Europe should we stay in or get out?

Scott-Copywriter

Free Member
May 11, 2006
9,605
2,673
I was a senior manager in an old fashioned merchant bank before you were born and whilst you seem to know plenty of theory I think that you are sadly lacking in the ways of the world if you think that the wishes of the likes of France and Germany's motor manufacturers will be held up by a veto from Malta or Cyprus

You were a senior manager in a merchant bank and you had to ask me why the huge drop in the value of the Pound will increase inflation?

Something just doesn't add up there I'm afraid.

The funny thing is that France and Germany will actually play hard-ball with us most of all. Disruption to their motor industries is a drop in the ocean compared to the possible collapse of the EU. The motor industries know this as well, so the self-preservation of the EU (i.e. making sure that all other countries are completely put off from even attempting to leave) will be absolutely top of the agenda.

Wait and see.
 
Upvote 0

threenine

Free Member
Nov 30, 2012
767
174
Swindon
I was a senior manager in an old fashioned merchant bank before you were born
How has this have anything to do at all with it.

It's a fact that, that judging by the demographics of the vote, the older generation voted to leave the EU. Possibly the same generation who voted for us to join it.

The younger generation, who most probably all they have ever known is a life within the EU. A larger portion of it preferred to stay.

It seems we have a polarised nation, I have stated previously that I was never swayed by either camps arguments, and on the whole, given the choice, I would've prefered that we initially had a referendum to determine if we actually want or needed this referendum.

I am not a true "remainer" or even a leaver. I am an inbetweener, and on the whole don't buy either arguments. I do want EU reform, but that is not driven by a need for democracy or fear of dictatorship. I feel the EU should do more!

There has been a lot of good work done by the EU, and like anything there has been some bad. On the whole though I think Europe is a far better place than it was 100 years ago. thanks to efforts Europeans have made to make it so.

There is a cancer in the world, and mass immigration is a symptom of that cancer. Closing or controlling our borders is not going to heal or treat the cancer. I feel that is rather more an ostrich approach.

The true legacy we should be leaving for future generations, is the notion that the world works together to fix the issues, and not revert back to nationalistic ideals.
 
Upvote 0

Scott-Copywriter

Free Member
May 11, 2006
9,605
2,673
One last corker before I depart:

It was the Leave campaign's pledge to reduce EU immigration that won it the referendum. But Daniel Hannan struck a rather different tone on last night's Newsnight. "It means free movement of labour," the Conservative MEP said of the post-Brexit model he envisaged.

https://twitter.com/DerbyshireLeave/status/746496329925419009

I can hear pennies starting to drop all over the UK.
 
Upvote 0
I was a senior manager in an old fashioned merchant bank before you were born and whilst you seem to know plenty of theory I think that you are sadly lacking in the ways of the world if you think that the wishes of the likes of France and Germany's motor manufacturers will be held up by a veto from Malta or Cyprus


I haven’t entered this debate before now, but I find this comment completely patronising, the sort of thing that has really divided this country – and this business community, particularly given a previous post from Ian that suggested he would never use Scott’s services due to his contributions to this (or a similar) thread.



I once was a manager in a large, multi-national company, and with that & other experience in life, I consider that my views on a trade deal are as equally valid as Ian’s or Scott’s… even though my role in said company often involved nothing more than flipping burgers for the company with a clown mascot.


And personally, I do see good reasons why Malta or Cyprus would hold up the trade of German cars, as they’d have their own interests to consider, and would want any deal to include things like tourism to support their own industries. And Ireland would veto the deal, as if Germany is going to sell cars, Ireland would want to sell their cattle as part of the deal. The idea that 27 nations (or will it be 28 nations? as I think Turkey is due to join any day now!) are all going to support very limited trade agreements that do nothing to serve their own interests, hoping that France & Germany will put their weight behind their comparatively small demands later down the road is just a fantasy; a deal is going to have to bring in benefits for the majority of the EU member states to get it agreed, or the smaller nations are going to be worried about their own economies not getting the same support later in time, and will veto a deal until their own interests are included too.


(But Shirley has assured us that countries over the world are asking for trade deals… except perhaps America, that reaffirmed we’re still back of the queue (even though they don’t normally use that word). I look forward to reading about this long list of countries asking for trade agreements, as soon as journalists (or Shirley) manage to find them, and report this positive news.)


Karl Limpert
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cobby
Upvote 0

KM-Tiger

Free Member
Aug 10, 2003
10,346
1
2,893
Bexley, Kent
I look forward to reading about this long list of countries asking for trade agreements,
Australia, Canada, USA, Ghana, Ethiopia all "made noises" shortly after Brexit was announced. Obviously that's not the same as having talks or even signing something, just encouragement.

But it's early days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShirleyM
Upvote 0

threenine

Free Member
Nov 30, 2012
767
174
Swindon
The public voted to ensure that on all future occasions they will have the final say. Do you not accept that?

This is a bit somewhat naive to think this was purely an in out vote. This in effect was a vote for change. A vote not only to leave the EU, but also a vote to fundamentally change our entire parliamentary and legal system

For good or worse our parliamentary system and legal system has been influenced by EU. We now have to go through the entire process of repealing or accepting laws. This will require political parties to have reform and unify and gain public consensus around some central themes.

How can they go about this without consulting public opinion i.e. without having a general election ?
 
Upvote 0

threenine

Free Member
Nov 30, 2012
767
174
Swindon
Australia, Canada, USA, Ghana, Ethiopia all "made noises" shortly after Brexit was announced.

Made noises, yes, but Trade Deals depend a lot more on just what we buy or sell, they are largely dependent on political ideals.

As of today and the next few weeks and months ahead, we have no clear picture of what those political ideals are, or in fact what that government looks like going forward. There is a big difference between making noise and placing ink
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 226268

.

Let's have another mini war.

Will give us all a bit of a happy diversion away from the pointless squabbling over the current state of the EU.

That strange phenomenon where deeply depressed economies suddenly spring back to life with unlimited funding,
massive and sudden job creation, for the manufacture of armaments and equipment when new wars start.

Where the money somehow could not be found during the peacetime to improve the state of the country.

Spain invades Gibraltar.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...ver-gibraltar-after-brexit-vote-a3280316.html

.
 
Upvote 0
As of today and the next few weeks and months ahead, we have no clear picture of what those political ideals are, or in fact what that government looks like going forward. There is a big difference between making noise and placing ink

That's life. It would be the same lack of certainty within the EU. The difference is, we never get a choice over the laws chosen, and passed, by the EU. In the UK we get to choose a party based on their manifesto. If the government doesn't meet it's manifesto promises it has to explain why, or never be trusted again. That system still exists for now, but will become increasingly redundant if we are forced to stay in the EU against our will.
 
Upvote 0
I haven’t entered this debate before now, but I find this comment completely patronising, the sort of thing that has really divided this country – and this business community,

The comment should be taken in context which was that anyone who didn't vote the way that he did was clueless and not for the first time he was patronizing enough to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about yet it doesn't seem that long ago when this wordly wise economist was posting here that "I've just started College a few days ago. I'm doing A-level Business, Computing, Accounting and Graphics, I'm mainly going to focus on Business and Accounting".

What is really dividing this community is the fact that having had a democratic vote those on the losing side can't seem able to accept it and have to justify their position as losers by disparaging the majority who voted on the winning side
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShirleyM
Upvote 0

Cobby

Free Member
Oct 28, 2009
4,079
857
I decided a few years ago never to respond to anything you posted and don't intend to start now except to remind you that you have free reign to be as snidey as you like as I won't respond to you or any other trolls
Picking apart your arguments to highlight your motives isn't trolling. If you can't defend your argument properly, either accept that it'll be critiqued or simply consider not posting it.


I've always been in the "leave" camp and that's how I voted. I voted leave for three main reasons:-

To be governed by our own government.
To have control of our borders, nothing to do with immigration it's just simply common sense.
The obvious financial reasons.
We were and always have been governed by our own government.
We have control of our borders, it's simply common sense.
There are no obvious financial reasons to leave; in fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest the exact opposite.

Even now, many Leave voters stick to these baseless arguments. The vote certainly showed how many believed it, but it didn't make lies into truths.
 
Upvote 0

Newchodge

Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    Interesting piece I saw earlier:

    Why The Result? Passion Versus Smug Superiority
    ========================================

    I truly believe the result has come as a profound psychological shock to most Remainers. Hence the tirades of angry abuse ladled out today on FB and elsewhere.

    Remainers have, for years, assumed their world view was almost universally held - it was "normal", "right", and "obvious" - and any nasty brutish oafs that raised the subject of immigration were a backward nasty minority of no more than maybe 20% - the ill-educated, racist, and bigoted - easily led types, not given to proper thinking, like WE are.

    Because, of course, if those stupid Leavers had THOUGHT, at all, they would think like us, right? And see that the EU is the obvious way forward.

    I believe most Remainers really thought they were going to win a majority of something like 78% Remain, 22% Leave. And therefore many did not feel strongly enough to turn out.

    Now for Remainers to find out that your own - fondly assumed "majority" sensible humane views are actually a minority - that you only command 48% of those voting, and perhaps much lesser percentage of the electorate - 28% of whom weren't interested enough to turn out is a hell of a shcock when you truly believed you were part of an overwhelming majority of nearly 80%.

    Now it may be that a good percentage of the non-voters were Remainers, who, thinking like I have outlined here, that they already had a socking majority, didn't feel they needed to vote.

    Leavers, on the other hand, were absolutely passionate and determined that every last ONE of them would, come hell or high water, vote for what they believed in.

    Why the different attitude?

    Because they were heartily sick of their legitimate concerns being sneered at, derided, and brushed aside as irrelevant ramblings of the deluded or plain nasty.

    Remainers do not, by and large, live in areas taken over by immigrants. This became crystal clear when looking at the maps of who voted for what today. The areas where Remain were in the majority were ALL if not wealthy, at least comfortably upper-middle-classly-off.

    The more lower-class areas, those where immigrants tend to congregate for cheap housing and unskilled job availability, were Leavers to a man. And if the immigrants hadn;t got there yet, they didn;t WANT them, so voted Leave to stop their home area sliding down further.

    It is a money map - the money says Remain, lack of money says Leave. That's because having money shields you from problems.

    Remainers' jobs and careers are not threatened by a cheaper workforce underbidding their salaries on a daily basis.

    They have NO idea what a Zero Hours contract is - and would be outraged if their comfortable middle-class salary, guaranteed to be the same each month, were suddenly changed to a variable amount, with NO guarantee that they would have ANYTHING in their bank at the end of the month to meet the mortgage and bills..

    Those MP's who deride the Leavers should immediately be put onto such a regime, and see how THEY like it.

    What has this to do with immigrants? Easy - if, as an employer, every job vacancy you have is overwhelmed by 100+ applicants desperate for ANY sort of work on any terms, can introduce such onerous terms. You can;t be underpaying - if you were, all these peo;le would not be clamouring at the gates to be taken on.

    That is the situation in high-immigrant areas. Things are valued in the reverse to their abundance. If there is loads of something available, it is worth nothing (strawberries in August). If the item is scarce, the value shoots up. (strawberries in February!)

    Large employers, like Amazon, and Sports Direct,(and even M&S's distribution centre) do NOT value their staff, they keep them at arms length, employing them through agencies or third parties on zero hours contracts. Anyone who makes waves in ANY way, is not given any more hours, and is forced to resign - but with no possibility of Unfair Dismissal. Why can they do this? Because for every person that quits, 100 are lined up to take his/her place! Why would you need to treat your staff better? You're obviously paying them enough - if you weren't - they wouldn't be queuing up to be taken on!.

    The extreme pressure on schools and doctors surgeries in high-immigrant areas, where many cannot get an appointment for 4 weeks or more is a regular experience for Leavers. .

    Remainers, needless to say, usually do not live in such an area, and can't understand what all the fuss is about. They can get a GP appointment is a few days. Their exclusive upper--middle class primary and secondary schools are not overrun with immigrants. They are academies, which can select or Faith schools, which can also select.

    These weird people that complain about immigrants (the Remainers think) must be racists, there's no problem at all!

    So, Leavers have been totally fed up with being derided and told their problems are imaginary - and that they are racist and bigoted for even raising them. They have been ignored and abused like this for years, by MP's Political parties, The BBC, the Guardian, Channel 4, and many other media outlets. Which tend to be staffed by people who fit the Remain profile.

    Leavers saw this as their one chance to be heard and not drowned out by the Remain mindset (which controls the media).

    They phoned each other, arranged lifts, organised proxy votes weeks ago for those who would be away or ill, and made sure that EVERYONE they knew turned out to a man (or woman) to vote Leave.

    "Yes, you b*stards" (they thought), "THAT is for all the insults, derision, and smug superior attitudes you Remainers have pushed at us for years."

    That explains the result.

    Now, Remainers, you have to ruminate on this:

    IF YOU HAD NOT BEEN SO AGGRESSIVE AND DERISORY TO ALL THOSE BADLY AFFECTED BY IMMIGRATION, you would not have made them so mad, and they would not have organised themselves so much better than you.

    In your smug superior way, you thought you had a thumping natural majority. You didn't.

    YOUR desisory attitudes and sneering air of superiority caused this.

    Suck it up, buttercup!


    While I agree with much of what you say, it doesn't explain the situation in the north east, where I live.

    There are VERY few immigrants. There is also very little money and no choice for most of the low paid and disadvantaged. There is very little hope for an improved future. I think the people in this region voted more to say 'piss off the establishment' than really about immigration.

    Similar reason, but doesn't have to be immigration based. I would put it as

    IF YOU HAD NOT BEEN SO AGGRESSIVE AND DERISORY TO ALL THOSE BADLY AFFECTED BY POVERTY
     
    • Like
    Reactions: simon field
    Upvote 0

    threenine

    Free Member
    Nov 30, 2012
    767
    174
    Swindon
    IF YOU HAD NOT BEEN SO AGGRESSIVE AND DERISORY TO ALL THOSE BADLY AFFECTED BY POVERTY
    Was a referendum on the EU membership the right forum to vent anger against poverty?

    i share your concerns by the way, I do feel the UK needs to do more to relieve poverty within our own society. We do need to rebalance the North/South divide.

    I don't buy the argument that leaving the EU, is not all of a sudden going to free up immediate cash to save the NHS or address the imbalances in our society.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    Was a referendum on the EU membership the right forum to vent anger against poverty?

    i share your concerns by the way, I do feel the UK needs to do more to relieve poverty within our own society. We do need to rebalance the North/South divide.

    I don't buy the argument that leaving the EU, is not all of a sudden going to free up immediate cash to save the NHS or address the imbalances in our society.


    Absolutely NOT. A referendum on EU membership should have been about EU membership. Sadly, it wasn't.
     
    Upvote 0

    Toby Willows

    Free Member
    Jun 20, 2016
    761
    167
    We were and always have been governed by our own government.
    We have control of our borders, it's simply common sense.
    There are no obvious financial reasons to leave; in fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest the exact opposite.

    Even now, many Leave voters stick to these baseless arguments. The vote certainly showed how many believed it, but it didn't make lies into truths.

    Ok, you obviously don't understand about border control, government or finance within the EU.

    Any citizen of the EU can simply arrive in our country, set up home and stay as long as the wish. That isn't control of our borders by any stretch of the imagination. Now forget the scaremongering that immigration will now soar before we exit the EU. I reckon it'll go into decline with people not wanting to come to a country where it appears they are not welcome, and their future when we do leave is far from certain. Suddenly many other EU countries look far more inviting.

    Many of our laws have been forced upon us by the EU, that isn't self government. I'm not saying all, but certainly a fair amount.

    We give the EU approximately £23,000,000 every single day of which we get none back, that's what we pay to be belong to this club.. Yes there is much speculation about how much trade we might lose, but as of the 23rd June, and today, that is merely speculation. The FACT right now, and when we voted, is we lose £23,000,000 a day. Who knows (and it's certainly not You or I) what will happen regarding trade, no one knows, so many of us voted on the FACTS at the time, rather than if's, maybes and scaremongering.

    Now call those lies if you like, I really don't care, as the majority of the country (that's another fact) know it to be true.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: ShirleyM
    Upvote 0
    I cannot believe there are some people coming out today saying they regret their vote and "didn't think it would actually happen". Utterly unbelievable.

    There are quite a few Remain voters worrying their roaming charges will go up now we voted Leave and some youngsters worried they won't be able to holiday in the EU. :)

    The point I am making is that there will always be some fickle and naive people, on both sides of the fence.
     
    Upvote 0

    simon field

    Free Member
    Feb 4, 2011
    6,854
    2,688
    While I agree with much of what you say, it doesn't explain the situation in the north east, where I live.

    There are VERY few immigrants. There is also very little money and no choice for most of the low paid and disadvantaged. There is very little hope for an improved future. I think the people in this region voted more to say 'piss off the establishment' than really about immigration.

    Same here in the backwoods (Norfolk). Many jobs which were once full-time are now three part-time jobs. There are pockets where immigration has caused problems relating to crime, intimidation and unwillingness to integrate. I don't directly have experience of this but others most certainly do.

    (It wasn't my piece btw Cyndy, just something I saw online which resonated)
     
    Upvote 0
    The comment should be taken in context which was that anyone who didn't vote the way that he did was clueless and not for the first time he was patronizing enough to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about yet it doesn't seem that long ago when this wordly wise economist was posting here that "I've just started College a few days ago. I'm doing A-level Business, Computing, Accounting and Graphics, I'm mainly going to focus on Business and Accounting".


    What is really dividing this community is the fact that having had a democratic vote those on the losing side can't seem able to accept it and have to justify their position as losers by disparaging the majority who voted on the winning side



    I fully accept the democratic vote, but as my ex-MP, David Lammy has observed, it was a non-binding referendum. Or should we not listen to, and/or respect the views of our elected members of parliament?


    With your experience, Ian, would you be so helpful as to explain why Malta, Cyprus, or Ireland would readily support the idea of German & French cars being sold tariff-free, without any benefit for them, or the majority of the EU Council members? This is a question that hasn’t been answered in the debate at all, and I’d love it to be. I just don’t get why the majority of the EU would help the largest two without anything for them included in the deal. I admit entirely, I just don’t get it, I don’t know why they would be so quick to vote to sell cars without selling cattle or tourism, or olives too.


    Edit: for reference, I don't think anyone that voted in either direction was clueless, and I respect every one of the 16,141,241 voters that made an effort to vote, as well as their choice on how to vote. Whether the politicians & organisations that campaigned for either vote knew what either result might mean, I'm not so sure, but it seems that legally we may not be able to dictate or delay the timing of our exit as we intended, and I don't think that was allowed for - perhaps they were clueless.


    Karl Limpert
     
    Upvote 0
    PERHAPS??

    Cyndy,

    With or without the support of the gov't machinery, I would very much hope the Justice Minister had & still has some means to get an idea on how a vaguely worded phrase in an EU treaty could be interpreted, some access to a lawyer (or even a judge), for an opinion. Perhaps he didn't bother to seek that though.


    Karl Limpert
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    I really believe several things about this situation.

    Cameron called the referendum because he was afraid of losing Conservative supporters to UKIP. A self-serving decision which he does not appear to have thought through.

    No one in the political classes gave any real thought as to how the referendum would be run. So they ran it like an election campaign - tell the people what we want them to know, whether it is true or not.

    The electorate, quite naturally were looking for information about the 2 choices: what will happen if (A) and what ill happen if (B). No one was in a position to answer those questions.

    Experts put forward their views about what would happen, but each side derided the experts' opinions if it didn't match their own. As these were only opinions, because there are no facts, each side was free to accuse the experts of lying.

    I believe it was Gove who said 'we have had enough of experts'. WHAT??

    Several self-serving politicians jumped on the campaign that seemed most likely to benefit themselves personally.

    None of the political class really believed there would be a No vote.

    Many politicians saw this as a way of putting pressure on the EU to make changes that they thought might be a good idea.

    And now it has come home to bite them on the bum and they are terrified. Not to mention that they are in danger of destroying our own economy and, potentially, that of many other countries across the world.

    I find that depressing, even though it is my own analysis.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    However misguided, ill-informed, bigoted, insular, etc etc....

    ..it would seem to be the biggest punch in the face delivered to the political class - the 'system' - that has happened for a long time as far as I can see.


    I certainly agree withthat. My worry is that the effect of the punch in the face will be felt by those least able to ride it - the poor and disadvantaged. (God I hate that phrase; can anyone come up with a description for those who are at the bottom of the heap and are still being covered in even more S**t, and who not only don't have a shovel but who have absolutely no way of digging themselves out?)
     
    Upvote 0
    I certainly agree withthat. My worry is that the effect of the punch in the face will be felt by those least able to ride it - the poor and disadvantaged. (God I hate that phrase; can anyone come up with a description for those who are at the bottom of the heap and are still being covered in even more S**t, and who not only don't have a shovel but who have absolutely no way of digging themselves out?)

    'The normal working man and woman'.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: ShirleyM
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    'The normal working man and woman'.

    That may work. Just as long as it is not 'hard working families'.

    Although many who consider themselves the normal working man and woman have some degree of safety from being ground face down into the s**t, with a boot on their backs keeping them there.
     
    Upvote 0

    simon field

    Free Member
    Feb 4, 2011
    6,854
    2,688
    From the guardians comments section:

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

    Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

    With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

    How?

    Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

    And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

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

    The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

    Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

    Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

    If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

    The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

    When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

    All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    Do you think that it is dangerous. In fact, scratch that. Very, very dangerous, that there is discussion about overturning the will of the people?

    I think it is appalling. Even though the decision was not what I wanted.

    We are not a referendum based democracy. Switzerland is, and many decisions are only taken there after a referendum. That is not how our political system works.

    Like it or not our system works by constituency elections returning an elected MP (who may or (rarely) may not be a member of a political party) who has the right to vote in parliament on matters according to their conscience. Or, according to how their parliamentary party whips require them to vote.

    Is that democracy? I'm not sure.

    I have recently been re-reading Anthony Trollope's novels, particularly the ones called now the Palliser novels, which I first read as a teenager and which have an amazing resonance with our current day politics. Worth a read.

    However.

    If the political class allows the current decision to be overturned because it was 'wrong' or 'difficult' or whatever, there should be riots on every street of our country.

    I believe that the referendum should not have been called.

    Having been called I believe that the referendum should have been much better defined and that the arguments should have been subject to some form of impartial control (to prevent the appalling lies that were told by both sides).

    But, having called it, and having got the result, we should be required to stick with it, even though, technically it is not legally binding.

    To ignore it would be a bigger punch in the face of the people of this country than has been administered this week to the political class.
     
    Upvote 0
    The resentment started when we were taken into a political union without the consent of the people. That was a treasonable act. The people have spoken and any government or politician that denies our democratic right will be deservedly hung, drawn and quartered (figuratively speaking).

    Personally, I think the end result will be worth all the upheaval. The longer we delay the more difficult it becomes. The EU cannot survive in it's present form and all the signs say the EU is unwilling to reform, Even now, they are speaking of closer integration and throwing more money at it, but without the will of the EU people. If they can't get the majority of people onside willingly, then it is guaranteed to fail. Better to start exiting now and be one step ahead when the EU collapses.
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    From the guardians comments section:

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

    Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

    With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

    How?

    Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

    And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

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

    The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

    Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

    Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

    If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

    The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

    When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

    All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

    I think that is a very good analysis. I hope that it works. BUT

    it ignores the anger and fear that is felt throughout Europe.We may not have much wriggle room. We have demanded and demanded over the years that we should have special treatment. I fear that the EU may not want us any more. Even if the probably need us.

    It, once again, sticks two fingers up at the people of this country and says sod what you want, we are the ruling class and we know better.

    It is all about game playing. Don't the people of this country deserve to be more than pawns in the games that those who consider themselves our masters are playing?
     
    Upvote 0

    Newchodge

    Moderator
  • Business Listing
    Nov 8, 2012
    22,686
    8
    7,991
    Newcastle
    From the guardians comments section:

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

    Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

    With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

    How?

    Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

    And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

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

    The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

    Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

    Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

    If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

    The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

    When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

    All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

    I have just re-read that and I have a single question.

    I think the analysis is great and probably correct. In which case

    WHY THE HELL DID THEY DO IT?

    I don't mean calling the referendum, which I think was a political decision that backfired because it was not thought through; why did they campaign in the way that they did?
     
    Upvote 0

    Latest Articles

    Join UK Business Forums for free business advice