EU Referendum - In/Out?

[pratty]

So now it is clear there was never any plan and all the people responsible have left. In any other circumstances this would be considered null and void and we'd forget it ever happened!

 

Why would we though? This is what we collectively decided through the previously and almost universally championed democratic system. The remain voters complaining that they have had something forced on them against their will by the majority were perfectly happy to to do the the exact same thing to the leavers. We all knew this is the nature of democracy, we all effectively said we will inflict our wishes on the minority should our cause be the majority, and we condoned this very system with our willing and even enthusiastic participation in it.

 

Cameron said he would honour the vote to leave, he is the one passing the buck if he leaves before leading us out. Those who lead the leave campaign weren't campaigning to be Prime Minister, that's not what they wanted, they just wanted to leave the EU, they're two totally different things, there's a lot more to being Prime Minister than just managing the EU leave and aftermath. But because Cam doesn't fancy the job anymore we should ignore the vote and blame other people for not wanting to be PM?

 

We all knew there was no concrete plan in place before the vote, hence all the talk of uncertainty if we vote to leave, so why would this disqualify the result of the referendum? As soon as the referendum was announced Cameron and his government should have conceived of a potential exit strategy should the vote go that way, but evidently they didn't because they arrogantly assumed the majority of the people wouldn't possibly defy their government's wishes to remain.

[gaggle64]

Theresa May will be PM Wednesday evening. No vote.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

Edited July 11, 2016 by gaggle64

[gaggle64]

Theresa May will be PM Wednesday evening. No vote.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36768148

Edited July 11, 2016 by gaggle64

[Ashley]

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it. I'm not saying I expect it to be ignored, it is just a shit position to be left in.

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for? There's not even a clear definition of what "leave" entails.

 

And in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[Ashley]

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it. I'm not saying I expect it to be ignored, it is just a shit position to be left in.

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for? There's not even a clear definition of what "leave" entails.

 

And in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[pratty]

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right.

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for?

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

[pratty]

If MPs voted to not go through with it do you think people that voted leave, who are currently saying how democracy should be followed do you think they'd just say "well that's democracy, okay"?

 

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It's the very definition of being left to clean up someone else's shit (including Cameron's). And if you don't think some of the Leave party were campaigning to be PM we must have been watching different referendums. They even talked about policies they'd enact!

 

We may have, to be fair I can't say I was following these people's every utterance during the referendum campaign but at no point during the referendum lead up did I ever here Gove or Johnson campaigning to be Prime Minister. But you may be right.

 

The people that campaigned for it backed out when it happened. The people that are left to deal with it are those that didn't want it.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I do question as there was no plan for leave what did people vote for?

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

in regards to democracy people aged 16/17 weren't allowed to vote. UK migrants that had lived abroad for more than 15 years weren't allowed to because it wouldn't affect them much, but EU migrants that lived in the UK for more than 15 wouldn't even though it has the same affect upon them as UK migrants. It was democratic in the sense it was voted on and will be enacted, but it's not the perfect democracy that some people seem keen to insist. It's flawed. Democracy is flawed.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

And I'd personally argue what is being forced on remainers is bigger than if it had gone the other way, especially in light of today's research stating declining living standards are down to austerity and not immigration and the UN's recent statement that the austerity programme is a breach of international human rights. But you could of course argue either way.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

[Ashley]

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It was an advisory referendum and we elect our MPs to make decisions for us. If they decided to not listen to an advisory referendum it would be democratic (in the sense that it is within the "rules" of democracy). I'm not saying it would be wise, it is democracy. As I said, democracy is flawed. I was just trying to highlight ways in which it could be flawed.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't or anything, I'm just saying its a shit situation to find yourself in. It comes with the job obviously, but it's shit to be told to do something you don't want to do by a load of people that didn't prepare anything and have buggered off (and obviously I'm talking about the politicians here).

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

I wasn't saying it was a surprise, I was just saying it shows weaknesses in the "but it was democracy!" argument. There was an attempt to legally stop people voting (as in they were going to pursue it through the courts). Yes you have to set boundaries, but they seemed messy and arguably undemocratic.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

Again, I'm just trying to point out how our democracy is flawed and undemocratic in ways because one of the arguments against the EU was its undemocratic. I voted for an MEP and they (in their opinion) represent my view in Europe.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

Also ha:

 

[tweet]752577625860796416[/tweet]

 

Between this and his tweet last year about a vote for Ed Milliband resulting in chaos and a vote for him resulting in stablility he should probably not make statements in the future!

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[Ashley]

Not in this instance no, because it's not the same. It's the directly expressed will of the people being overruled by the even more flawed indirect and messy representation of the people by an elected supposed intellectual superior. The system of the latter really only exists because of the impracticality of doing the former on every single issue, but when we do have a referendum surely it must take precedence?

 

Too me it seems illogical that the representatives of the people should be able to overrule the people themselves, if they do then how can they claim to represent the views of the people if their verdicts don't match what the people have already expressed?

 

It was an advisory referendum and we elect our MPs to make decisions for us. If they decided to not listen to an advisory referendum it would be democratic (in the sense that it is within the "rules" of democracy). I'm not saying it would be wise, it is democracy. As I said, democracy is flawed. I was just trying to highlight ways in which it could be flawed.

 

I don't care what they want, it's not about them, they only get one vote/say in it like the rest of us. Is it really too much to expect politicians to deal with the democratically determined will of the people?

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't or anything, I'm just saying its a shit situation to find yourself in. It comes with the job obviously, but it's shit to be told to do something you don't want to do by a load of people that didn't prepare anything and have buggered off (and obviously I'm talking about the politicians here).

 

Surely to leave the EU, the specifics of the ins and outs are the government's responsibility to make it happen. An exact specific plan what to do next would be difficult anyway as it would be dependant on the various negotiations, the outcome of which can't be accurately foreseen. I think many leavers realise this, that leaving had a high degree of uncertainty and was still worth the risk.

 

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

Absolutely it is, we knew this before the vote but I get the feeling reaminers would not bring this up had they won. Leaving the EU means we have one less flawed democracy to contend with, a flawed democracy where an even greater minority of people than those in the UK can suffer the effects of a majority they disagree with.

 

I wasn't saying it was a surprise, I was just saying it shows weaknesses in the "but it was democracy!" argument. There was an attempt to legally stop people voting (as in they were going to pursue it through the courts). Yes you have to set boundaries, but they seemed messy and arguably undemocratic.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

If as many remainers insisted, that the EU is indeed democratic and that this is a good reason to stay ("we have to be in it to have our say on it" etc), then surely to be consistent they must still generally believe in the value of the democratic system despite it's faults.

 

Again, I'm just trying to point out how our democracy is flawed and undemocratic in ways because one of the arguments against the EU was its undemocratic. I voted for an MEP and they (in their opinion) represent my view in Europe.

 

Yes it's subjective, and when comparing it's not easy because you can't always just put a number on people's many reasons for their vote, both leave or stay.

 

To say the consequences for each side are uneven implies that an a straight forward vote (i.e. one-person-one-vote, either for or against, with the majority deciding the result) is an unsatisfactory way to decide what to do. However even if we accepted what you say about the greater imposition on remainers, to set a required greater-than-51% percentage for the leave vote to outweigh the supposed greater imposition to the remainers would be arbitrary considering the aforementioned subjective nature of the argument. And to not have a vote at all would surely be the least democratic solution.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

Also ha:

 

[tweet]752577625860796416[/tweet]

 

Between this and his tweet last year about a vote for Ed Milliband resulting in chaos and a vote for him resulting in stablility he should probably not make statements in the future!

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ashley

[pratty]

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic.

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

[pratty]

But what does leave the EU entail? Are we still going to be in the single market? Do we want an EEA deal? How about something like Norway? Or something more bespoke? Clearly the racism that has untangled since some people were voting for kicking people out of the country, in spite of the campaign stating that wouldn't happen.

 

My point is without a clear plan people were voting for "something else tbc" and that seems like a shitty part of democracy. When we vote in elections we vote based on a party's mandate (except those random independents who never bother putting one together but there's a good reason they don't do well). We weren't given details about what it would entail. I'm sure if you asked those 17 million people, the answers of what they expect(ed) would vary significantly. There's going to be common ones, obviously, but it was just "do something". And I get that is part of it. The whole Network rant. But that's fine for a film, less good when its the future of your god damn country.

 

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

I really don't understand what your last sentence is saying but that is just me!

 

No problem, what I meant is seeing as a flaw of democracy is how so many people can suffer the wishes of the majority, the larger the number of people under a single democracy the more the effect of that flaw is magnified, as more people can (as a minority) suffer under a majority.

 

I'd argue no vote would have been more democratic given the campaign - it was based on lies, misrepresentations, misdirection (on both sides) and with little regard as to what would happen. I generally like democracy, but I think the issue was too big and complex to put to the public in the short time frame that was given. It was reckless and feckless and arguably given that MPs are supposed to make informed decisions on our behalf it would have been more democratic to let them do the job we elect them to do. Obviously the most democratic would have been to put it to a vote in a reasoned position, but that is not what we got.

 

I think any say is better than no say. I think democracy is a lot more than a system of representation, it's ultimately about the people having an influence, therefore the more direct influence - the more democratic.

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

[Pestneb]

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.

[Pestneb]

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.

[Ashley]

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

In this case it ties back in to my point in that maybe MPs should have decided it because that kind of approach, while completely your right, is completely fucking reckless and now a great deal of my future plans have been buggered over because people said "fuck this!"

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

 

The volume of lies though is much deeper (or maybe just more pronounced as within days many of the Leave campaign's lies were exposed) and the impact is so much greater than a general election. In five years we won't be able to have our say again. That's it. This is done.

 

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

Oh yeah he should have done, no doubt about that. But if the Leave campaigners were so strong in their belief, they should have stuck it out and tried to take the mantle. The only one that didn't quit was Gove and that's mostly because he was kicked out beforehand.

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

May basically said it will today.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

[Ashley]

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

In this case it ties back in to my point in that maybe MPs should have decided it because that kind of approach, while completely your right, is completely fucking reckless and now a great deal of my future plans have been buggered over because people said "fuck this!"

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

 

The volume of lies though is much deeper (or maybe just more pronounced as within days many of the Leave campaign's lies were exposed) and the impact is so much greater than a general election. In five years we won't be able to have our say again. That's it. This is done.

 

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

Oh yeah he should have done, no doubt about that. But if the Leave campaigners were so strong in their belief, they should have stuck it out and tried to take the mantle. The only one that didn't quit was Gove and that's mostly because he was kicked out beforehand.

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

May basically said it will today.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

[Pestneb]

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

[Pestneb]

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

[Ashley]

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

They have no way of forcing either decision upon us. They can't make us not stay (at this stage anyway!)

 

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

It's all unknown, but yes I imagine they would have to agree the conditions that we'd stay so it depends what we say/offer. I don't think we could just say "soz, let's ignore it". We'd have to make concessions. Although given May is so anti-immigration it seems unlikely she'd concede anything.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

 

Been nothing overly substantial yet, but it's been a few weeks. The knock on effect is down the road. Jobs, businesses...

 

They can be arsewipes and make us regret our decisions. One proposed approach they could take is to ensure if we want to remain in the single market we don't have the financial passporting. This then means France, Germany and others get a lot of our financial industry and the money it brings. Thus they give us what we want (access to single market), while being an arsewipe and benefiting out of it.

 

And given the arsewipes we've sent to the EU and Nigel Farage's frankly rude and stupid shittalking there a few weeks ago we've done ourselves no favour when it comes to the negotiating table. Should they be above it? Sure. Could they be blamed for not being...?

[Ashley]

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

They have no way of forcing either decision upon us. They can't make us not stay (at this stage anyway!)

 

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

It's all unknown, but yes I imagine they would have to agree the conditions that we'd stay so it depends what we say/offer. I don't think we could just say "soz, let's ignore it". We'd have to make concessions. Although given May is so anti-immigration it seems unlikely she'd concede anything.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

 

Been nothing overly substantial yet, but it's been a few weeks. The knock on effect is down the road. Jobs, businesses...

 

They can be arsewipes and make us regret our decisions. One proposed approach they could take is to ensure if we want to remain in the single market we don't have the financial passporting. This then means France, Germany and others get a lot of our financial industry and the money it brings. Thus they give us what we want (access to single market), while being an arsewipe and benefiting out of it.

 

And given the arsewipes we've sent to the EU and Nigel Farage's frankly rude and stupid shittalking there a few weeks ago we've done ourselves no favour when it comes to the negotiating table. Should they be above it? Sure. Could they be blamed for not being...?

[Blade]

For those that are interested here is an article from The Guardian about the current state of play of the Tories and Labour.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/tories-labour-angela-eagle-labour-corbyn-party-membership

 

For a left-leaning paper it is pretty damning on the Labour Party. Labour currently provides nil opposition. It is also clear that under Corbyn it has faced the worst local council election result since 1982. If the party wishes to be a party of government rather than a left wing pressure group then it needs to buck up its ideas and get its act together. The party membership has always been broadly more left wing than the party's voters.

 

The party should represent the voters not the membership. Only winners can achieve. Being a protest movement achieves very little. Labour created the NHS as it won an election. Winning elections has resulted Labour being able to ensure there is a minimum wage, to implement the Working Time Directive and to pass the Human Rights Act.

 

Corbyn has energised the broad membership and the SWP. We have people joining the party who are self declared socialists with the sole objective of keeping Corbyn leader (surely the SWP would be more appropriate). Yes the Labour movement back at the beginning of the 20th century was about socialism and came at a time when there were no workers rights but those times are in the past.

 

In order to protect the workers and to enforce progressive polcies the party needs to win elections.The country is unlikely to vote for a party that doesn't represent them and unfortunately the Labour party with its effort to appeal to its membership doesn't.

 

I personally don't think that Corbyn is up for the job. However, should the party membership reselect him then as a party member I will shut up and get behind him.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Blade

[Blade]

For those that are interested here is an article from The Guardian about the current state of play of the Tories and Labour.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/tories-labour-angela-eagle-labour-corbyn-party-membership

 

For a left-leaning paper it is pretty damning on the Labour Party. Labour currently provides nil opposition. It is also clear that under Corbyn it has faced the worst local council election result since 1982. If the party wishes to be a party of government rather than a left wing pressure group then it needs to buck up its ideas and get its act together. The party membership has always been broadly more left wing than the party's voters.

 

The party should represent the voters not the membership. Only winners can achieve. Being a protest movement achieves very little. Labour created the NHS as it won an election. Winning elections has resulted Labour being able to ensure there is a minimum wage, to implement the Working Time Directive and to pass the Human Rights Act.

 

Corbyn has energised the broad membership and the SWP. We have people joining the party who are self declared socialists with the sole objective of keeping Corbyn leader (surely the SWP would be more appropriate). Yes the Labour movement back at the beginning of the 20th century was about socialism and came at a time when there were no workers rights but those times are in the past.

 

In order to protect the workers and to enforce progressive polcies the party needs to win elections.The country is unlikely to vote for a party that doesn't represent them and unfortunately the Labour party with its effort to appeal to its membership doesn't.

 

I personally don't think that Corbyn is up for the job. However, should the party membership reselect him then as a party member I will shut up and get behind him.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Blade

[Kav]

I'm backing Corbyn until someone worthwhile comes to oppose him.

[Kav]

I'm backing Corbyn until someone worthwhile comes to oppose him.

[Pestneb]

first 20 seconds isn't needed... but made me chuckle.

[Pestneb]

first 20 seconds isn't needed... but made me chuckle.