INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Graham R
Posts: 15030
Joined: April 6th, 2011, 10:33 pm

Re: In or out?

#141 Post by Graham R » June 25th, 2016, 9:28 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Dave B wrote:
Graham R wrote:The petition for a 2nd referendum is currently at a total of 2,040,406 signatures and is rising at a rate of 150,000 per hour.
Is there a link to the petition anywhere?
It's on the petition.parliament.uk site
Relish the privilege of existence

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#142 Post by Alan H » June 25th, 2016, 9:31 pm

Graham R wrote:
Alan H wrote:EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum
We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.
It's not really calling for a second petition per se, but about conditions that should have been in place before the first one.
True, but I think we're expecting the rule to be retrospective.
The petition was started a month ago.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Graham R
Posts: 15030
Joined: April 6th, 2011, 10:33 pm

Re: In or out?

#143 Post by Graham R » June 25th, 2016, 10:37 pm

Alan H wrote:
Graham R wrote:
Alan H wrote:EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

It's not really calling for a second petition per se, but about conditions that should have been in place before the first one.
True, but I think we're expecting the rule to be retrospective.
The petition was started a month ago.
True, so up to Thurs it wasn't retrospective now it is.
Relish the privilege of existence

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#144 Post by Alan H » June 25th, 2016, 10:56 pm

Now, this IS very interesting. A comment below the Guardian article:: Brexit: UK's most senior EU official resigns after leave vote – latest news
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.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#145 Post by Dave B » June 26th, 2016, 7:11 am

Alan H wrote:
Graham R wrote:
Alan H wrote:EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

It's not really calling for a second petition per se, but about conditions that should have been in place before the first one.
True, but I think we're expecting the rule to be retrospective.
The petition was started a month ago.
Does tbat matter so long as the criteria are still valid?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Graham R
Posts: 15030
Joined: April 6th, 2011, 10:33 pm

Re: In or out?

#146 Post by Graham R » June 26th, 2016, 7:56 am

Alan H wrote:Now, this IS very interesting. A comment below the Guardian article:: Brexit: UK's most senior EU official resigns after leave vote – latest news
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.
Yes very interesting.
I noticed yesterday that the Brexiteers seemed to have gone to ground.
I think they now realise that they have opened Pandora's box.
Relish the privilege of existence

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#147 Post by animist » June 26th, 2016, 9:26 am

the article about Article 50 (!) may be an exaggeration, but I think that the Brexiters are waking up to reality and are indeed going to be chary about starting the exit ball rolling. Personally I doubt that Brexit will happen. The chances of a satisfactory trade deal with the other 27 EU members seem slim, and our negotiators are men who lack senior Cabinet experience - dear old buffoon Boris has not been a minister, has he? We are in a weak position over safeguarding our financial and other exports, and I imagine that the hardened old pros in Europe will make mincemeat of these idiots. As has been mentioned, the referendum vote is only advisory, though constitutional guru Vernon Bogdanor does seem to think that it overrules parliamentary sovereignty - strange. Anyway, a year or two down the line, the June 23 vote will drift away from public consciousness, and hopefully Parliament will reassert its authority in order to prevent further damage to the economy - and FTM to Britain's international image, which is already being tarnished

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#148 Post by Dave B » June 26th, 2016, 9:27 am

I think they now realise that they have opened Pandora's box.
My thoughts as well, Graham.

As usual intixicated by their own verbosity and on their pet bandwagon the politicians have e ded up with both feet in their mouth and the rest of us in the shit.

Oh for some real governors who realise they are not in a theatre but that their actions affect the very lives of real people.

Shit heads every one.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#149 Post by Alan H » June 26th, 2016, 10:29 am

The petition now has 3,015,808 signatures.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#150 Post by animist » June 26th, 2016, 10:39 am

Alan H wrote:The petition now has 3,015,808 signatures.
what would be fun is if it eventually exceeds the 16 million who voted Remain. My daughter is very upset about Thursday and wants me to sign; I will, though I think I would rather start a petition asking Parliament to ban any further referendums on anything!

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#151 Post by Tetenterre » June 26th, 2016, 11:26 am

And there's another petition for a Battle of Hastings rematch because some people are unhappy with the result.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petition ... wwGwk41Y7M

Whilst I don't like the outcome of the referendum, I think the best response is that, although it may not have been what I think is the "right decision", people of good faith must now do what they can to make it work for the UK. I am very much in agreement with what a wise friend has posted on FB:
SO as Mr Juncker changes the locks and prepares to chainsaw through the middle of the family car [half for you, half for me] we have a glimpse of the kind of arrogance that may have provoked the more thoughtful Brexit voters to make their decision. [As you can tell, I believe the majority of them were like the man in Barnsley who thought he would keep out the Muslims by voting to leave the EU.] I find it sad that the European leaders lump all of us together, and want us out of the house as quickly as possible. That sort of attitude is not worthy of the ideal institution which 48 percent of us believe the EU ought to be. [Note: I'm not saying it is - but if we're not in it, then we can't win it.]
If we're going to leave [for mostly the wrong reasons] then we should do it in our own time, having taken care to preserve all those elements of mutual co-operation [health-care, university study, scientific co-operation etc.] which are of advantage to all the peoples of the community. [The Bitch said there was no such thing as society - I don't remember if she tried to do a Newspeak on the word 'community'.]
The leaders of the EU would do well to remember a proverb which probably exists in all their languages: one fool makes many.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#152 Post by Alan H » June 26th, 2016, 11:41 am

Tetenterre wrote:Whilst I don't like the outcome of the referendum, I think the best response is that, although it may not have been what I think is the "right decision", people of good faith must now do what they can to make it work for the UK. I am very much in agreement with what a wise friend has posted on FB:
SO as Mr Juncker changes the locks and prepares to chainsaw through the middle of the family car [half for you, half for me] we have a glimpse of the kind of arrogance that may have provoked the more thoughtful Brexit voters to make their decision. [As you can tell, I believe the majority of them were like the man in Barnsley who thought he would keep out the Muslims by voting to leave the EU.] I find it sad that the European leaders lump all of us together, and want us out of the house as quickly as possible. That sort of attitude is not worthy of the ideal institution which 48 percent of us believe the EU ought to be. [Note: I'm not saying it is - but if we're not in it, then we can't win it.]
If we're going to leave [for mostly the wrong reasons] then we should do it in our own time, having taken care to preserve all those elements of mutual co-operation [health-care, university study, scientific co-operation etc.] which are of advantage to all the peoples of the community. [The Bitch said there was no such thing as society - I don't remember if she tried to do a Newspeak on the word 'community'.]
The leaders of the EU would do well to remember a proverb which probably exists in all their languages: one fool makes many.
EU leaders may well lump us all together because it's the UK as a whole that is a member - and it is the UK alone who can start the process of leaving.

And Angela Merkel has said that the UK should take its time and that there was no rush.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: In or out?

#153 Post by Dave B » June 26th, 2016, 11:49 am

I took Merkel's words to mean, "Don't jerk your knee but don't take for ever." She is often described as a pragmatist and that's the better "p-word" than tbe other one in this case.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Gottard
Posts: 1306
Joined: October 3rd, 2008, 3:11 pm

Re: In or out?

#154 Post by Gottard » June 26th, 2016, 12:44 pm

I was clearly joking when I suggested to switch driving side; it would cost Scotland a fortune and it would be rather dangerous, also considering that NI and the Republic also drive on the left.
As concerning secession, and as EU rule/laws stand, the UK should first officially declare secession from the EU, then Scotland should gain full independence to ask to join the EU; i.e. Scotland should become a sovereign state to directly apply to join the EU. Unless, a big if, the UK and EU mutually agree to leave Scotland in the EU; but for this to be feasible a swift referendum should be arranged (and agreed) between Edinburgh and London .... unlikely in my opinion, but not impossible if savvy politicians would be in the driving seat.
The only thing I fear of death is regret if I couldn’t complete my learning experience

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#155 Post by Alan H » June 26th, 2016, 12:49 pm

Gottard wrote:I was clearly joking when I suggested to switch driving side; it would cost Scotland a fortune and it would be rather dangerous, also considering that NI and the Republic also drive on the left.
As concerning secession, and as EU rule/laws stand, the UK should first officially declare secession from the EU, then Scotland should gain full independence to ask to join the EU; i.e. Scotland should become a sovereign state to directly apply to join the EU. Unless, a big if, the UK and EU mutually agree to leave Scotland in the EU; but for this to be feasible a swift referendum should be arranged (and agreed) between Edinburgh and London .... unlikely in my opinion, but not impossible if savvy politicians would be in the driving seat.
Sounds sensible. What an enormous - and unnecessary - mess.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#156 Post by Alan H » June 26th, 2016, 10:49 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: In or out?

#157 Post by stevenw888 » June 27th, 2016, 10:33 am

I have just read the last 20 or so posts on this thread - after finally getting my voice back after the unexpected shock of the last 72 hours.
I agree totally with the opinions voiced by my friends. colleagues and others here.
And I realise one big, unalterable thing. We humanists may not be united by our politics or by our support of any particular party. Indeed I am sometimes more than a little surprised by some left-leaning postings on some parts of this website. But - and here's the thing - we are all united by our clear, overwhelming support for "Remain". I think it is fairly clear why - given the statements and actions of our politicians over the last 72 hours. The pound has dropped to its lowest point since 1985, making all imports more expensive. Scotland threatens a new referendum. Northern Ireland threatens a new 'United Ireland' referendum. There will be a nasty, vindictive Tory party leadership campaign. There will be a nasty, vindictive Labour party leadership campaign. There may well be a general election within the next 12 months. And all for what? For a totally, not necessary referendum. If we had voted by a narrow margin to remain, imagine the outcome on Friday. No falling pound, no falling of the FTSE 100, no market speculation, no rise in the price of gold. Parliament left to govern for the next four years until a general election in 2020.
All this to pander for 70 or so right-wing xenophobic far-right Tories.
What a f**king mess.
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#158 Post by Tetenterre » June 27th, 2016, 10:33 am

Alan H wrote:More sound, sensible stuff from David Allen Green: Where we are now with Article 50: “decision”, “notify”, and devolution issues
"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#159 Post by animist » June 27th, 2016, 12:00 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Whilst I don't like the outcome of the referendum, I think the best response is that, although it may not have been what I think is the "right decision", people of good faith must now do what they can to make it work for the UK. ]
I disagree, and I dislike the word "faith" - I wonder why? We all know that this referendum happened only because Cameron feared that Ukip might take Tory votes in the 2015 election. In the event (and reflecting our silly electoral system) this did not really happen, but the pledge about a referendum had been made and had to be honoured in the sense that it had to be held. But - no-one except Cameron and his team promised to honour the result of the referendum, so why lumber the rest of us with some duty to "make it work"? What the hell does this even mean?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: In or out?

#160 Post by Tetenterre » June 27th, 2016, 2:30 pm

It's OK to disagree. And I suppose it's also OK to misrepresent the term "good faith" if it really means that much to you to do so. The point remains that over half of those who voted did so for something that I suspect none of us likes. But I'm not one of those who takes the Churchilian view of democracy, or who reckons that it's OK as long as it produces the results I want.

We are where we are and the alternative to trying to make it work is to not try to make it work. Exactly who does that serve other than those who would cut off their noses to spite their faces?
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#161 Post by Alan H » June 27th, 2016, 6:09 pm

Tetenterre wrote:The point remains that over half of those who voted did so for something that I suspect none of us likes.
There's the rub. Did all those who voted no actually vote to leave the EU? It's not a stupid question: we know there are some at least who voted to regain our sovereignty; to give the Tories a bloody nose; to get £360 million a week spent on the NHS; to stop east Europeans; to stop all immigrants; to stop Muslims; to repatriate all immigrants... the list goes on but these are all reasons that have been given by various people over the last few days (possibly because that's what the media and politicians told them in the run up to the referendum) - and none of them really have much to do with actually leaving the EU. Now, these could be a minority, but we really know the numbers.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply