It's not over yet - EU

[KM-Tiger]

All I am saying, is that we need to do exactly that. There are so many questions and issues to deal with. We will need to elect leaders to do so.

We do.

But the biggest problem right now is that we have an HoC that is way out of line with public opinion. It's going to take parties and MPs a while to get to grips with that.

 

[threenine]

But the biggest problem right now is that we have an HoC that is way out of line with public opinion.

Wasn't this public opinion expressed so clearly, in last years General election ?

 

[Ian J]

But the biggest problem right now is that we have an HoC that is way out of line with public opinion. It's going to take parties and MPs a while to get to grips with that.

It shouldn't be too difficult as our Members of Parliament are supposed to represent our wishes and not the other way around.

 

[MBE1]

Not saying ignoring the democratic wish, all I'm saying is if this is really about democracy, then obviously we should exercise more elements of the democracy. How else do we progress?

That is exactly what you said at the start of this thread, talk about flip flopping, where has the British backbone dissapeared to? In case you forgot....

On the contrary. I believe a second referendum is vital. I don't think the people have spoken. What is happening now, is that our so called government is dismantling on its own.

We need to have another general election, because I think it is obvious that the our view and direction of the world has fundamentally changed.

All political parties now need to rework their manifesto's and we now need to make our choice based on what they propose on how we deal with this outcome.

The UK parliment is supposed to represent the country, which it does not on this issue, I have no problem with MP's choosing to resign if they feel they do not support democracy, but this referendum was meant to be acted on, otherwise why call it in the first place? All major political figures, both here and in the EU accept the UK has made a choice. The vote has been taken, a decision made, end of, get over it.

You state in business you step back, plan and implement for change, the EU referendum decision is the change, no need for another vote, just the planning and enacting of the countries decision.

I wonder what the outcome of the two world wars would have been if the men of the UK displayed the same lack of clarity and hysteria seen since this vote was taken, our father's and their father's fought for democracy, plenty now seem to want to throw it away for nothing.

The moaners and poor losers seem to forget one main over riding problem with ignoring this vote, the EU wants the UK out now to stop other countries following the same line, it is not an amicable divorce, we will be treated severely, this was meant to be our friends and allies. They accept the EU needs to change, yet there will be NO FURTHER negotiations for the UK, we are now out, like it or not.

If people don't like the decision leave the UK, we will survive quite happily without the moaners.

 

[beasty]

What i find interesting is everyone is so pumped up regardless of what side they are on, the reality is change on a nationwide scale is always slow, measuring the change from what might have occurred might take 10 years to have a decent picture on whether this was right or not.

Decision is made (Not that I am happy about it) but having made it, the focus needs to be on WHAT NOW

I suspect many of the out camp believe that the UK will somehow become an economic might, factories will spring up and we will become the dominant force we were in the 19th Century!

Times have changed, the only way the UK will have factories popping up is if our currency devalues to the point that the Western Europe considers the UK as cheap labour!

All companies are impacted by currency, but that is not something most businesses cannot overcome with the costs simply being passed to the consumer, I think the man on the street will see less buying power and no job will spring up for those that expect them.

I have a question, WHO that is actually worth keeping in the UK aspires to work in a factory?!

Change will be slow, i think we have taken a terrible path and the change will be a slow decline of the UK v Europe..

 

[Clinton]

If people don't like the decision leave the UK, we will survive quite happily without the moaners.

That's a bit immature, I'm afraid. You'd have Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the Union? And millions of other Brits?

I agree with you that the referendum is over and can't be re-run. It would illogical to re-run this as it's almost certain to result in a close vote again. Probably this time in favour of remain (which would leave Brexiters very unhappy).

Many people voted for the wrong reasons and without full grasp of the facts. That applies to both those who voted out and those who voted in. The campaigns themselves were a mess - there was awful deception from both campaigns, particularly from Remain who stuggled to convey the true repercussions of an Out vote and relied instead on scaremongering and quoting experts. Their tactic didn't work.

But it's time to move on.

 

[japancool]

You've voted out, but yet you haven't voted for what that out looks like.

You've made a partial decision, but what you're saying, and this is what I fear, you have no real idea what out looks like other than notions of sovereignty and democracy. and if most public opinion is to be believed immigration control

What on earth qualifies you to tell someone else what they did or didn't vote for?

Your post is incredibly condescending. Why is it so difficult for remainers to accept that people who voted Leave are entirely capable of understanding the issues and potential difficulties, and STILL voted for it?

 

[japancool]

I'm looking out of the window. Apparently, civilisation hasn't ended, the city isn't burning, feral gangs aren't roaming the streets and the army isn't out there shooting people on sight.

 

[japancool]

I don't believe you understand the intricacies.

HMRC's capitulation with Google has nothing to do with the OECD drive on reducing the options for firms to organise their structures in the way they do now. And working towards disclosure of beneficial owners. These are wider issues that will frustrate Google & Starbuck type tax "avoidance" in the first place. Because bear in mind that what we see as tax avoidance by these multinationals is actually not illegal - it's just a clever / crafty organising of their corporate affairs. All completely legal (usually).

To make it illegal is not as simple as you think given the ease with which capital can cross borders. It takes a concerted effort from a lot of countries to pressure all the tax havens into cooperating with disclosures, information sharing and beneficial owner registers. The UK was doing sterling work there with the backing of the EU.

Not any more

On the other hand... we could reduce our corporate tax rate to 12% and entice those companies to come and evade taxes here instead.

 

[japancool]

We do.

But the biggest problem right now is that we have an HoC that is way out of line with public opinion. It's going to take parties and MPs a while to get to grips with that.

Some of them still haven't grasped that they are there to serve the will of the people, not impose the will of Parliament.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Cancelling the referendum results or holding a second referendum would lead to anarchy in the streets.

The people have spoken and we just need to get on with it now.

Not at all.

It's easy for politicians to dress it up in the right way. This EU referendum was to make a decision about the EU based on the will of the people. If public opinion changes, or even appears to change, then the Government can use that same tool to claim that putting the vote to the public once again is the right thing to do.

Similarly, it would be largely undemocratic for the UK to arrive at a finalised exit agreement without asking the public if it's an agreement they wish to accept, would it not?

You've voted for Brexit. Do you not want the opportunity to vote on what the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU will be?

 

[japancool]

Not at all.

It's easy for politicians to dress it up in the right way. This EU referendum was to make a decision about the EU based on the will of the people. If public opinion changes, or even appears to change, then the Government can use that same tool to claim that putting the vote to the public once again is the right thing to do.

Similarly, it would be largely undemocratic for the UK to arrive at a finalised exit agreement without asking the public if it's an agreement they wish to accept, would it not?

You've voted for Brexit. Do you not want the opportunity to vote on what the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU will be?

That's a very European response. If you don't get the answer you want, keep asking the question again until you do.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Some of them still haven't grasped that they are there to serve the will of the people, not impose the will of Parliament.

Not really.

The UK political system, like most political systems around the world, relies on the public electing leaders who then make decisions for the public.

That's why many politicians make tough decisions which large parts of the public may not want or appreciate.You can't please everyone. Sometimes you can't even please the majority.

If it was entirely down to the will of the people, then you may as well scrap the parliamentary system and just put every Government decision down to a public vote.

By law, the will of Parliament is supreme because the British public have elected these MPs to that position.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

That's a very European response. If you don't get the answer you want, keep asking the question again until you do.

Are you sure it's not a very "Nigel Farage" response?

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...arage-said-about-a-new-referendum--Wk91X3XaNZ

 

[japancool]

Not really.

The UK political system, like most political systems around the world, relies on the public electing leaders who then make decisions for the public.

That's why many politicians make tough decisions which large parts of the public may not want or appreciate.You can't please everyone. Sometimes you can't even please the majority.

If it was entirely down to the will of the people, then you may as well scrap the parliamentary system and just put every Government decision down to a public vote.

By law, the will of Parliament is supreme because the British public have elected these MPs to that position.

Yes really. Politicians are elected to represent the will of the people, not tell the people what that will is. And the people have spoken.

 

[Clinton]

On the other hand... we could reduce our corporate tax rate to 12% and entice those companies to come and evade taxes here instead.

Very droll. You may not be aware but it's not as simple as that. For starters we immediately lose tons of revenue from companies currently taxed at higher rates who will all immediately benefit from the new rate. That shortfall may, may, be made up when large companies move here, but it would take several years. In the meanwhile the shortfall would make our previous austerity look like a walk in the park.

Increase the incentives to incorporate and there'll also be a flood of income moving out of salaries and into dividends creating a further revenue shortfall.

And with CT that much lower than CGT, there's the incentive to convert capital gains to company profit (which is relatively easy to do).

In effect, any 12% tax rate would hit the exchequer for nearly 50% of their current income for at least 2-3 years.

There are no simple solutions to getting the big boys to pay their fair share. The only way is through cooperation with other countries including putting pressure on tax havens for beneficiary registers. And the UK was leading international tax transparency changes on behalf of both London and the EU. Out of the EU, the UK's voice will be severely diminished when it comes to making these crooks pay a "fair" share of tax

 

[Clinton]

@Scott-Copywriter there are many ways in which this could still play out with a Remain result

1. New Tory government realises it's in a fix and cannot deliver on reduced immigration if it wants to keep current trade arrangements with the EU. So they go back to the electorate to explain the deal on the table and see if the public have changed their minds about the EU.

2. General election is called and a party that campaigns on a ticket of remaining in the EU wins an overwhelming majority. They could argue the public have changed their minds about Brexit.

3. Scotland and NI put a spoke in the wheel and a new UK-wide referendum is called on splitting up of the UK. Or a referendum in England and Wales about whether we should continue with the split from the EU if it means losing Scotland and NI.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Yes really. Politicians are elected to represent the will of the people, not tell the people what that will is. And the people have spoken.

I suggest you read up on UK government law.

The mandate of elected politicians is to make decisions based on what they believe is best for the United Kingdom.

That is the whole point of Parliament. It involves elected leaders making decisions for us. That is why elections only come around every 4 years and why every decision isn't put to a public vote.

With a heavily pro-EU Parliament, most MPs will now find themselves in the situation where they're being pressured into following a small public majority despite their formal responsibility to act on what's best for the UK based on their own judgement as elected officials.

It will be very interesting indeed to see how that pans out. This referendum is only advisory, so technically speaking, any pro-EU MP who votes to leave will not be following their legislative duty as elected officials. Their duty to act on what they believe is best for the UK is legally bound. Their duty to act upon the result of the referendum is not.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

@Scott-Copywriter there are many ways in which this could still play out with a Remain result

1. New Tory government realises it's in a fix and cannot deliver on reduced immigration if it wants to keep current trade arrangements with the EU. So they go back to the electorate to explain the deal on the table and see if the public have changed their minds about the EU.

2. General election is called and a party that campaigns on a ticket of remaining in the EU wins an overwhelming majority. They could argue the public have changed their minds about Brexit.

3. Scotland and NI put a spoke in the wheel and a new UK-wide referendum is called on splitting up of the UK. Or a referendum in England and Wales about whether we should continue with the split from the EU if it means losing Scotland and NI.

All three of these outcomes are a realistic possibility.

I think option 2 will happen regardless, and whilst I'm not sure that any pro-EU party (like the Lib Dems or SNP) will win a majority in Parliament, they could easily win a much bigger chunk of MPs to throw a spanner in the works.

A 4th outcome is for the next Government to simply join up with the EEA, or negotiate associate status with the EU which still allows the free movement of labour, and then just try to sweep it under the carpet.

 

[john1989]

Not at all.

It's easy for politicians to dress it up in the right way. This EU referendum was to make a decision about the EU based on the will of the people. If public opinion changes, or even appears to change, then the Government can use that same tool to claim that putting the vote to the public once again is the right thing to do.

Similarly, it would be largely undemocratic for the UK to arrive at a finalised exit agreement without asking the public if it's an agreement they wish to accept, would it not?

You've voted for Brexit. Do you not want the opportunity to vote on what the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU will be?

It's not easy for politicians to dress it up.

Anything other than passing the result is undemocratic.

I know you are hoping for the result to be overturned, but I think you're just clutching at straws. Politicians will be mindful that overturning any result will see them out of a job come the next elections.

If it is overturned, I will never vote in the UK again. There would be absolutely no point in doing so.

 

[KM-Tiger]

which still allows the free movement of labour

I note that you use the term 'free movement of labour' there rather than 'free movement of people'.

What that difference is is going to be a highly contentious issue in the coming weeks. We do need to facilitate business and trade, but do it somehow without have a totally open door, which is what has been rejected by the public.

I don't know the answer, I'm hoping that there are people in govt that will be able to come up with the answer.

 

[Ian J]

If it is overturned, I will never vote in the UK again. There would be absolutely no point in doing so.

It will not be overturned. I know that there is a petition for a second referendum with supposedly millions of electronic signatures doing the rounds and generating loads of publicity but once the IP addresses of the voters are examined carefully I think that the millions of signatories will probably be whittled down to a few hundred genuine ones

 

[Mark T Jones]

It will not be overturned. I know that there is a petition for a second referendum with supposedly millions of electronic signatures doing the rounds and generating loads of publicity but once the IP addresses of the voters are examined carefully I think that the millions of signatories will probably be whittled down to a few hundred genuine ones

The overwhelming majority of whom will have voted in or not bothered voting at all

 

[muhammad sufyan]

is it helpful for our business

 

[Toby Willows]

It will not be overturned. I know that there is a petition for a second referendum with supposedly millions of electronic signatures doing the rounds and generating loads of publicity but once the IP addresses of the voters are examined carefully I think that the millions of signatories will probably be whittled down to a few hundred genuine ones

It's already being looked at. Apparently there are 40,000 "signatures" from Vatican City alone, which, forgetting only UK citizens can vote, is either divine intervention or fraudulent as the country only has 800 occupants.

Edit
Which is a bit rich from a remain campaign that insist its the leave camp that are liars.

 

[Newchodge]

Johnson already seems to be equivocating, if not actually re-writing his own recent hitory, if this piece in the Telegraph is anything to go by.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/.

Particularly relevant is this quote: The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal. This will bring not threats, but golden opportunities for this country – to pass laws and set taxes according to the needs of the UK.

There you go. all you actually voted for was to lose the European Court of Justice, eventually. I don't remember seeing that anywhere in any of the Brexiters campaigns.

 

[Pish_Pash]

There you go. all you actually voted for was to lose the European Court of Justice, eventually. I don't remember seeing that anywhere in any of the Brexiters campaigns.

i agree...it seems after all that, he's now changing course & saying things like "for the British people, it was never about immigration it was only about regaining our justice system" (wtf?).

This was a once in a generation opportunity to actually attend to & nail the things that irk the majority of the electorate.....yet, just three days in, it's being watered down. Shocking.....we need a bit more change than that (& it now becomes clear why they want to keep Farage at arms length)

 

[Mark T Jones]

Johnson already seems to be equivocating, if not actually re-writing his own recent hitory, if this piece in the Telegraph is anything to go by.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/.

Particularly relevant is this quote: The only change – and it will not come in any great rush – is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal. This will bring not threats, but golden opportunities for this country – to pass laws and set taxes according to the needs of the UK.

There you go. all you actually voted for was to lose the European Court of Justice, eventually. I don't remember seeing that anywhere in any of the Brexiters campaigns.

I was sorely disappointed that neither part paid any attention to the state of the EU or to the commercial benefits of being either in or out

The whole race / immigration issue was an emotive red herring bigged up by the press.

 

[Ian J]

The whole race / immigration issue was an emotive red herring bigged up by the press.

Aided and abetted by Nigel Farage who wasn't actually part of the official leave campaign anyway

 

[garyk]

I'd agree with the sentiments that you simply cannot have another referendum. Why? Because you might as well forget the whole democratic process to make decisions. Sure I get the point that this was a massively important decision, undertaken, largely by those uninformed of the full benefit/impact etc. but it was a democratic vote and the result is what it is.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

I note that you use the term 'free movement of labour' there rather than 'free movement of people'.

What that difference is is going to be a highly contentious issue in the coming weeks. We do need to facilitate business and trade, but do it somehow without have a totally open door, which is what has been rejected by the public.

I don't know the answer, I'm hoping that there are people in govt that will be able to come up with the answer.

Yes. Free movement of labour. They are different.

The problem here is that none of the pro-leave politicians leading the leave campaign ever openly suggested that free movement of labour will be a principle of post-Brexit UK.

Leave did only win by a slim majority, and I suspect there are an awful lot of people who believed that immigration as a whole would be severely restricted (amongst other things which won't come to fruition).

Dan Hannan is coming out with this idea based on the fact that continued single market access and free trade are extremely important, and like every other country involved in this, free movement is a key principle. Even Switzerland, the country which shunned the EEA in exchange for bilateral agreements with the EU, still allows free movement.

I believe that the Brexit politicians are hoping that some kind of associate status with only the free movement of labour will be accepted by the EU. However, this just means that any EU citizen can still enter the UK to live here providing they can show evidence of having secured a job before they arrive.

You're one of the most level-headed leave supporters I've spoken to, and I'm not even sure that you would be happy with that, so just imagine the reaction of the more "extreme" leave supporters who assume that net migration will end up being radically different.

Boris Johnson's comments in the article Newchodge posted just add to all of this. Leave supporters can be united in the common goal of wanting to leave, but far from united on what to do once we've left.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

It's not easy for politicians to dress it up.

Anything other than passing the result is undemocratic.

I know you are hoping for the result to be overturned, but I think you're just clutching at straws. Politicians will be mindful that overturning any result will see them out of a job come the next elections.

If it is overturned, I will never vote in the UK again. There would be absolutely no point in doing so.

But surely not asking the public again, with the possibility that their opinion might change, is equally undemocratic?

What if another referendum in the future allowed remain to come out with a majority? Doesn't that mean that the will of the people is not being followed if the referendum is not allowed? Doesn't the avoidance of a second referendum lock the public into a decision which may be "dated" and is no longer a fair reflection of what the public wants?

I don't think second referendum will happen, but technically there are plenty of ways to justify it. Leave supporters obviously wouldn't like it, but if the UK's situation changes radically, or we reach an exit agreement which needs to be accepted or rejected, then surely it's more democratic to put these situations to a public vote once again.

Even general elections give voters the opportunity to change their minds every 4 years. It would be unusual to not give the British public the same courtesy with this major decision.

 

[john1989]

But surely not asking the public again, with the possibility that their opinion might change, is equally undemocratic?

What if another referendum in the future allowed remain to come out with a majority? Doesn't that mean that the will of the people is not being followed if the referendum is not allowed? Doesn't the avoidance of a second referendum lock the public into a decision which may be "dated" and is no longer a fair reflection of what the public wants?

I don't think second referendum will happen, but technically there are plenty of ways to justify it. Leave supporters obviously wouldn't like it, but if the UK's situation changes radically, or we reach an exit agreement which needs to be accepted or rejected, then surely it's more democratic to put these situations to a public vote once again.

Even general elections give voters the opportunity to change their minds every 4 years. It would be unusual to not give the British public the same courtesy with this major decision.

No, it’s not. People change their mind all the time. They had a point in time to form an opinion and vote, and they did just that.


If people vote Conservative, and subsequently find out that Cameron has done unthinkable things to a pig, do you think that we should hold another general election because people might have voted labour.


The quicker people stop whinging about the result and just get on with it, the better.

 

[roydmoorian]

Wasn't this public opinion expressed so clearly, in last years General election ?

Not really, the popular vote was not reflected in the number of seats won by each party because we still use the archaic FPTP system.

Had we been using the truly democratic PR (STV) system to elect House of Commons members for both the 2010 and 2015 General Elections then DC would never have needed to offer this referendum which was put out there merely as a sop to UKIP biased voters.

I know that in 2011 there was a referendum on PR (AV) but that was designed to be thrown out since PR (AV) can be equally as devisive as FPTP.

The 2010 - 15 Coalition Government was where Osbourne set the stall to re-build the Economy.

Time for Electoral Reform methinks.

 

[Raw Rob]

I think one reason a second referendum could be justified is because leaving the EU will almost inevitably mean the end of the UK - Scotland will almost certainly leave the UK, and after that happens NI will probably leave... This wasn't fully known until after the first referendum result which showed that both Scotland and NI voted remain.
There is also the issue of Gibraltar, with something like 95% voting remain, leaving the EU will make their lives difficult with many of them travelling and working in Spain, although in the past they have voted to remain a part of the UK and not to join Spain.

(I didn't vote, I'm a British citizen but currently live in Portugal and if we do leave the EU I will attempt to become a Portuguese citizen, so the result shouldn't affect me to much.)

 

[threenine]

The quicker people stop whinging about the result and just get on with it, the better.

I'm British, I'm allowed to whinge as much and for how long as I sodding well like. Thank you very much!

 

[john1989]

People are under the illusion that because Scotland voted to remain in the EU that they would vote to leave the United Kingdom. I don’t think that this is the case.

 

[Newchodge]

I think one reason a second referendum could be justified is because leaving the EU will almost inevitably mean the end of the UK - Scotland will almost certainly leave the UK, and after that happens NI will probably leave... This wasn't fully known until after the first referendum result which showed that both Scotland and NI voted remain.
There is also the issue of Gibraltar, with something like 95% voting remain, leaving the EU will make their lives difficult with many of them travelling and working in Spain, although in the past they have voted to remain a part of the UK and not to join Spain.

(I didn't vote, I'm a British citizen but currently live in Portugal and if we do leave the EU I will attempt to become a Portuguese citizen, so the result shouldn't affect me to much.)

None of those things weren't knowable before the referendum. Just because some people didn't think hard enough about them does not negate the result.

The only reason to hold a second referendum would have been if the rules that were decided BEFORE the referendum took place had included a clause providing for it to be rerun in x circumstances. No such clause, no second referendum.

If the government negotiates various deals with the EU, the government may choose to hold another referendum to decide if the deals are acceptable. BUT that would be a choice for the government, not an imperative.

 

[john1989]

I'm British, I'm allowed to whinge as much and for how long as I sodding well like. Thank you very much!

Can't you do it quietly in a corner where nobody can hear you?

 

[Newchodge]

Can't you do it quietly in a corner where nobody can hear you?

Oh come on, that's not fair. What is the point in having a whinge if no-one can hear you.