors and authorities who oversee that school.

thornburyiron

My friends son at one of our local schools was constantly bombarded by the school that they should get their parents to vote remain. This was done during assembly and in some of the lessons every day. He was disgusted to learn his parents had voted leave and to this day has not spoken to them.
I very much doubt it is all schools but I believe it's a very good number.

MrsGrey

You said I was questioning:

One on the accuracy of what was said to me - ergo is this person telling the truth
and/or have I accurately posted what this person has told me.

I posted a few comments back

I believe that you are telling the truth when you pass on what you have been told by your friend.

I also said

I never said he/she was making it all up. But those comments are open to interpretation

As for

And even if it were only one school that displayed these behaviours, it is one school too many.

I agree - in respect of telling kids to go home and persuade their parents to vote a particular way.

TheMadcapLaughs

I can also confirm that at the school where my son and daughter go that there was a "heavy bias" towards Remain. My daughter found this all quite interesting (for about 5 minutes). My son googled to see if "The Outers" or "The Remainers" was available on X-Box, and hence lost interest immediately. He did say though that he would not be best pleased if we voted for Donald Trump.

MrsGrey

I know some schools used the opportunity to stage their own debates and votes.

That, I think is OK.

It is good practice for them, and a good opportunity to learn about things like how to conduct a formal debate, develop public speaking skills and to learn more about the political process.

Equally, I can't see a problem with analysing speeches and newspaper articles (for example, in English lessons) to learn to identify bias, the structure of an argument, how to use and evaluate emotive language and persuasive techniques.

IronHerb

TheMadcapLaughs said:

I can also confirm that at the school where my son and daughter go that there was a "heavy bias" towards Remain. My daughter found this all quite interesting (for about 5 minutes). My son googled to see if "The Outers" or "The Remainers" was available on X-Box, and hence lost interest immediately. He did say though that he would not be best pleased if we voted for Donald Trump.

And you ignored them. ;biggrin

Whitehorsehammer

Here is another angle on this thread. Pardew said many posts back that we are OUT, Grey quickly pointed out that we are not. It is my thought that activating article 50 is a long way off. I cannot see that in view of the magnitude of doing so, along with strong legal opinion, that any one person will be brave or mad enough to do so without parliament voting on it. We all know that a large majority of MP’s want to remain. If that vote were tomorrow I can see that the freshness of the referendum and public opinion would make it difficult for many MP’s to go against public opinion (there will be some, including most SNP). BUT the vote will not be tomorrow, it may well be in six months time. By then things will have changed, the economic effect, which I believe will be bad, will start to impact on peoples lives, which it has hardly done so far. Many MP’s could well then say, in the light of what we now know I cannot vote to activate article 50. That would;d probably force a general election, perhaps a hung parliament with more Lib Dems standing on a remain agenda. It could happen...

baracks_a_hammer

I dont think that will happen white horse.

On my ballot paper there was nothing on it which said, "this is merely a gauge of opinion"

So it's only a question of when article 50 will be triggered. Anything else will likely trigger anarchy.

As for saying the economic effects will be bad within a six month period, that of course is purely an opinion which many may share but many also will not.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Swissiron said:

TheMadcapLaughs said:

"Should such a momentous decision really be simply made on first past the post?"

How else we gonna do it?

Seems fair to me, a referendum took us in, a referendum has taken us out.

We didnt go in as a result of a referendum. The referendum of 75 kept us in, we entered the EU in 73

No it did not. The EU did not exist in 1973 or 1975, it was the EEC (or Common Market) back then an bore no resemblance to the current EU (except with a Franco-Germanic alliance running it).

Part of the problem has been that whenever there has been a major change from then to transformation to what it is now, the British people have never been given a say on them. Our history within the EU has been one of disagreements and our veto's and ability to withstand the changes that were considered not in our interest eroded.

A lot of the older generation who are still with us and voted to stay in back then that I know voted to leave this time partly on this basis and the concerns that a remain vote would be seen by the EU as a green light to further erode any remaining we had.

simonc

English in the Future... if article 50 is not enacted

Directors at Daimler Benz and Chrysler have announced an agreement to adopt English as the preferred language for communications, rather than German, which was another possibility.

As part of the negotiations, directors at Chrysler conceded that English spelling has some room for improvement and have accepted a five-year phase-in plan. In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Also, the hard "c" will be replased with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but komputers have one less letter.

There will be growing kompany enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome "ph" will be replased by "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 persent shorter.

In the third year, DaimlerKhrysler akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible.

DaimlerKhrysler will enkourage the removal of double letters, whish have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"'s in the languag is disgrasful, and they would go.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps sush as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" by "v".

During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be droped from vords kontaining "o", and similar shanges vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis, and employes vil find it ezi to kommunikat viz eash ozer.

Ov kors al supliers vil be expekted to us zis for all busines komunikation via DaimlerKhrysler.

Ze drem vil finali kum tru.

imagelost

Roll on the freedom of imfamasion act
;wahoo

MrsGrey

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

More up-to-date figures on how many voted in different age groups.

Age 18-24 group = 64% voted rather than the 36% as previously reported.

the lower and wrong estimate was based on information released by Sky Data which relied on data compiled after last year’s general election, which looked at the proportion within each generation who said they always vote.

OutcastLondoner

Why did he have to wear THAT shirt? ;doh

claretandbluesky

The education levels in this country are quite astonishing, this lad is 17 and so just come fresh from that education system. How on earth can we ever contemplate referendums when the ability to weigh and measure information, and discern opinion from fact is so compromised by low intelligence levels in many.

I really hope that clip doesn't go viral with that shirt in full dispaly.

MrsGrey

17 - not eligible to vote.

re. education, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear ;ok

grey_til_I_dye

c&b

Sorry, you simply cannot assess the education levels of the entire nation based on a single interview. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The first young man seemed, from what I could tell, to be borderline special educational needs, and therefore entirely unrepresentative.

claretandbluesky

I would agree that you of course cannot assess the entire nations education levels on that interview, and you know we sometimes use hyperbole when writing or speaking, but during the referendum I came across a lot of people who stated they were voting due to factually wrong viewpoints or views taken from distorted opinion pieces which were easily recognisable as misleading, social media was awash with misinformation. I feel that a basic intelligence is being able to weigh and measure information and discern opinion from fact, and that the education system needs address basic intelligence abilities such as these.

I found it really interesting when someone made a solid argument for either side in the referendum, a viewpoint that held water with regard exactly what the EU is and does and why they would or wouldn't like to be a part of it, sadly it all too often came down to the quoting of some belief held which was based around misinformation. As a brief example so many people quoted to me that they were worried about Syrian refugees flooding the UK, it was of course not possible for the EU to impose upon us any acceptance of Syrian Refugees as we had an opt out which we exercised, but so many did not know this. This is just one example of why I think this referendum was a great tragedy, as it was about perceptions all too often rather than the realities. There was certainly a case to leave and a case to remain but I so rarely heard it being made too articulately, and it really deserved to be articulated well, as it was an incredibly important moment in the history of this current century for us I feel.

MrsGrey

I came across a lot of people who stated they were voting due to factually wrong viewpoints or views taken from distorted opinion pieces which were easily recognisable as misleading, social media was awash with misinformation. I feel that a basic intelligence is being able to weigh and measure information and discern opinion from fact, and that the education system needs address basic intelligence abilities such as these.

In my experience (in life and in the classroom) many more people have this ability than regularly put it into practice. Sadly.

grey_til_I_dye

I'd echo that sentiment.

Most people have the potential to think rationally, inform themselves and follow through arguments, but a lot allow emotional responses to get in the way.

One of my best friends is a genuinely nice man, who would go out of his way to help anyone in need (regardless of race or colour), but he is a full-hearted racist.

He is easily clever enough to realise the inconsistencies in his feelings and attitudes, but doesn't choose to.

Swissiron

Admeus I understd whjat you are saying but the Treaty is essentially the same however you play it, and whenever you join it.

It started with an agreement on coal and steel, then the Treaty provisions of the EEC talked about a common commitment to "an ever closer Union".

It's not as if the subsequent Single Act created a completely new organization, each phase of the Union developed after democratic discussion debate and decision, from the previous.

And those changes were widely debated, discussed and had to be passed by every single national Pariament every time. We can't start having a referendum every time one aspect of other of the ECSC/EEC/EU changes.

At some stage we have to decide what is the sovereign law making and approving institution in the country and I have always been happy about that being the UK Parliament as a reasonably faithful and consistent interpreter of the will of the people.

I would certainly agree that Parliament must debate whether Article 50 should be referred by the Government. Just as I would if there was a referendum to approve capital punishment. The Parliament shoud still be the final arbiter.

We are now moving away from that and the once sovereign Parliament is losing its power, not because of the EU but because of idiots like Cameron who keep calling referendums because they won't take their responsibiities as democratically elected members of parliament.

And by the way Mrs Thatcher pushed the Single Act provisions through the House of Commons and repeatedly refused to call a referendum on it. That's what gave us the Single Market and its corollary the freedom of movement of people within the EU: Can't have one without the other.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Swiss,

I would not expect a referendum on every change only major ones - Thatcher refused a referendum because of the chance of it being rejected by the British People, same as happened in other countries at the time forcing it to be amended to get it past. Also at the time we had opted out of the Social Chapter, and had a hat full of other opt outs and veto's that successive Gov't have given up.

Then there was the Lisbon treaty which Brown refused to allow a referendum on (despite an expectation there would be one) - this was also rejected by Ireland but was amended again to get them to agree to it and a second run so he could not afford to allow it. Strangely enough I remember at the time it being intimated by the Establishment that general population did not have the educational ability to understand it so they could not be trusted to make the 'right' decisions - which infuriated people.

I think the way forwards was for all political parties to include a statement of their intent where Europe was concerned in their manifestos for wider discussion instead of hiding it away, concentration on only the issues that would get them elected. That way the whole European involvement would have been more in the political sphere and debated better with a better public perception. As it is a lot of people feel Europe speaks and we Jump, don't think it helps with their choice of titles of information they send out, for instance Directive.

buffybegood

My belief is that the EU has developed a life of its own way beyond what most people in Europe would prefer. Imo, most people in Europe are proud of their nation status, and would class themselves as French, or German, or Italian, or Spanish, rather than European. However, the way that the original Common Market has been slowly but surely heading towards a United States of Europe, countries have been faced with a be in and put up with how the bureaucrats of the EU want things to be or be out and totally isolated (self edit), rather than be in what you originally signed up for.

I would love to see the EU go back to what it was intended to be, a common market designed to make trade easier within Europe not the creation of a layer of un-elected bureaucracy over and above national governments within Europe, but whether it will happen in my lifetime I have no idea.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

This is a bit more positive: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/688053/South-Korea-post-brexit-UK-trade-deal-Government-Australia-Canada-Germany-New-Zealand?ref=yfp

MrsGrey

So we currently buy $7bn worth of goods from South Korea.

And now, as Brexit looms, South Korea is falling over themselves to strike a new trade deal.

So, erm, who do you think they see as getting the best out of this bargain ;hmm


The UK currently has a negative trade deficit (we import more than we export). To improve our balance of trade, we need to start exporting more, don't we?

So how is S. Korea scrambling to be first in line to sell us more stuff 'a bit more positive'?

Or am I missing something obvious?

NEoldiron

Although about a different topic, I think this is very illuminating:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36744911

Also, some of the criticisms made by the Chilcot enquiry are very similar to those made of the Leave campaign. In fact, you could almost think that Chilcot in some instances was commenting on it.

simonc

The trade deficit between the UK and Europe is far greater than 7 billion,
(24 billion in the first 3 months of this year https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit ) so, erm, would it not also imply that they would also benefit from a free trade agreement? It also begs to ask the question why? If Europe under the EU is a level playing field then why were the Germans 246 billion euros in surplus last year ;hmm maybe free trade with Europe isnt so beneficial to the UK

IronHerb

Maybe we don't manufacture enough that Europe wants or can't produce cheaper itself.

NEoldiron

I have just been reading this thread from the beginning and have to say there were some really good arguments put forward for both sides. I recommend anyone interested to do the same.

I wonder how much independent research (apart from reading the Mail or the Sun) the white people who were interviewed in "How white is Brexit" (see above - a really offensive and skewed piece I might add) must have done.
However, they demonstrated just how flawed an idea it was to put the future of the nation directly in the hands of the "Great British Public". I wouldn't trust them with my cat.
You can argue that they were not representative of the "GBP", but I would argue that at a guess, they were well represented in the Leave camp, although I must admit there are very few, if any, on this forum.

IronHerb

Well, we're all Hammers fans ;whistle

OutcastLondoner

NEOld, yeah I wasn't endorsing the video in sharing it – though think her comments were more nuanced at the end than the title suggested.

I think it was interesting many of the comments were phrases/arguments directly from headlines or the columns of Katie Hopkins.