Frozocrone wrote: The government in charge can choose to ignore the result of this. But doing so, especially when Cameron has just said that it needs to be respected, is political suicide.
Well, okay, that doesn't seem so bad a consequence. I bet they can dig up a bunch of people who'll agree to never be elected politicians again in return for some cushy consultant job somewhere.
Gibraltar is heading for some really bad times....or perhaps rejoining Spain.
I don't see how the Irish border can remain open when it becomes a frontier to the EU. I don't think that there will be a united Ireland for years though, unionism runs extremely deep there.
CoreCommander wrote: Some questions for you, Brits:
How long will it be before the result of the referendum is brought into your parliament for discussion?
It's being discussed behind closed doors now. I expect it will get to the floor of the house in a few weeks.
Is there any possibility for early elections?
It doesn't look likely. The head Leavers have asked Cameron not to resign immediately and he has said he will stand down by October. There is no particular reason for a vote of no confidence unless the majority of MPs, who are Remainers, feel there should be an election before the process of Outing is to begin.
What will happen if the parliament (old or new) decides not to file the leaving papers?
1. The UK remains part of the EU.
2. Riots? I don't know. I don't think civil unrest would result. There would be an upswell of opinion against the government but given the relatively narrow margin of victory it might not constitute an overwhelming force.
CoreCommander wrote: Some questions for you, Brits:
How long will it be before the result of the referendum is brought into your parliament for discussion?
It's being discussed behind closed doors now. I expect it will get to the floor of the house in a few weeks.
Is there any possibility for early elections?
It doesn't look likely. The head Leavers have asked Cameron not to resign immediately and he has said he will stand down by October. There is no particular reason for a vote of no confidence unless the majority of MPs, who are Remainers, feel there should be an election before the process of Outing is to begin.
What will happen if the parliament (old or new) decides not to file the leaving papers?
1. The UK remains part of the EU.
2. Riots? I don't know. I don't think civil unrest would result. There would be an upswell of opinion against the government but given the relatively narrow margin of victory it might not constitute an overwhelming force.
And a period of declining economy in the meantime could lead people to reevaluate their votes as they may have bought into the sunshine and rainbows outlook painted by some of the Leave campaign. To find out that Remain were actually telling the truth that it would be bad (at least in the short term) could sour opinions and pull some people back over to remain.
Agreed. People are acting like the sky has fallen and the world is on fire.
It takes two years to leave the Euro, and I have no doubt that it will manage to cock up more along the way and convince people that leaving was right.
jhe90 wrote: Gibralter survived pre EU, it survived pre many European events.
Things can be worked out.
Article 50, this process cannot be rushed anything will take time to file, to make work and to calculate.
I'm sure things worked in the past. That doesn't mean they will work in the future. Things have changed, after all. The last time Gibraltar wasn't in the EU, Spain was still ruled by Franco, for example.
jhe90 wrote: Gibralter survived pre EU, it survived pre many European events.
Things can be worked out.
Article 50, this process cannot be rushed anything will take time to file, to make work and to calculate.
I'm sure things worked in the past. That doesn't mean they will work in the future. Things have changed, after all. The last time Gibraltar wasn't in the EU, Spain was still ruled by Franco, for example.
Gibraltar will survive. Gibraltarians have clearly spoken whenever they've been asked.
Their economy, though, faces some serious challenges.
A lot of young Gibraltarians have been forced out of the rock because of high housing prices. Once Gibraltarians don't have automatic residency status, free healthcare and they have to cross a proper border at least twice a day it will have an impact.
They voted something like 96% remain for a reason.
More Young people should have voted then, it's their own bloody fault.
Where are you getting that a lot of young people didn't vote?
Less than one third of the UK's total population falls within that 18 to 39 age band which voted Remain. 49% of the UK's population is in the 40+ age band who predominantly voted Leave.
The maths doesn't favour Remain, even if they did go out and vote.
I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
This just reeks of trying to find someone to blame.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
welshhoppo wrote: I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
Out of curiosity, are there any numbers on the % of people in the 18-29 and 30-39 age brackets that voted?
welshhoppo wrote: I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
Out of curiosity, are there any numbers on the % of people in the 18-29 and 30-39 age brackets that voted?
Not that I know of, but I have been having a look around. The general rule of thumb is that old people vote more than younger ones. And considering many of the university cities had low remain votes, it shows they didn't vote as much as they could.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
The Scots have a point, though.
Part of the remain (in the UK) vote revolved around Scots being unable to remain in the EU if they set out on their own. Yesterday vote changes everything.
welshhoppo wrote: I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
Out of curiosity, are there any numbers on the % of people in the 18-29 and 30-39 age brackets that voted?
Not that I know of, but I have been having a look around. The general rule of thumb is that old people vote more than younger ones. And considering many of the university cities had low remain votes, it shows they didn't vote as much as they could.
Or that students are not in those cities as term is over so many have gone home.
welshhoppo wrote: I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
This just reeks of trying to find someone to blame.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
We have an aging population, so even if 100% of youths voted the demographic would still be skewed. I firmly believe this vote should've been opened to 16-17 year olds via optional application, similar to the Scottish referendum. It wouldn't fix the scales but it'd help.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
The Scots have a point, though.
Part of the remain (in the UK) vote revolved around Scots being unable to remain in the EU if they set out on their own. Yesterday vote changes everything.
This was predicted a few months ago, and the Scot PM has been hinting at this for a while - the situation in Northern Ireland will also be very sensitive.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
The Scots have a point, though.
Part of the remain (in the UK) vote revolved around Scots being unable to remain in the EU if they set out on their own. Yesterday vote changes everything.
This was predicted a few months ago, and the Scot PM has been hinting at this for a while - the situation in Northern Ireland will also be very sensitive.
I think Northern Ireland will be okay, the border controls were around before the EU was.
Personally, I think everyone in Scotland should move to London, then we will just cut you loose and let you float around in the North Sea like a very wet Venice.
The question here is - wouldn't N.Ireland prefer to unify with Ireland and skip the borders altogether, though?
I admit I don't know the Ireland/N.Ireland situation in-depth but that would seem like a plausible way to go, much like the Scottish trying to get independence.
welshhoppo wrote: I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
This just reeks of trying to find someone to blame.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
I don't think we need a second referendum. We need a period of calm to allow the planning and negotiations around the process of exiting. I think we need a general election to bring in a government that genuinely can support the process. More than half the current MPs are Remainers, and the official government position was to remain. These people can't in conscience carry out the negotiations and decisions.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: The question here is - wouldn't N.Ireland prefer to unify with Ireland and skip the borders altogether, though?
I admit I don't know the Ireland/N.Ireland situation in-depth but that would seem like a plausible way to go, much like the Scottish trying to get independence.
I suspect this issue is still divided along ethnoreligious lines.
It's one thing to be in the EU but a unified Ireland is a whole different thing. They were putting bombs and machine-gunning people until pretty much yesterday over there.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: The question here is - wouldn't N.Ireland prefer to unify with Ireland and skip the borders altogether, though?
I admit I don't know the Ireland/N.Ireland situation in-depth but that would seem like a plausible way to go, much like the Scottish trying to get independence.
I highly doubt it. It took them long enough to stop killing each other over it, it has only been a few years of relative peace.
welshhoppo wrote: I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
This just reeks of trying to find someone to blame.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
I don't think we need a second referendum. We need a period of calm to allow the planning and negotiations around the process of exiting. I think we need a general election to bring in a government that genuinely can support the process. More than half the current MPs are Remainers, and the official government position was to remain. These people can't in conscience carry out the negotiations and decisions.
In regards to N.Ireland: they will definitely not join us unless Scotland leaves the UK. Then they will probably join us because they are more Scottish then English, and more Irish then Scottish.
welshhoppo wrote: I said it because I've seen a lot of people crying over the fact that "old people are deciding the fate of our nation and they will be dead soon." If you are that concerned about old people ruining your life, you need to head out and vote yourself.
This just reeks of trying to find someone to blame.
Also, has anyone else seen the petition for a second referendum? I thought it was complete bollocks.
You know, it's weird, I could have sworn that all the people I know voted, guess they should have gone out and voted!
It's also weird that 16-17 year olds weren't allowed to vote; guess they should have just gone out and voted if they were concerned!
Better weather wouldn't have changed the final result but it would have made the margin closer, since Londoners voted by a wide margin to Remain.
I managed to vote in the evening despite my normal 1.5hrs total daily commute from Hillingdon to Camden taking 3.5 hours instead, IMO it's more people not making the extra effort than because the weather actually stopped them.
Well, once again, this small island in the North Atlantic has changed history...for better or for worse? Time will tell.
When I crashed out, I honestly thought Remain would win narrowly, but here we are. I voted leave, I got what I wanted. I'm happy we left, but I'm not gloating or being triumphant, because that would be disrespectful to those who voted Remain.
The country needs to take a step back, calmly plan its next move, and have everybody pull together to get the best deal possible.
First things first though. We need to stop those damn Yankees snapping up cheap forge world stuff!
Frozocrone wrote: Just been off the phone to my mother who voted Leave, that's been the toughest phone conversation I've ever had. Came close to crying.
It's only just starting to hit me in the heart how devastating I find this.
This feeling has been echoed by a lot of my British coworkers over here, even before the 23rd.
Better weather wouldn't have changed the final result but it would have made the margin closer, since Londoners voted by a wide margin to Remain.
I managed to vote in the evening despite my normal 1.5hrs total daily commute from Hillingdon to Camden taking 3.5 hours instead, IMO it's more people not making the extra effort than because the weather actually stopped them.
You are one of the people who goes out of their way to achieve their democratic right and duty. Nonetheless, it is a known fact that bad weather pushes participation rates down, because as you say people don't want to make the extra effort.
kb_lock wrote: Without fear mongering, did we just watch the death of Britain?
Scotland wanted to stay in the eu, which is why they stayed in gb, that would absolutely be cause for a new referendum for them.
That is a given that the SNP will demand another referendum. Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
You cant change government 'mid term', just because you dont like policy changes.
Australia/new Zealand need new flags, take the opportunity to vote for a republic?
Not really as Aus is based on orgina from the old UK not the current UK.
New Zealand might chanfge is flag anyway.
Besides the UK flag wont change, it would be a pointless waste of time and money as a lot would have to change in accompaniment..
Precedent: The Royal banner still had Fleur De Lys on it based on ancestral claims to French territory long after the loss of Calais.
Doesn't bother me, but God damn in going to spend up a storm on fw soon
kb_lock wrote: Without fear mongering, did we just watch the death of Britain?
Scotland wanted to stay in the eu, which is why they stayed in gb, that would absolutely be cause for a new referendum for them.
That is a given that the SNP will demand another referendum. Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
You cant change government 'mid term', just because you dont like policy changes.
... ....
By Cameron resigning the UK is changing government 'mid term' because we don't like the policy. There will be a new prime minister when he goes and the new PM will appoint a new cabinet.
This is one reason why I think a general election is advisable before cracking on with Brexit. It would offer Scotland the chance to make plain their desire for independence and EU membership by electing 100% SNPMPs with a good margin.
Completely surprised by the result, I honestly thought remain would win. A keep calm and carry on attitude and a measured level headed way forward is what's needed. Cameron did the decent thing and stepped down, Corbyn is being surrounded by plotters and, should Labour rediscover its core vote, UKIP should fade away.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: First things first though. We need to stop those damn Yankees snapping up cheap forge world stuff!
A lot of leave voters in my office are shocked about the repercussions of the leave vote with the new Scottish referendum threats and the financial implications. They have just gone by the front page of the sun or mail and thought that all that happened would be that we get rid of the immigrants.
Some were happy about the dropping in value of the pound to start with as they thought they would get more $ for each £ so were planning a shopping trip to New York. I was tempted to let them book the flights and not tell them.
Orlanth wrote: Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
Holyrood would call one anyway, assuming that a Yes vote is likely to win, and there is little that Westminster could do to stop it. I personally suspect that there won't be a referendum called until after the next election as this will give the UK's economy time to melt down and it will also probably see yet another Tory government which will make an independent Scotland a lot more likely.
Despite the massively and overwhelming support for the EU in Gibraltar they will soon be dragged out. That is bound to fundamentally change peoples viewpoints. Its not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will simply vote out of the UK, perhaps as a micronation or potentially even rejoining Spain. Either way they will be in an extremely difficult financial situation in the near future.
kb_lock wrote: Without fear mongering, did we just watch the death of Britain?
Scotland wanted to stay in the eu, which is why they stayed in gb, that would absolutely be cause for a new referendum for them.
That is a given that the SNP will demand another referendum. Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
You cant change government 'mid term', just because you dont like policy changes.
... ....
By Cameron resigning the UK is changing government 'mid term' because we don't like the policy. There will be a new prime minister when he goes and the new PM will appoint a new cabinet.
This is one reason why I think a general election is advisable before cracking on with Brexit. It would offer Scotland the chance to make plain their desire for independence and EU membership by electing 100% SNPMPs with a good margin.
We have a list of upcoming constitutional crises the length of my arm looming on the horizon:
Good Friday agreement, Scottish Parliament bound by EU law etc etc
Under the Sewel convention, anything not reserved to Westmisnter, like fishing and farming, goes to the Scottish parliament, but if Westminster plays hardball?
Plus, what happens if the Scottish Parliament decides to resist Westminster attempts to scrap the SP being bound by EU law?
If London cracks down on Edinburgh, it only boosts Scottish independence.
Even with the best intentions the Leave result today has put in motion the dissolution of the UK as Scottish secession is now the likely outcome.
We're likely to see a second Scottish referendum before October when Article 50 will be submitted by the new PM. I say, good on the Scots - but this is a terrible day for the rest of us.
In many respects, the EU only has itself to blame for this.
If Cameron had been given a cast iron deal to take back to the British people, instead of wishy washy, vague promises that weren't even legally binding, that might have been enough.
The EU thought Britain was bluffing - they paid the price for this assumption.
If Cameron had been given a cast iron deal to take back to the British people, instead of wishy washy, vague promises that weren't even legally binding, that might have been enough.
The EU thought Britain was bluffing - they paid the price for this assumption.
The EU has already started refering to themselves as the 27, it's internal UK politics and telling Cameron not to go forward would have been even worse for the remain camp.
It's Cameron who thought he could get away with that based on his experience on the Scottish ref.
I wonder is David Cameron will now specify what "The Deal" was and what it consisted of, after Remain Lost....
I seriously dont trust someone referring something as "The Deal" without specifying what it is when the future of a country is at stake...
In some respects, the vote for Brexit was a vote for English nationalism.
That's my view as well.
I'm happy. If English nationalism is on the rise, it only speeds up the end of the UK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
commander dante wrote: I wonder is David Cameron will now specify what "The Deal" was and what it consisted of, after Remain Lost....
I seriously dont trust someone referring something as "The Deal" without specifying what it is when the future of a country is at stake...
Now that he's stepping down, I fully expect to see Cameron reveal the deal for the sham it was. He asked for nothing, he got half of that!
In some respects, the vote for Brexit was a vote for English nationalism.
That's my view as well.
I'm not a British citizen and haven't really followed this whole event too hard except recently but I thought that was the whole point? Without being rude, but wasn't English nationalism the most obvious rationale?
I think a fair number of Brexit voters have woken up today and, after the initial euphoria of winning, have begun to think quietly "WTF have we done?" Anyone going on holiday on the next few weeks is being hit in the wallet right now, for example.
Farage and Boris have always been anti-EU and there's no way they will change their mind but now they are in the situation of having to come up with proper plans instead of just heckling from the sidelines. I don't think they have the skills and I"m not sure that they even think they do themselves.
Boris in particular is a charming dilettante with no grip, bottom or perserverance, totally unsuitable for driving through a highly complex set of international negotiations. He resigned from his first job, management consultancy, in a week, due to boredom.
Why have Leave pressed Cameron to stay on until the autumn? He's a lame duck, he can't lead a Brexit government and most MPs currently are pro-EU. Leave know things can't go forwards in a rush. Clearly there needs to be a general election to get a government in place to carry out the Brexit procedure. This won't happen overnight, and it will expose the other fault lines around Brexit, such as Scottish independence.
Therefore I think there's a chance that over the next three months, the country's mood will change, and a general election might fail to produce a government with the ability to carry out the Brexit process.
I don't think it's ver likely but I think it's not impossible.
Aeneades wrote: A lot of leave voters in my office are shocked about the repercussions of the leave vote with the new Scottish referendum threats and the financial implications. They have just gone by the front page of the sun or mail and thought that all that happened would be that we get rid of the immigrants.
Some were happy about the dropping in value of the pound to start with as they thought they would get more $ for each £ so were planning a shopping trip to New York. I was tempted to let them book the flights and not tell them.
Are the Irish dancing and puking in the streets yet? You may have just shifted your entire financial sector to their bonny green country.
On the positive, this could theoretically be the kick the EU needs to get its house in order. You may come out of it with more of a NAFTA situation than anything else, such that border controls an non Belgium dominance are restored, but goods and services may trade freely.
But I doubt that will happen. That would require bureaucrats to lose power.
I'm happy. If English nationalism is on the rise, it only speeds up the end of the UK.
I'm not so happy in the short term as I find English nationalism to be the bad kind of nationalism, all flag waving, exclusion and nastiness. As I currently live in England I really don't want my son to be anywhere near such things.
On the other hand I will hopefully be getting a new passport soon
My wife and I are in agreement though, our time in England is most definitely limited.
BrotherGecko wrote: Without being rude, but wasn't English nationalism the most obvious rationale?
England is not supposed to equate to Britain although in practice that's exactly what it usually means. Its just nice to see it spelled out clearly on the BBC.
I think a fair number of Brexit voters have woken up today and, after the initial euphoria of winning, have begun to think quietly "WTF have we done?" Anyone going on holiday on the next few weeks is being hit in the wallet right now, for example.
The Boris is apparently one of them.
"Boris Johnson has said there is “no need for haste” and “nothing will change over the short-term” as he said the country should not immediately trigger Article 50 to start exit negotiations with the EU."
Aeneades wrote: A lot of leave voters in my office are shocked about the repercussions of the leave vote with the new Scottish referendum threats and the financial implications. They have just gone by the front page of the sun or mail and thought that all that happened would be that we get rid of the immigrants.
Some were happy about the dropping in value of the pound to start with as they thought they would get more $ for each £ so were planning a shopping trip to New York. I was tempted to let them book the flights and not tell them.
Are the Irish dancing and puking in the streets yet? You may have just shifted your entire financial sector to their bonny green country.
On the positive, this could theoretically be the kick the EU needs to get its house in order. You may come out of it with more of a NAFTA situation than anything else, such that border controls an non Belgium dominance are restored, but goods and services may trade freely.
But I doubt that will happen. That would require bureaucrats to lose power.
When the French revolution started, its armies swarmed all over Europe.
Well, now we have the British revolution, and we're re-taking the colonies back!
Ready your gun and look to the Canadian border, Frazz, because millions of redcoats are coming America's way
In some respects, the vote for Brexit was a vote for English nationalism.
That's my view as well.
I'm not a British citizen and haven't really followed this whole event too hard except recently but I thought that was the whole point? Without being rude, but wasn't English nationalism the most obvious rationale?
England isn't really supposed to 'exist' in the UK, but when one part is 85% of the population, then that's what happens.
Could have had a federal system years ago, and a reformed Lords to go with it, but they did nothing, and here we are...
kb_lock wrote: Without fear mongering, did we just watch the death of Britain?
Scotland wanted to stay in the eu, which is why they stayed in gb, that would absolutely be cause for a new referendum for them.
That is a given that the SNP will demand another referendum. Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
You cant change government 'mid term', just because you dont like policy changes.
... ....
By Cameron resigning the UK is changing government 'mid term' because we don't like the policy. There will be a new prime minister when he goes and the new PM will appoint a new cabinet.
This is one reason why I think a general election is advisable before cracking on with Brexit. It would offer Scotland the chance to make plain their desire for independence and EU membership by electing 100% SNPMPs with a good margin.
Westminster FPTP elections are awful for determining the will of the people, that's the very point of referendums. At the Scottish elections we put a pro-indy majority in Holyrood using a system of proportional representation, that is who will speak for us now, and it will be through a referendum that we ourselves will speak.
Dismay seems to be quickly turning to resolve up here - even my postie greeted me this morning with a gak-eating grin and "indyref2 eh? haha"
Bottle wrote: Today is a terrible result for the UK.
Even with the best intentions the Leave result today has put in motion the dissolution of the UK as Scottish secession is now the likely outcome.
We're likely to see a second Scottish referendum before October when Article 50 will be submitted by the new PM. I say, good on the Scots - but this is a terrible day for the rest of us.
October is unlikely. It's more probable we'll see the Scottish Government open up lines direct to the EU to clarify everything first, then call the referendum closer to the end of the UK's negotiation period assuming they can get an assurance of rapid accession in the event of a Yes vote.
Orlanth wrote: Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
Holyrood would call one anyway, assuming that a Yes vote is likely to win, and there is little that Westminster could do to stop it. I personally suspect that there won't be a referendum called until after the next election as this will give the UK's economy time to melt down and it will also probably see yet another Tory government which will make an independent Scotland a lot more likely.
Big trouble is in 2014 oil was $110 a barrel, not its under $50. Scotland has massive cash investment from the Uk at the moment.
the time to call a referendum is not now, because the Eu will not want Scotland to have to bail out and Sturgeon doesnt want to have to have the Scottish people face the figures.
This is why her rhetoric differs widely from Salmond.
Sturgeon says a second referendum is 'on the table', if she is as smart as I think she is she will wait.
Despite the massively and overwhelming support for the EU in Gibraltar they will soon be dragged out. That is bound to fundamentally change peoples viewpoints. Its not beyond the bounds of possibility that they will simply vote out of the UK, perhaps as a micronation or potentially even rejoining Spain. Either way they will be in an extremely difficult financial situation in the near future.
sorry no.
1. Gibraltar doesn't want to be be part of Spain, that overides all other consdierations and is the reason they voted remain, not a love of Brussels
2. A micronation is untenable, it will just get annexed. Gibraltarians know this and are under no illusions as to the consequences of cutting ties with the UK, even if they wanted to.
1. Gibraltar doesn't want to be be part of Spain, that overides all other consdierations and is the reason they voted remain, not a love of Brussels
2. A micronation is untenable, .
This is true, and anyone who knows anything about the place or the mentality of the people will know it. Their economy is primarily built around the port, which the royal navy, american navy, and cruise ships will continue to use regardless. If they tried to join the EU separately, their banking sector would lose out in comparison to Luxembourg, and restrictions are tightening up anyway. Their primary concern is the border being slowed to six hour waits again, but to an extent, they're used to that. They're remarkably well shielded against economic fluctuations, remain or leave.
I think a fair number of Brexit voters have woken up today and, after the initial euphoria of winning, have begun to think quietly "WTF have we done?" Anyone going on holiday on the next few weeks is being hit in the wallet right now, for example.
The Boris is apparently one of them.
"Boris Johnson has said there is “no need for haste” and “nothing will change over the short-term” as he said the country should not immediately trigger Article 50 to start exit negotiations with the EU."
Dont make rushed moves with nations futures. We have two years to finalise the process.
1. Let the market scare settle, this will happen when people think they cant call any more short term profit on the issue and is of itself independent of the real economy.
2. Listen to the feedback. Merkel is calling for amiable and reasonable trade terms, so when we do talk, we talk to her first.
3. See whom are negotiating partners are. For example Obama haters the Uk anyway and wantsd to see us burn, but he wont be president for long. Trump actually supports Brexit, Clinton is more likely next president and plays her cards differently.
There is no point ior need to negotiate with the US in particular until January.
4. Know who our own decision makers are. It wont be Cameron for long, and likely not Corbyn either.
Chukka Umunna, Andy Burnham, IDS and Boris Johnson are new power players and their pieces are not in position yet.
kb_lock wrote: Without fear mongering, did we just watch the death of Britain?
Scotland wanted to stay in the eu, which is why they stayed in gb, that would absolutely be cause for a new referendum for them.
That is a given that the SNP will demand another referendum. Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
You cant change government 'mid term', just because you dont like policy changes.
... ....
By Cameron resigning the UK is changing government 'mid term' because we don't like the policy. There will be a new prime minister when he goes and the new PM will appoint a new cabinet.
This is one reason why I think a general election is advisable before cracking on with Brexit. It would offer Scotland the chance to make plain their desire for independence and EU membership by electing 100% SNPMPs with a good margin.
Westminster FPTP elections are awful for determining the will of the people, that's the very point of referendums. At the Scottish elections we put a pro-indy majority in Holyrood using a system of proportional representation, that is who will speak for us now, and it will be through a referendum that we ourselves will speak.
Dismay seems to be quickly turning to resolve up here - even my postie greeted me this morning with a gak-eating grin and "indyref2 eh? haha"
Bottle wrote: Today is a terrible result for the UK.
Even with the best intentions the Leave result today has put in motion the dissolution of the UK as Scottish secession is now the likely outcome.
We're likely to see a second Scottish referendum before October when Article 50 will be submitted by the new PM. I say, good on the Scots - but this is a terrible day for the rest of us.
October is unlikely. It's more probable we'll see the Scottish Government open up lines direct to the EU to clarify everything first, then call the referendum closer to the end of the UK's negotiation period assuming they can get an assurance of rapid accession in the event of a Yes vote.
They are both awful.
FPTP produced a Tory majority government with only 36% of the votes.
The Scottish Referendum produced a 55 to 45 % against result, but is now being ignored by people like you, because now a different referendum has given a result that can be seen to conflict and produces a situation more to your taste.
The Brexit referendum produced a 51.8 to 48.2 % in favour. A majority for Brexit but not a ringing endorsement by the people especially considering the wide variances geographically, as seen by the example of Scotland.
I know you've keen on Scottish independence, but I think the situation is difficult enough ATM without pushing for another referendum in the very near future.
First there must be a general election. Then a new government must be formed that has the political will and strength to push through the Article 50 process. Once the results of that begin to emerge, Scotland will have a better view of the suitability of staying in or leaving the Union, and can begin to make arrangements accordingly.
Big trouble is in 2014 oil was $110 a barrel, not its under $50.
And? Scotland is economically viable on its own.
Scotland is a bit like Venezuela in this regards take away oil and there isnt much left. This isnt entirely rtrue, Scotland has a high tech industry, trouble is it doesnt have anything like enough industry to account for its underclass or to provide the admirable level of care that the Scottish government currently provides for its people.
Take away oil and UK funding to make up the differences Scots will have to take a large drop in standard of living to make up for independence, or get the funds elsewhere.
Now it is possible the EU might make Scotland an offer, to be independent and get into the EU on our ticket. but the only reason to do so would be as an 'attack' on the UK, particularly England. They would enjoy that in Paris. But its a wet dream.
First with a Bexit Uk using the pound will not be an option at all, ourtside of Panamaisation. The Euro is not popular with Scots and could be a deal breaker, it might be a requirement from Brussels.
Don't get me wrong Scotland would make it into the EU, but then you still have the Spanish veto to contend with.
The plus side for the SNP is that they dont have Wee Eck in charge.
Low oil prices are however a temporary thing, oil price will rise again, then comes the next point, Scottish waters are running out of extractable oil, but Salmond almost got away with hising that last time, and the SNP might again.
Scotland has oil, tourism, agriculture, fisheries, luxury products like cashmere and whisky, financial services, education, technical industry including software and manufacturing, and the UK doesn't manage to provide for England's underclass.
I don't see any reason why Scotland couldn't go it alone successfully. I think they would be better off sticking with the union, except I think the union is going to be worse off outside the EU, so I can see why Scotland wants to be in the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: Scotland has oil, tourism, agriculture, fisheries, luxury products like cashmere and whisky, financial services, education, technical industry including software and manufacturing, and the UK doesn't manage to provide for England's underclass.
I don't see any reason why Scotland couldn't go it alone successfully. I think they would be better off sticking with the union, except I think the union is going to be worse off outside the EU, so I can see why Scotland wants to be in the EU.
I'm already reforming my indy campaign group (had a few calls) so steps are in motion for another Scottish referendum.
I'm fully expecting to see the EU suddenly discover an old rule that allows Scotland to be fast tracked into the EU...assuming the EU survives the next few months
kb_lock wrote: Without fear mongering, did we just watch the death of Britain?
Scotland wanted to stay in the eu, which is why they stayed in gb, that would absolutely be cause for a new referendum for them.
That is a given that the SNP will demand another referendum. Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
You cant change government 'mid term', just because you dont like policy changes.
... ....
By Cameron resigning the UK is changing government 'mid term' because we don't like the policy. There will be a new prime minister when he goes and the new PM will appoint a new cabinet.
This is one reason why I think a general election is advisable before cracking on with Brexit. It would offer Scotland the chance to make plain their desire for independence and EU membership by electing 100% SNPMPs with a good margin.
Westminster FPTP elections are awful for determining the will of the people, that's the very point of referendums. At the Scottish elections we put a pro-indy majority in Holyrood using a system of proportional representation, that is who will speak for us now, and it will be through a referendum that we ourselves will speak.
Dismay seems to be quickly turning to resolve up here - even my postie greeted me this morning with a gak-eating grin and "indyref2 eh? haha"
Bottle wrote: Today is a terrible result for the UK.
Even with the best intentions the Leave result today has put in motion the dissolution of the UK as Scottish secession is now the likely outcome.
We're likely to see a second Scottish referendum before October when Article 50 will be submitted by the new PM. I say, good on the Scots - but this is a terrible day for the rest of us.
October is unlikely. It's more probable we'll see the Scottish Government open up lines direct to the EU to clarify everything first, then call the referendum closer to the end of the UK's negotiation period assuming they can get an assurance of rapid accession in the event of a Yes vote.
They are both awful.
FPTP produced a Tory majority government with only 36% of the votes.
The Scottish Referendum produced a 55 to 45 % against result, but is now being ignored by people like you, because now a different referendum has given a result that can be seen to conflict and produces a situation more to your taste.
The Brexit referendum produced a 51.8 to 48.2 % in favour. A majority for Brexit but not a ringing endorsement by the people especially considering the wide variances geographically, as seen by the example of Scotland.
I know you've keen on Scottish independence, but I think the situation is difficult enough ATM without pushing for another referendum in the very near future.
First there must be a general election. Then a new government must be formed that has the political will and strength to push through the Article 50 process. Once the results of that begin to emerge, Scotland will have a better view of the suitability of staying in or leaving the Union, and can begin to make arrangements accordingly.
To make matters worse Westminster, if it has the balls can run it like this.
Sotland decided in 2014 to have one referendum, as agrered by the UK in which only Scots voted.
Scotland chose to be part of the UK.
Any future referendum if therefore a UK matter as that is the poltical biody to which Scots, by their own consent belong., and if anyone is to be ballotted for 'indyref2' then a legal challenge can be made for all citizens of voting age to be permitted to be ballotted without discrimination. i.e Unless the English, and everyone else in the UK also get to vote on a second referendum then the referendum is discriminatory and unrepresentative and therefore invalid.
There are strong indications that a second refendum would effect people north and south of the border, and it would be undemocratic to exclude lawful citizens from being balloted for reasons of race or geography.
As a referendum is only SNP partly policy, not Uk government policy, there is no promise to uphold even if matters change. A high court challenge can be issued on behalf of disenfranchised UK voters, and the Scottish government might have to run the gauntlet of being informed that the vote is illegal unless wider balloted, which spares the Tories from having to act on the issue themselves and cause further division in Scotland.
Had Scotland not had a referendum this problem would not materialise. Trouble is for the SNP is that you had and the results are binding. A legal challenge is the best defence.
I don't see any reason why Scotland couldn't go it alone successfully. I think they would be better off sticking with the union, except I think the union is going to be worse off outside the EU, so I can see why Scotland wants to be in the EU.
They would also out-Irish the Irish, being a (sort-of) English-speaking country within the EU to attract foreign companies.
JPMorgan employs 16,000 people in Britain, while chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon previously said that up to 4,000 jobs could move out of the UK.
Following an EU exit, London could shed 100,000 jobs, according to finance lobbyists TheCityUK ahead of the vote.
That is almost one in seven of the estimated 729,600 people employed by financial and related professional services in the traditional City district -- and the newer Canary Wharf area that houses Britain's biggest bank HSBC and rival Barclays.
On behalf of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Mother Russia, I would like to express sincere gratitude to the people of Great Britain. You have done the Motherland a great service. Thanks for crippling your own nation and weakening the liberast West for us. Here, have a thumbs up:
every vote they crawl out from god knows where and you worry about the future of the species.
A couple of older women at work have admitted to voting leave as a way to protest against the government who were pushing for remain on the basis that leave could never possibly win, they actually support remain. I have no idea why anyone would do that. What's worse is that they didn't come up with this plan together but both decided to do it independently.
Iron_Captain wrote: On behalf of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Mother Russia, I would like to express sincere gratitude to the people of Great Britain. You have done the Motherland a great service.
Here, have a thumbs up:
I was wondering when the Russians would turn up
Besides, I thought Putin was too busy punishing the Russian football team for their bad performance at Euro 2016
I don't see any reason why Scotland couldn't go it alone successfully. I think they would be better off sticking with the union, except I think the union is going to be worse off outside the EU, so I can see why Scotland wants to be in the EU.
They would also out-Irish the Irish, being a (sort-of) English-speaking country within the EU to attract foreign companies.
The only English speakers that no one else can understand.
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK had a referendum on remaining inside the EU in 1975.
Why are those results not binding?
Because the situation is drastically different - my dad was saying that when he voted in the '75 referendum he voted to be part of the free market; now the 'free market' is waaaay beyond that - my dad said that one of the promises back then was that it would only ever be a free trade zone, nothing more.
The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England have been in a United Kingdom for so long now that separation is really on a whole different level of difficult compared with the UK leaving the EU. If somehow Her Majesty would allow some of her property to transfer to the sizable fraction of the Scottish people who want to betray their monarch then those people will have no army, will have to float a new currency and so many other things too. It might just be easier for those people to migrate to the EU (or be deported there) if the EU is such a delightful overlord in their eyes. The EU is taking in Syrians by the million, why not Scots?
Iron_Captain wrote: On behalf of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Mother Russia, I would like to express sincere gratitude to the people of Great Britain. You have done the Motherland a great service.
Here, have a thumbs up:
I was wondering when the Russians would turn up
Besides, I thought Putin was too busy punishing the Russian football team for their bad performance at Euro 2016
As important as sports and punishing those who have failed their Motherland is to Putin, this is still marginally more important.
Putin has already reacted in support of the Brexit outcome https://www.rt.com/news/348201-putin-brexit-weak-economies/
Bi'ios wrote: Hey, now that this is over, I'll show my support to our brothers across the ocean by helping their economy. Forge World, prepare yourself.
Better get a move on - the pound is starting to rise again
Kilkrazy wrote: The UK had a referendum on remaining inside the EU in 1975.
Why are those results not binding?
Because the situation is drastically different - my dad was saying that when he voted in the '75 referendum he voted to be part of the free market; now the 'free market' is waaaay beyond that - my dad said that one of the promises back then was that it would only ever be a free trade zone, nothing more.
The situation now is different to two years ago, or at least it will be once Article 50 is invoked.
JPMorgan employs 16,000 people in Britain, while chairman and chief executive Jamie Dimon previously said that up to 4,000 jobs could move out of the UK.
Following an EU exit, London could shed 100,000 jobs, according to finance lobbyists TheCityUK ahead of the vote.
That is almost one in seven of the estimated 729,600 people employed by financial and related professional services in the traditional City district -- and the newer Canary Wharf area that houses Britain's biggest bank HSBC and rival Barclays.
And with it some of the UK economy which, through incredible foresight, is now heavily built around financial markets who only set up in London due to lax regulation and access to the EU market.
On the plus side, if we can rebuild manufacturing in their absence then that would be good. On the down side I can't see that happening any time soon as the Tories don't have friends in unions and Labour seem useless at the moment, even if I like Corbyn as a person.
Interesting. According to that, the majority of people in employment voted to remain. So that would mean peoples jobs have been potentially put at risk by people who didn't have jobs to lose. Seems a bit unfair
Allow me to make some introductions...
UK, recession. Recession, UK.
MS moving 4K+ high paying City jobs out of UK to Dublin or Frankfurt is just the beginning.
Interesting. According to that, the majority of people in employment voted to remain. So that would mean peoples jobs have been potentially put at risk by people who didn't have jobs to lose. Seems a bit unfair
Well, that is democracy. Letting people with no real stake in the state vote leads to stupid decisions. Plato already warned us for it
Interesting. According to that, the majority of people in employment voted to remain. So that would mean peoples jobs have been potentially put at risk by people who didn't have jobs to lose. Seems a bit unfair
Once they get rid of those damn immigrants, there'll be plenty of jobs to go around
SolarCross wrote: Leaving the Eu might be enough to finally pop the real estate bubble, making housing affordable again. That will help young people.
They will continue to be bought up by those already on the property ladder in order to rent out. Houses becoming cheaper merely means that more people can become private landlords.
I honestly can't believe that people ever trusted this guy. What utter degenerate trash this guy is.
No no no. Plenty of folks on dakka said that the £350m was real. They agreed we actually "send" £350m to Brussels. I would quote them but I'm too pissed off.
This is the old destroying the prospects of the young. But the person really to blame is Cameron. He played some internal politics and lost us a country. Scotland will vote leave; I hate to think what will happen in Ireland.
There are already crowds shouting at Polish builders, telling them they'll be out soon.
I don't blame the misguided who've voted leave in my heart; I blame the man responsible for calling this Referendum, the most catastrophic error of the last half century.
SolarCross wrote: Leaving the Eu might be enough to finally pop the real estate bubble, making housing affordable again. That will help young people.
To your first point, yes, it will pop that bubble, of that I really have no doubt. On your second point, if all the uncertainty this decision will generate locks up corporate investment then you'll not see much job growth...quite the opposite, actually...so housing prices coming down won't mean much if the job front is bleak.
kb_lock wrote: Without fear mongering, did we just watch the death of Britain?
Scotland wanted to stay in the eu, which is why they stayed in gb, that would absolutely be cause for a new referendum for them.
That is a given that the SNP will demand another referendum. Westminster can point to the last one and say this is a once a generation event.
You cant change government 'mid term', just because you dont like policy changes.
... ....
By Cameron resigning the UK is changing government 'mid term' because we don't like the policy. There will be a new prime minister when he goes and the new PM will appoint a new cabinet.
This is one reason why I think a general election is advisable before cracking on with Brexit. It would offer Scotland the chance to make plain their desire for independence and EU membership by electing 100% SNPMPs with a good margin.
Westminster FPTP elections are awful for determining the will of the people, that's the very point of referendums. At the Scottish elections we put a pro-indy majority in Holyrood using a system of proportional representation, that is who will speak for us now, and it will be through a referendum that we ourselves will speak.
Dismay seems to be quickly turning to resolve up here - even my postie greeted me this morning with a gak-eating grin and "indyref2 eh? haha"
Bottle wrote: Today is a terrible result for the UK.
Even with the best intentions the Leave result today has put in motion the dissolution of the UK as Scottish secession is now the likely outcome.
We're likely to see a second Scottish referendum before October when Article 50 will be submitted by the new PM. I say, good on the Scots - but this is a terrible day for the rest of us.
October is unlikely. It's more probable we'll see the Scottish Government open up lines direct to the EU to clarify everything first, then call the referendum closer to the end of the UK's negotiation period assuming they can get an assurance of rapid accession in the event of a Yes vote.
They are both awful.
FPTP produced a Tory majority government with only 36% of the votes.
The Scottish Referendum produced a 55 to 45 % against result, but is now being ignored by people like you, because now a different referendum has given a result that can be seen to conflict and produces a situation more to your taste.
The Brexit referendum produced a 51.8 to 48.2 % in favour. A majority for Brexit but not a ringing endorsement by the people especially considering the wide variances geographically, as seen by the example of Scotland.
I know you've keen on Scottish independence, but I think the situation is difficult enough ATM without pushing for another referendum in the very near future.
First there must be a general election. Then a new government must be formed that has the political will and strength to push through the Article 50 process. Once the results of that begin to emerge, Scotland will have a better view of the suitability of staying in or leaving the Union, and can begin to make arrangements accordingly.
You'll have to clarify how I'm "ignoring" the result. Are we in the UK or not? We are. Am I arguing that the Scottish Parliament should have rejected the 2014 result and made a UDI? No. Implying I'm being anti-democratic by continuing to democratically advocate for a political view is farcical. The Scottish Parliament has a pro-indy majority, put there two months ago with nobody under any illusions what was going to happen if the UK actually voted Leave and we voted Remain, and the Tories ran an explicitly "no referendum under any circumstances" campaign and barely broke 20%, so there's no arguing this situation is some unjustified, out-of-the-blue attempt to "overturn" the previous result.
I do think it's kind of cute you think there's going to be an election though. The Tories will pick either May or Boris at their conference, they will be the new PM, there aren't going to be any new elections - the Tories don't want one, and Labour is already tearing itself to pieces with Blairites launching a coup against Corbyn so they're in no position to fight for one.
As for the situation being difficult enough - sorry, but tough. The EU isn't a serious political issue up here, we didn't want this referendum, we didn't need it, and we've made our wishes clear - I see no reason we should sit on our hands waiting for Labour to finish their civil war and the Tories to take us to the brink of losing our EU citizenship before we act.
Goliath wrote: I like the part where he stated that we managed to leave "without a single shot being fired" a week after the murder of Jo Cox.
He was referencing the end of the Soviet Union, which as was often said "collapsed without a single shot being fired". You probably know that, but are just using Jo Cox to trash Nigel.
If you perchance thought that your London banking job would be safe with Britain outside the European Union, you were wrong. Consultants working for leading strategy firms in London say banks have activated their contingency plans and that the London job cuts are about to come thick and fast.
“You’re looking at 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” says one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.”
Jamie Dimon already sent a memo to J.P. Morgan staff in London saying that the US bank, “may need to make changes to our European legal entity structure and the location of some roles.” The consultant suggested this is an understatement: “J.P. Morgan has just let four buildings in Madrid and six buildings in Frankfurt. All the banks have been planning this for weeks. At 7.30am this morning, their contingency plans kicked in.”
Dimon said previously that 4,000 of J.P. Morgan’s 16,000 UK jobs could move overseas if Britain leaves the European Union. J.P. Morgan declined to comment.
A financial services partner at another leading strategy consulting firm, also speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed that the impact of the Brexit vote will be felt soon rather than later in London finance circles. “These banks are going to start moving roles overseas very quickly,” he said, citing one client which has made preparations to move 1,000 roles out of the City. “The impact on the London economy is going to be dire.”
Chris Wheeler, banking analyst at Atlantic Equities agrees: “There are going to be a mass of finance jobs moving out of this country and they’re going to move soon. Anyone who thinks J.P. Morgan or Morgan Stanley are going to wait years before moving their thousands of jobs is in cloud cuckoo land. They’ll want to get uncertainty out of the way and to comply as soon as possible. This is the biggest change in London since the Big Bang.”
London bankers who think they’re in with a chance to move to Madrid or Dublin could be sorely disappointed. Consultants are in agreement: roles will be cut in London rather than migrated overseas. “Why would you move someone who’s earning £150k in London to do a £60k job in Frankfurt,” said one.”Banks are going to use this as an opportunity to cut costs.”
London bonuses are also likely to plummet this year, dealing a double blow to staff at European banks who’ve seen the value of previous years’ bonus deferrals collapse. “This is just going to hammer people,” says one headhunter. “If you’re a banker in London now, you’re going to stop spending. Cancel the nanny. Cancel the holiday. Cancel the extension.”
Continental European financial centres will benefit from London’s pain. “For European banks, front office jobs are going to be repatriated to the home country – wherever that bank has it’s headquarters. Back and middle office jobs are a different matter,” said the consultant. “There, you’re looking at Dublin, Poland, or the Czech Republic.”
The real question is where US banks will choose to relocate their European headquarters. Goldman Sachs has a sixth of all its employees globally in the City and is in the process of building a big new European HQ in London’s Farringdon – although consultants said it’s been quietly looking at subletting space in the building before it’s even finished. Morgan Stanley president Colm Kelleher touted Dublin or Frankfurt as potential locations for Morgan Stanley’s European HQ in future. Madrid is a new option – and a wild card, but one consultant said it’s popular with bankers who will be kept on: “The senior guys are all hoping for Madrid.”
As bankers in London stare over a precipice, the consultants we spoke to are doing just fine. “The emails from clients are coming right, left and centre,” said one. “30 projects across different banks went live for us this morning,” said the other “All the big strategy firms, McKinsey & Co. Bain, Boston Consulting are being dragged in. Everything needs to change.”
If they do move in the numbers being talked about the loss of tax revenue is somewhere between 2.5.5 billion £s -- apparently, not my calculations.
Or I guess we cut them/the banks -- yet another -- sweetner deal ?
Fingers crossed this is mainly bluster and hot air.
I don't blame the misguided who've voted leave in my heart; I blame the man responsible for calling this Referendum, the most catastrophic error of the last half century.
The problem is that the negotiations and referendum are nothing to do with Britain's place in Europe, and everything to do with the Conservative Party's place in the UK. Cameron wants to shut up the anti-EU wing of the party else they will start to create the same kind of shenanigans they did for John Major in the early 90s. He also wants to reduce UKIP's baneful influence. The Conservatives have a wafer thin majority that was gained off the back of a very limited plurality at the last general election, so anything that damages the party's membership is a serious danger to Cameron and Osborne's chances of staying in power.
This will work if the referendum result is to get out, but that isn't what Cameron wants as we already know he supports staying in. If the result is to stay, it probably won't shut up all of the antis, and it certainly won't shut up UKIP.
Meanwhile, serious issues like EU bureaucracy and democratic deficit are better tackled from within the EU than outside, by cooperating with other members who have similar concerns. If Britain leaves, that opportunity is lost for a generation. If Britain stays, Cameron may have used up so much political capital with his footling negotiations that our influence on the larger matters will have been seriously reduced for a while. Either way, the EU isn't going to go away, so Britain has to continue to deal with it basically as it is constructed now.
So really, this referendum does absolutely nothing useful for anyone, except the antis if we get a vote to leave.
Goliath wrote: I like the part where he stated that we managed to leave "without a single shot being fired" a week after the murder of Jo Cox.
He was referencing the end of the Soviet Union, which as was often said "collapsed without a single shot being fired". You probably know that, but are just using Jo Cox to trash Nigel.
Oh, I guess since it was a historical reference made in bad taste rather than just a comment in bad taste it's completely fine then.
I know fully well that it's a reference to the Soviet Union, the problem is that it's a reference that he shouldn't have fething made!
But hey, I'm the one that's out of order here. Your contributions to the thread have been nothing but civil, like stating that those that support remain are treasonous.
Kilkrazy wrote: You're ignoring the result of the 2014 referendum that rejected independence by 55:45 and you want a new referendum.
That's a completely ridiculous claim and you know it is. It's like saying I'm ignoring the result of the last general election because I'm campaigning in the next one for a party that didn't win it. Scotland remains within the UK and no serious voices from the independence movement have argued for a UDI - those are the only two requirements for the 2014 result being respected. The question was "Should Scotland be an independent country?", not "Should Scotland be an independent country and after this nobody can argue differently or change their mind for at least twenty years". A pro-indy majority in the Scottish parliament was considered sufficient justification for a referendum last time, so what is different - is there some quota of self-determination that we have exceeded?
Better Together explicitly and repeatedly tied voting No to retaining EU citizenship, and for a lot of people that was a major motivator in how they chose to vote. I don't see how it's unreasonable given the democratically-elected(and a good deal moreso than WM) Scottish Parliament election results two months ago, to offer those people a chance to reconsider. And I don't see why we should make that offer based on when it's most convenient for the government which is making t necessary in the first place.
Goliath wrote: Oh, I guess since it was a historical reference made in bad taste rather than just a comment in bad taste it's completely fine then.
I know fully well that it's a reference to the Soviet Union, the problem is that it's a reference that he shouldn't have fething made!
But hey, I'm the one that's out of order here. Your contributions to the thread have been nothing but civil, like stating that those that support remain are treasonous.
Yes it is completely fine to reference the collapse of the Soviet Union in the context of the Brexit. It is only bad taste in your head but then waving corpses around to slander politicians you don't like is completely fine to you. So not sure you are a good arbiter of taste.
Voting to surrender sovereignty to a foreign empire is the living definition of treason.
Pull your head in SolarCross. Remember to be polite.
To the rest of the thread, you're doing a much better job than pre-vote of keeping on topic and being polite with such a potentially charged topic. Good job
Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership
The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.
Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.
Anyone heard of any statements from Obama/Clinton? (or the Real Trump? )
Goliath wrote: Oh, I guess since it was a historical reference made in bad taste rather than just a comment in bad taste it's completely fine then.
I know fully well that it's a reference to the Soviet Union, the problem is that it's a reference that he shouldn't have fething made!
But hey, I'm the one that's out of order here. Your contributions to the thread have been nothing but civil, like stating that those that support remain are treasonous.
Yes it is completely fine to reference the collapse of the Soviet Union in the context of the Brexit. It is only bad taste in your head but then waving corpses around to slander politicians you don't like is completely fine to you. So not sure you are a good arbiter of taste.
Voting to surrender sovereignty to a foreign empire is the living definition of treason.
He made a demonstrably false statement! I don't give a gak if it was a reference to the Soviet Union, it was fething incorrect due to the fact that a fething politician was shot you [redacted by moderator]! If I make some reference to a million deaths having been a statistic it doesn't suddenly make it okay if I said it when a million people have just died just because it was a historic reference! Jesus fething Christ.
It isn't just bad taste in my head, it is in bad taste in general society. But then again you seem to have Farage halfway down your throat, so [I'm] not sure you are a good arbiter of taste.
No, it isn't the fething definition of treason.
A fething dictionary wrote:treason
ˈtriːz(ə)n/
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.
"they were convicted of treason"
That is the definition of treason. You do not get to make up new meanings of words just because you want to sound like you're tough.
Well brexit's on, what next? it will probably be a couple years before the pull out is finalized, but what do people think will happen on both sides of the channel ?
On the jobs front, my parents run a guesthouse at a ferry port with the UK. They calculate 30% of their business comes from Europeans who have driven a camper van or car or whatever across the UK and then tour Ireland.
If it is a big pain in the arse to travel through the UK in future, a chunk of that business will probably just choose to fly direct to dublin instead, or get a ferry from france to Cork.
So, yeah. I feel pretty salty about this result. Still. Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
kronk wrote: Don't worry, UK. If that relationship doesn't work out, we'll be here. Waiting...
You know you want to...
Didn't the British foreign affairs even consider pan-anglianism thing? composing solely of Anglophonic countries.... (especially the English as a first language) and not the same entity of the British Commonwealth (which actually a post-1783 British Empire 'reformed' until sometimes in 80s when its last colonies were 'given' an independence (which excluded the United States of America).... some members no longer use English as the first language (Myanmar. possibly rejoined after the most recent election, and Malaysia (Melayu is an official language, written with roman characters) ) ) so its memberships will be
- The United Kingdom
- The United States of America
- Canada
- Belize
- Australia and Newzealand (dunno if they even consider this option while Asianism is a big trend there)
- The Phillipines
A fething dictionary wrote:treason
ˈtriːz(ə)n/
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.
"they were convicted of treason"
That is the definition of treason. You do not get to make up new meanings of words just because you want to sound like you're tough.
The key words here are "betraying one's country" and "overthrow the sovereign or government". Staying in means, losing sovereignty, losing control of borders, the army, taxes, laws the whole show. That there are traitors in parliament hardly makes less treasonous. It might not be quite in the same degree of severity as Guy Fawkes but it is still of that kind. Call it treason-lite, if you prefer.
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
Thing is, whilst the majority in that vote chose to leave -- there's still no guarantee it will happen. Which is probably another reason why Cameron chose to quit and leave it to a successor instead of activating article 50 immediately.
1. Parliament isn't legally bound to the result of this referendum, they can choose to ignore it if they so desire.
2. A new petition is going around (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) and it has already amassed >100k signatures. This means they will discuss it at parliament and we'll probably get a 2nd Referendum because the majority of MPs backed staying in the EU anyway.
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
Thing is, whilst the majority in that vote chose to leave -- there's still no guarantee it will happen. Which is probably another reason why Cameron chose to quit and leave it to a successor instead of activating article 50 immediately.
1. Parliament isn't legally bound to the result of this referendum, they can choose to ignore it if they so desire.
2. A new petition is going around (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) and it has already amassed >100k signatures. This means they will discuss it at parliament and we'll probably get a 2nd Referendum because the majority of MPs backed staying in the EU anyway.
I understand that. I am merely reporting what's going on on my tiny little rectangle in the Iberian peninsula :p
Wyrmalla wrote: All these statements about UK independence are the opposite of what people were saying regarding Scottish independence. Fun to a hypocrite no?
Like what?
The UK is independent. The UK has its own government, foreign policy, armed forces, tax raising and spending powers, and while it currently is a party to various international agreements with other world powers or organisations that limit its total freedom of action, these can be abrogated by unilateral decision.
Scotland has none of these powers except for a degree of freedom in raising and spending tax revenues.
SolarCross wrote: It might not be quite in the same degree of severity as Guy Fawkes but it is still of that kind. Call it treason-lite, if you prefer.
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
Thing is, whilst the majority in that vote chose to leave -- there's still no guarantee it will happen. Which is probably another reason why Cameron chose to quit and leave it to a successor instead of activating article 50 immediately.
1. Parliament isn't legally bound to the result of this referendum, they can choose to ignore it if they so desire.
2. A new petition is going around (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) and it has already amassed >100k signatures. This means they will discuss it at parliament and we'll probably get a 2nd Referendum because the majority of MPs backed staying in the EU anyway.
so your Government can ignore the will of the people and a vote and still go the other way? and people call US politics full of it.
Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
HOW quickly the unthinkable became the irreversible. A year ago few people imagined that the legions of Britons who love to whinge about the European Union—silly regulations, bloated budgets and pompous bureaucrats—would actually vote to leave the club of countries that buy nearly half of Britain’s exports. Yet, by the early hours of June 24th, it was clear that voters had ignored the warnings of economists, allies and their own government and, after more than four decades in the EU, were about to step boldly into the unknown.
The tumbling of the pound to 30-year lows offered a taste of what is to come. As confidence plunges, Britain may well dip into recession. A permanently less vibrant economy means fewer jobs, lower tax receipts and, eventually, extra austerity. The result will also shake a fragile world economy. Scots, most of whom voted to Remain, may now be keener to break free of the United Kingdom, as they nearly did in 2014. Across the Channel, Eurosceptics such as the French National Front will see Britain’s flounce-out as encouragement. The EU, an institution that has helped keep the peace in Europe for half a century, has suffered a grievous blow.
Related topics European Union United Kingdom Managing the aftermath, which saw the country split by age, class and geography, will need political dexterity in the short run; in the long run it may require a redrawing of traditional political battle-lines and even subnational boundaries. There will be a long period of harmful uncertainty. Nobody knows when Britain will leave the EU or on what terms. But amid Brexiteers’ jubilation and Remain’s recriminations, two questions stand out: what does the vote mean for Britain and Europe? And what comes next?
Brexit: the small print The vote to Leave amounts to an outpouring of fury against the “establishment”. Everyone from Barack Obama to the heads of NATO and the IMF urged Britons to embrace the EU. Their entreaties were spurned by voters who rejected not just their arguments but the value of “experts” in general. Large chunks of the British electorate that have borne the brunt of public-spending cuts and have failed to share in Britain’s prosperity are now in thrall to an angry populism.
Britons offered many reasons for rejecting the EU, from the democratic deficit in Brussels to the weakness of the euro-zone economies. But the deal-breaking feature of EU membership for Britain seemed to be the free movement of people. As the number of new arrivals has grown, immigration has risen up the list of voters’ concerns.
Accordingly, the Leave side promised supporters both a thriving economy and control over immigration. But Britons cannot have that outcome just by voting for it. If they want access to the EU’s single market and to enjoy the wealth it brings, they will have to accept free movement of people. If Britain rejects free movement, it will have to pay the price of being excluded from the single market. The country must pick between curbing migration and maximising wealth.
David Cameron is not the man to make that choice. Having recklessly called the referendum and led a failed campaign, he has shown catastrophic misjudgment and cannot credibly negotiate Britain’s departure. That should now fall to a new prime minister.
We believe that he or she should opt for a Norwegian-style deal that gives full access to the world’s biggest single market, but maintains the principle of the free movement of people. The reason is that this would maximise prosperity. And the supposed cost—migration—is actually beneficial, as Leave campaigners themselves have said. European migrants are net contributors to public finances, so they more than pay their way for their use of health and education services. Without migrants from the EU, schools, hospitals and industries such as farming and the building trade would be short of labour.
Preventing Frexit The hard task will be telling Britons who voted to Leave that the free having and eating of cake is not an option. The new prime minister will face accusations of selling out—for the simple reason that he or she will indeed have to break a promise, whether over migration or the economy. That is why voters must confirm any deal, preferably in a general election rather than another referendum. This may be easier to win than seems possible today. While a deal is being done, the economy will suffer and immigration will fall of its own accord.
Brexit is also a grave blow for the EU. The high-priesthood in Brussels has lost touch with ordinary citizens—and not just in Britain. A recent survey for Pew Research found that in France, a founder member and long a strong supporter, only 38% of people still hold a favourable view of the EU, six points lower than in Britain. In none of the countries the survey looked at was there much support for transferring powers to Brussels.
Each country feels resentment in its own way. In Italy and Greece, where the economies are weak, they fume over German-imposed austerity. In France the EU is accused of being “ultra-liberal” (even as Britons condemn it for tying them up in red tape). In eastern Europe traditional nationalists blame the EU for imposing cosmopolitan values like gay marriage.
Although the EU needs to deal with popular anger, the remedy lies in boosting growth. Completing the single market in, say, digital services and capital markets would create jobs and prosperity. The euro zone needs stronger underpinnings, starting with a proper banking union. Acting on age-old talk of returning powers, including labour-market regulation, to national governments would show that the EU is not bent on acquiring power no matter what.
This newspaper sees much to lament in this vote—and a danger that Britain will become more closed, more isolated and less dynamic. It would be bad for everyone if Great Britain shrivelled into Little England and be worse still if this led to Little Europe. The leaders of Leave counter with the promise to unleash a vibrant, outward-looking 21st-century economy. We doubt that Brexit will achieve this, but nothing would make us happier than to be proved wrong.
Given the amount of voters guilt that seems to be floating around due to the impact of what leaving is actually causing, I think a second referendum would go the other way. That said, I really don't think we will get one and even if we did the EU seem pretty intent on seeing us leave now (although a second vote leading to us apologising and coming back with our tail between our legs may also appeal to them enough to be allowed to stay in).
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
Thing is, whilst the majority in that vote chose to leave -- there's still no guarantee it will happen. Which is probably another reason why Cameron chose to quit and leave it to a successor instead of activating article 50 immediately.
1. Parliament isn't legally bound to the result of this referendum, they can choose to ignore it if they so desire.
2. A new petition is going around (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) and it has already amassed >100k signatures. This means they will discuss it at parliament and we'll probably get a 2nd Referendum because the majority of MPs backed staying in the EU anyway.
so your Government can ignore the will of the people and a vote and still go the other way? and people call US politics full of it.
It can if they don't make it legally binding when they form the referendum. There are all sorts of loop-holes etc.
Actually no, the original Guy Fawkes (don't mix him up with V for Vendetta), was a Catholic agent of the papacy (the EU of its day). He also fought for the Spanish against the Dutch whilst the England was at war with Spain and allied with the Dutch. So not an anarchist, literally a traitor agent of a foreign power.
Not that being an anarchist and being a traitor are mutually exclusive conditions to be in, lol.
A fething dictionary wrote:treason
ˈtriːz(ə)n/
noun
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.
"they were convicted of treason"
That is the definition of treason. You do not get to make up new meanings of words just because you want to sound like you're tough.
The key words here are "betraying one's country" and "overthrow the sovereign or government". Staying in means, losing sovereignty, losing control of borders, the army, taxes, laws the whole show. That there are traitors in parliament hardly makes less treasonous. It might not be quite in the same degree of severity as Guy Fawkes but it is still of that kind. Call it treason-lite, if you prefer.
Democratically working to change one's country is not "attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government". You're deluded.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
What a pity that Farage was happy to let the false claim slide for weeks during the campaign. I am sure it was all justified in the support of a greater cause.
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
Thing is, whilst the majority in that vote chose to leave -- there's still no guarantee it will happen. Which is probably another reason why Cameron chose to quit and leave it to a successor instead of activating article 50 immediately.
1. Parliament isn't legally bound to the result of this referendum, they can choose to ignore it if they so desire.
2. A new petition is going around (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) and it has already amassed >100k signatures. This means they will discuss it at parliament and we'll probably get a 2nd Referendum because the majority of MPs backed staying in the EU anyway.
so your Government can ignore the will of the people and a vote and still go the other way? and people call US politics full of it.
It can if they don't make it legally binding when they form the referendum. There are all sorts of loop-holes etc.
Didn't the British foreign affairs even consider pan-anglianism thing? composing solely of Anglophonic countries.... (especially the English as a first language) and not the same entity of the British Commonwealth (which actually a post-1783 British Empire 'reformed' until sometimes in 80s when its last colonies were 'given' an independence (which excluded the United States of America).... some members no longer use English as the first language (Myanmar. possibly rejoined after the most recent election, and Malaysia (Melayu is an official language, written with roman characters) ) ) so its memberships will be
- The United Kingdom
- The United States of America
- Canada
- Belize
- Australia and Newzealand (dunno if they even consider this option while Asianism is a big trend there)
- The Phillipines
And what would we do exactly? The US isn't going to give the UK a super favourable deal compared to the EU. The UK is a tiny market compared to the EU so why would we get better rates? If anything the UK is going to be stuck with the undiluted TTIP whilst the EU has more punch to remove things they don't want and introduce limits that they do (such as protections for nationalised health services, something which I cannot see the french compromising on). Same with everywhere else. The UK is small compared to the EU.
This belief that the UK on its own would be able to negotiate super awesome trade deals and treaties never stood up to any scrutiny when we are sitting next door to one of the biggest markets in the world, but will now potentially be cut off from.
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
Thing is, whilst the majority in that vote chose to leave -- there's still no guarantee it will happen. Which is probably another reason why Cameron chose to quit and leave it to a successor instead of activating article 50 immediately.
1. Parliament isn't legally bound to the result of this referendum, they can choose to ignore it if they so desire.
2. A new petition is going around (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) and it has already amassed >100k signatures. This means they will discuss it at parliament and we'll probably get a 2nd Referendum because the majority of MPs backed staying in the EU anyway.
so your Government can ignore the will of the people and a vote and still go the other way? and people call US politics full of it.
It can if they don't make it legally binding when they form the referendum. There are all sorts of loop-holes etc.
But should they?
Depends on your perspective.
For me, staying in the EU would be decidedly better so I would say yes xD
.....but I get your point, it was a vote in which there was a majority for leave which and that should be respected.
Tbh the Referendum should never have taken place to begin with.
i'm curious with Britain leaving will other countries follow suit and leave the Euro ? I mean before now the only country to leave the EU was Greenland, albeit Greece had talked of it, but now that Britain is allegedly doing it, will other countries follow suit? and if so where will that leave the countries that relied on their cash flush neighbors for support?
still it will take Britain years to untangle themselves from the agreements and policies and such, but it does beg one to wonder if other countries will follow suit?
observing relationships between the UK and the continental europe over years. The UK did NOT commit / contribute so much to the EU affairs, UK had its members in the EU Parliament. but when it came to military affairs or foreign ones. the Prime Minister of the UK NEVER speaks on behalf of the EU while the Presidency of France and/or The Chancellorship of Germany represents THE RESTS OF THE E.U. ... the European schism did NOT exists without its roots. the most recent rifts were the Iraq wars of 2003 while Blair (then PM of the UK) sided with the apeface Bush (then the U.S. President) and also joined by yet another anglophonic down under.. the Australia... against the consents of the populace of both nations. France and Germany elected against the war. (and even proposed a unified E.U. armed forces... distanced themself from the U.S. of America) in addition. the UK never uses Euro currency (while the continental members do) so no wonder why E.U. is not the place of the Britania. personally the UK should join the same customs union as the USA or even create an anglophonic versions of it, adding Canada, USA, Australia and Newzealand with it.)
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
Thing is, whilst the majority in that vote chose to leave -- there's still no guarantee it will happen. Which is probably another reason why Cameron chose to quit and leave it to a successor instead of activating article 50 immediately.
1. Parliament isn't legally bound to the result of this referendum, they can choose to ignore it if they so desire.
2. A new petition is going around (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215) and it has already amassed >100k signatures. This means they will discuss it at parliament and we'll probably get a 2nd Referendum because the majority of MPs backed staying in the EU anyway.
so your Government can ignore the will of the people and a vote and still go the other way? and people call US politics full of it.
It can if they don't make it legally binding when they form the referendum. There are all sorts of loop-holes etc.
But should they?
If they are thinking of the good of the country's future they ought to, given the amount of aggro and disruption that will happen now, but I don't think it will fly.
The only way it could work is if there is a general election to elect a government to drive through the Article 50 process, and that fails to produce one.
Then the situation would be that the electorate would have voted again and changed their mind about Brexit. Like that bloke who went on TV to express his shock and dismay that his voting Leave had resulted in a vote for Leave. He's someone who might vote different if there was another chance.
Everyone would be happy except for Boris, Farage, the hard core Brexiteers. Also the Exiteers in Holland and so on (people like Le Pen who are quasi-fascists so not tears to be shed there IMO). I think the rest of the Euro governments would be teetering between anger and frustration over yet more British intransigence, and relief at the prospect of the prodigal son returning to the fold.
SolarCross wrote: It might not be quite in the same degree of severity as Guy Fawkes but it is still of that kind. Call it treason-lite, if you prefer.
Guy Fawkes was an Anarchists I believe.
That's David Lloyd's fault, his silly book turned what amounted to a random ultra catholic terrorist into an anarchism symbol. Which I'm sure all anarchists are really grateful for.
Guy Fawkes was actually a Catholic who wanted to restore a Catholic monarch for Britain, which is about as far from anarchism as normal things get, especially as anarchism hadn't been theorised yet anyway (that's Bakunin in the middle of the 19th Century).
Back on somthing resemblig the topic of this thread, our minister of dealing with dirty foreigners is now advocating for a "Spanish-British co-governorship over Gibraltar for "a while" until it is restored to Spanish hands".
Glorious. With any luck he will get kicked from office somewhere next week (we have general elections on Sunday). Without any luck out glorious army will retake what we gave away to the brits in exchange for the Borbons.
Good luck in your adventure my dear brits. If I didn't prefer the kanzlerin's steel boot over our own ridiculous politicians I too would have asked for freedom. But as our ruling class stands I think I'll stay in the IV Rei- The European Union.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
What a pity that Farage was happy to let the false claim slide for weeks during the campaign. I am sure it was all justified in the support of a greater cause.
Oh, get over yourself.
It was not a "False pledge". Farage did not make the pledge. He has no responsibility for keeping it, or for holding the other Leave Campaign to account before or after the Referendum over the promises they make. He's merely given his opinion that he doesn't agree with it, because he thinks its a promise that can't be kept.
The actual people who made the pledge, the Official Leave Campaign, have not to my knowledge, recanted it.. Ergo its not (yet) a "false pledge" and you're geting your knickers in a twist for no reason. Who knows? Maybe the people who actually made the pledge will be able to keep it.
If you could just get over your hate for Farage for one moment, perhaps you could direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible.
Asterios wrote: i'm curious with Britain leaving will other countries follow suit and leave the Euro ? I mean before now the only country to leave the EU was Greenland, albeit Greece had talked of it, but now that Britain is allegedly doing it, will other countries follow suit? and if so where will that leave the countries that relied on their cash flush neighbors for support?
still it will take Britain years to untangle themselves from the agreements and policies and such, but it does beg one to wonder if other countries will follow suit?
AFAIK The Netherlands are considering a plebiscite whether to leave or stay with the EU. but I don't think France and Germany will follow. they represent the entire EU for so long, even the founding membership themselves, why leave?
Asterios wrote: i'm curious with Britain leaving will other countries follow suit and leave the Euro ? I mean before now the only country to leave the EU was Greenland, albeit Greece had talked of it, but now that Britain is allegedly doing it, will other countries follow suit? and if so where will that leave the countries that relied on their cash flush neighbors for support?
still it will take Britain years to untangle themselves from the agreements and policies and such, but it does beg one to wonder if other countries will follow suit?
AFAIK The Netherlands are considering a plebiscite whether to leave or stay with the EU. but I don't think France and Germany will follow. they represent the entire EU for so long, even the founding membership themselves, why leave?
The original purpose of the European "Project" was to bind and integrate France and Germany together to restrain German militarism and prevent the two big countries from butting heads again in future conflicts.
It was not a "False pledge". Farage did not make the pledge. He has no responsibility for keeping it, or for holding the other Leave Campaign to account before or after the Referendum over the promises they make. He's merely given his opinion that he doesn't agree with it, because he thinks its a promise that can't be kept.
The actual people who made the pledge, the Official Leave Campaign, have not to my knowledge, recanted it.. Ergo its not (yet) a "false pledge" and you're geting your knickers in a twist for no reason. Who knows? Maybe the people who actually made the pledge will be able to keep it.
If you could just get over your hate for Farage for one moment, perhaps you could direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible.
Actually, he does if he wants to lead his campaign with any sense of intellectual honesty and to not allow the british people to be mislead. As it stands he was more concerned with winning than making sure that the british public were adequately prepared with correct information to allow them to make an informed decision.
Da Boss wrote: Get 'em out now. You voted, no procrastination: Activate article 50 and let's amputate the rotting limb.
This seems to be the feeling here in Portugal as well, as far as I can tell.
The thing is you are painting every British person with the same brush. Only 35% of the registered voting population (and hence there was probably some proportion missing) voted to leave, 35% wanted to stay and the other 30% didn't turn up. As such you could have at least up to 65% that don't really want to go anywhere (or just don't know).
The problems with referendums like this is that the population is not an expert in the question. It's like asking 45 million people to build you a house; there's no one that knows anything about foundations, brickwork, plumbing or electrical supplies. And generally people have a habit of believing the person that shouts the loudest. So it's not really a surprise when after it is built it is shaky.
This is what happened in the referendum a few loud issues became so dominant the crowded out all rational conversation and both sides degraded to hurling dog poop at each other.
Take immigration for example. The reason the UK needs immigration is because it simply is not having enough babies anymore to fund pensions and industry in the future. Current pensions are funded by current employees paying into a pension pot. This money is used to fund those that have already retired. It hence requires enough employed people at any one time to be paying into the system. The problem that we will have if we stopped immigration today is that in 30-40 years a significant fraction of the population will have retired, but there simply won't be enough workers to actually fund pensions - in essence either pensions are reduced significantly at that time or stopped altogether. So we need immigration.
So what about the strain on the services. Yes there is an impact but perfectly manageable; as long as you fund new trainees, pay them decent wages and don't over work them. However the UK doesn't train enough and those they do and can find better conditions in other countries. As such our services are stretched because they are underfunded. This isn't an EU issue, people would still leave to find better jobs anyway regardless of immigration or not. So what about this £350m, well firstly doctors aren't going to appear out of thin air and secondly the good ones will still leave for sunnier climes.
How about fishing quotas? Yes the EU limits fishing so we don't destroy fish stocks (like what happened at the Grand Banks which devastated the fishing stocks for years). However the actual quotas are awarded by the UK government using an archaic system that massively benefits large multinational fishing companies. The smaller one boat vessels of the type that sailed up the Thames are limited to the scraps. Again this is not an EU issue. The EU allowance is reasonable, it's the UK's allowance scheme that isn't.
And in the main most of the main issues raised by the Leave campaign were effectively created by our own government favouring big business, but they have continuously blamed other parties for what they implemented.
The only area I do agree is a result of EU mismanagement is their lack of political accountability (something us Brits do value) and the common agricultural policy (CAP) which drains 50% of the EUs fund each year but mainly gets given to the wealthiest nations' farmers. However you can't resolves these from outside of the EU.
So when arguing against the Brexit case the government just resorted to the fear of economical collapse, the sky falling and all our grass turning blue otherwise they would have to admit all the above. The economical collapse may or may not happen (volatility is expected over the first few weeks of an exit) but most people had heard so much from our government from the Chancellor that we needed to tighten our belt because the next collapse could be tomorrow (so austerity, austerity, austerity) that the population became deaf to the warnings (the chancellor that cried wolf too many times!)
In essence then many less well off people likely voted to leave because they are frustrated and angry whilst the few rich got even richer whilst the relatively poor had to fight just to keep food on the table. The establishment which had been cleverly (but now appeared foolishly) blamed this on the EU when in reality it was out own governments making.
As such the referendum gave people the opportunity to vent at the wrong institution which in the end is likely to result in the break up of the UK and possibly a worse position globally. What is almost certain though is that those who voted to get out are almost certainly going to be those that are worst off whilst you effectively have the same government that doesn't care two toots about them.
As such we should vote for our politicians at general elections and their last five year performance but let them make the technical decisions we do not fully understand the implications of.
The best we can now hope for is the Conservative party pulls itself apart allowing Labour/SNP to block leaving the EU and bring some sanity to the whole debate (and hopefully a reformed EU as well because we are not the only country that might leave in the medium to long term).
It was not a "False pledge". Farage did not make the pledge. He has no responsibility for keeping it, or for holding the other Leave Campaign to account before or after the Referendum over the promises they make. He's merely given his opinion that he doesn't agree with it, because he thinks its a promise that can't be kept.
The actual people who made the pledge, the Official Leave Campaign, have not to my knowledge, recanted it.. Ergo its not (yet) a "false pledge" and you're geting your knickers in a twist for no reason. Who knows? Maybe the people who actually made the pledge will be able to keep it.
If you could just get over your hate for Farage for one moment, perhaps you could direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible.
Actually, he does if he wants to lead his campaign with any sense of intellectual honesty and to not allow the british people to be mislead. As it stands he was more concerned with winning than making sure that the british public were adequately prepared with correct information to allow them to make an informed decision.
You're STILL missing the point. He did not make that pledge. He is not responsible for it. He merely disagrees with it - a promise that an entirely separate campaign made. He is under no obligation to support it, and in any case he is unlikely to be in any position to keep or break that promise. Do you really think he's going to be a prominent member of a future government?
The pledge hasn't even been proven to be False. Has the Official Leave campaign recanted it?
Trying to pin this on Farage and make out as though he is somehow responsible for something that somebody else said is fething ridiculous. People should be attacking Johnson, not Farage. Farage has done and said many things that he can and should be criticised for but this is not one of them.
This is no more than salty losers trying to get revenge on someone they dislike by framing him for a (as yet unproven) "False promise" that was in truth made by someone else entirely.
I think I'll bail for a few days. The run up, the BREXIT reaction, the constant reading of newspapers and watching of interviews/debates, has put me off politics for a few days.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think I'll bail for a few days. The run up, the BREXIT reaction, the constant reading of newspapers and watching of interviews/debates, has put me off politics for a few days.
Hopefully, Britain will still be around on Monday
Might want to go into hibernation for a few years...or decades.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think I'll bail for a few days. The run up, the BREXIT reaction, the constant reading of newspapers and watching of interviews/debates, has put me off politics for a few days.
Hopefully, Britain will still be around on Monday
Might want to go into hibernation for a few years...or decades.
I'm just a little bit fed up of seeing a newspaper or following the latest referendum updates.
I'll be back refreshed, because leave voters like us have to watch Parliament, and stop them from ignoring the will of the people. Most of them are pro-EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I think I'll bail for a few days. The run up, the BREXIT reaction, the constant reading of newspapers and watching of interviews/debates, has put me off politics for a few days.
Hopefully, Britain will still be around on Monday
Might want to go into hibernation for a few years...or decades.
I'm just a little bit fed up of seeing a newspaper or following the latest referendum updates.
I'll be back refreshed, because leave voters like us have to watch Parliament, and stop them from ignoring the will of the people. Most of them are pro-EU.
Burn the lot of them and start from scratch I say. Wheres a Guy Fawkes when you need him?
You're STILL missing the point. He did not make that pledge. He is not responsible for it. He merely disagrees with it - a promise that an entirely separate campaign made. He is under no obligation to support it, and in any case he is unlikely to be in any position to keep or break that promise. Do you really think he's going to be a prominent member of a future government?
The pledge hasn't even been proven to be False. Has the Official Leave campaign recanted it?
Trying to pin this on Farage and make out as though he is somehow responsible for something that somebody else said is fething ridiculous. People should be attacking Johnson, not Farage. Farage has done and said many things that he can and should be criticised for but this is not one of them.
This is no more than salty losers trying to get revenge on someone they dislike by framing him for a (as yet unproven) "False promise" that was in truth made by someone else entirely.
Was he aware of that pledge during the referendum? If yes, why did he not speak out against it as it was misleading the british public?
By allowing lies to be spread to support leaving he allowed the british public to be misinformed, damaging their ability to make an informed decision.
So I repeat my statement, Farage cared more about winning than making sure the public were given accurate information with which to make their decision. That also goes for all the other Leave side politicians and for Remain for many of their claims.
Its not a lie if the people who actually made the pledge have not recanted it. Has the official Leave campaign recanted it? How many times do I have to restate this until it sinks in?
And why do you care so much that Farage disagrees with a pledge made by the other campaign? He is not going to be in a position to keep or break a pledge made by somebody else. Its unlikely he'll be in the next government. Ergo its not "inaccurate information".
Nonsense pledges and statements are par the course in British politics... As soon as people get their way these things become quite malleable (not to say the don't change with the tides before then though).
Then attack him for that, something he actually said, instead of attacking him for something he did not say.
"Our campaign to Leave the EU is based on fact. It costs £55million every single day to be a member of this European Union. " Nigel Farage, the Express, 8 February 2016.
It's tricky I know, but £55m a day is in fact slightly more than £350m a week. I find the attempt to defend what is a quite purposeful and sustained (and successful) attempt to mislead the electorate rather amusing (or would be, if he hadn't shagged my country).
I guarantee you the Leave side will continue to have problems as their fantasy economics collides with reality over the coming months. No wonder it's mainly the ill-educated part of the electorate who fell for their snake-oil.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its not a lie if the people who actually made the pledge have not recanted it. Has the official Leave campaign recanted it? How many times do I have to restate this until it sinks in?
And why do you care so much that Farage disagrees with a pledge made by the other campaign? He is not going to be in a position to keep or break a pledge made by somebody else. Its unlikely he'll be in the next government. Ergo its not "inaccurate information".
This is a fething ridiculous witch hunt.
I care because I like to think that big decisions which will shape our country for years to come should be based on accurate information. I also think that someone who has campaigned on the basis of giving ordinary people a voice should have enough integrity to make sure that those people have that correct information. It is inaccurate information. We never paid £350m per week. It was an outright lie.
I'd rather attack him for being a frog faced little englander.
So you admit, this is a personal witch hunt from people who just hate Farage?
Anyway, I always find it ironic when people call those who want British independence "Little Englanders". England has never been so little as it is now, a province in a nascent European empire.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its not a lie if the people who actually made the pledge have not recanted it. Has the official Leave campaign recanted it? How many times do I have to restate this until it sinks in?
And why do you care so much that Farage disagrees with a pledge made by the other campaign? He is not going to be in a position to keep or break a pledge made by somebody else. Its unlikely he'll be in the next government. Ergo its not "inaccurate information".
This is a fething ridiculous witch hunt.
I care because I like to think that big decisions which will shape our country for years to come should be based on accurate information. I also think that someone who has campaigned on the basis of giving ordinary people a voice should have enough integrity to make sure that those people have that correct information. It is inaccurate information. We never paid £350m per week. It was an outright lie.
Oh FFS. You're moving the goalposts and changing topics.
We were arguing about the allegation that Farage is backtracking on the pledge to take the EU "£350million" and give it to the NHS, not whether that original "£350 million" figure is accurate or not.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Its not a lie if the people who actually made the pledge have not recanted it. Has the official Leave campaign recanted it? How many times do I have to restate this until it sinks in?
And why do you care so much that Farage disagrees with a pledge made by the other campaign? He is not going to be in a position to keep or break a pledge made by somebody else. Its unlikely he'll be in the next government. Ergo its not "inaccurate information".
This is a fething ridiculous witch hunt.
I care because I like to think that big decisions which will shape our country for years to come should be based on accurate information. I also think that someone who has campaigned on the basis of giving ordinary people a voice should have enough integrity to make sure that those people have that correct information. It is inaccurate information. We never paid £350m per week. It was an outright lie.
Oh FFS. You're moving the goalposts and changing topics.
We were arguing about the allegation that Farage is backtracking on the pledge to take the EU "£350million" and give it to the NHS, not whether that original "£350 million" figure is accurate or not.
Actually, if you read back, my post was always about how he should have denounced the £350m figure as misleading during the campaign so that the public could base their decision on fact, not fiction.
And that applies to all sides of the debate, not just Farage but he's the one swanning about the place and calling for this to be a public holiday.
The best we can now hope for is the Conservative party pulls itself apart allowing Labour/SNP to block leaving the EU and bring some sanity to the whole debate (and hopefully a reformed EU as well because we are not the only country that might leave in the medium to long term).
Probably not, the Blairites in the Labour Party are making a bid to backstab Corbyn for not campaigning hard enough.
So, Boris Johnson will most likely win the general election later this year after the blairites kick out Corbyn and replace him with a wet blanket that nobody wants to vote for.
Also, Scotland won't vote Labour because the SNP exists, making a Tory landslide in the general election later this year a near certainty.
As I read the many comments posted, especially those that take issue with the validity of the referendum or seek ways to usurp or countermand it I am reminded of the following;
“Elections have consequences,” and, in case there was any doubt, “I won.” - President Obama
I would like to say as a citizen of a state that seems to come across a bit shall we say "independently minded", I take the Brexit vote as something courageous, irrespective of the result.
Though many criticize Cameron personally for the decision to endorse and organize the referendum, the fortitude to put such a question to the poeple is undeniably enviable. It renews my faith in democratic ideals especially from a backdrop where in my country, we seem to go inevitably from popular vote, to bureaucratic rule making, to litigation when the popular vote fails to achieve the desired outcome.
Democracy can certainly be messy ,and yes the majority is not always right, but Huzzah for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for showing the rest of the world real democracy in action.
Given that I am Scottish nationalist the joke will soon be on you
Unlike you, I respect democracy and don't spit my dummy out when a vote does not go my way. If a majority of Scottish voters wish to leave and express that desire in a referendum, I will wish you farewell and good luck. Same goes for Ireland, if a majority of Northern Irish voters wish to reunite with Ireland.
You won't get the same bitchy attitude from me as what you're displaying here.
Edit: In fact, I'm actually in favour of a united Ireland, once theres a democratic mandate and when it can be achieved peacefully. In my ideal world, Britain and Ireland would be two united islands.
Unlike you, I respect democracy and don't spit my dummy out when a vote does not go my way.
Is that what I have been doing? The majority of my posts in this thread have been about Indyref2 and the increasing likelihood of Scottish independence, which would be entirely democratic given the mandate of the Scottish government and the withdrawal from the EU against the wishes of the Scottish electorate, the English can live in their own filth after that blessed day.
Lord of Deeds wrote: As I read the many comments posted, especially those that take issue with the validity of the referendum or seek ways to usurp or countermand it I am reminded of the following;
“Elections have consequences,” and, in case there was any doubt, “I won.” - President Obama
I would like to say as a citizen of a state that seems to come across a bit shall we say "independently minded", I take the Brexit vote as something courageous, irrespective of the result.
Though many criticize Cameron personally for the decision to endorse and organize the referendum, the fortitude to put such a question to the poeple is undeniably enviable. It renews my faith in democratic ideals especially from a backdrop where in my country, we seem to go inevitably from popular vote, to bureaucratic rule making, to litigation when the popular vote fails to achieve the desired outcome.
Democracy can certainly be messy ,and yes the majority is not always right, but Huzzah for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for showing the rest of the world real democracy in action.
Exalted.
However, it should be noted that theres now a petition to overturn the result of the referendum and hold a second one, less than a day after the results were announced. It saddens me that so many people value democracy so little that they would rip it up the moment they don't get what they wanted
Be careful what you wish for - if you set a precedent for overturning democratic decisions, one day someone else may follow your precedent and do the same to you.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: It saddens me that so many people value democracy so little that they would rip it up the moment they don't get what they wanted
They are obviously taking a leaf out of Nigel Farage's big book of politics
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
Asterios wrote: i'm curious with Britain leaving will other countries follow suit and leave the Euro ? I mean before now the only country to leave the EU was Greenland, albeit Greece had talked of it, but now that Britain is allegedly doing it, will other countries follow suit? and if so where will that leave the countries that relied on their cash flush neighbors for support?
still it will take Britain years to untangle themselves from the agreements and policies and such, but it does beg one to wonder if other countries will follow suit?
AFAIK The Netherlands are considering a plebiscite whether to leave or stay with the EU. but I don't think France and Germany will follow. they represent the entire EU for so long, even the founding membership themselves, why leave?
Member of parliament Wilders called for a referendum but this has no political support from other parties. Given the utter disaster of the referendum on the Ukraine association agreement I doubt we will see a new one soon. In addition EU support is much stronger here given our dependency on trade and society is more egalitarian so a blue collar revolt like in the UK is less likely. It also helps the media isn't as negative on the EU.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: It saddens me that so many people value democracy so little that they would rip it up the moment they don't get what they wanted
They are obviously taking a leaf out of Nigel Farage's big book of politics
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
Fair enough. Like I said earlier, criticise Farage for things he's actually responsible for...unlike the NHS pledge that he didn't make but got the blame anyway.
So, people have been talking about Farage's speech, which, I'll hold my hands up, I haven't heard the whole thing, just the clips of it in the news and, from everything I've read around it (and here) it's well, as eyerollingly "urgh" as I expected.
However, I did manage to catch Boris' speech and, overall it's the sort of thing that was needed.
Boris Johnson wrote: "Today I think all of us politicians need to thank the British people for the way they have been doing the job for us. They hire us to deal with the hard questions and this year we gave them one of the biggest and toughest questions of all.
Some people are now saying that was wrong and that people should never have been asked in that way. I disagree, it was entirely right and inevitable and there is no way of dealing with a decision on this scale except by putting it to the people.
Because in the end this decision is about the people, the right of people in this country to settle their own destiny. The very principles of our democracy, the rights of all of us to elect and remove the people who make the key decisions in their lives.
And I think that the electorate have searched in their hearts and answered as best they can in a poll the scale the like of which we have never seen before in this country. They have decided it is time to vote to take back control from a EU that has become too opaque and not accountable enough to the people it is meant to serve.
In voting to leave the EU, it is vital to stress there is no need for haste, and as the prime minister has said, nothing will change in the short term except how to give effect to the will of the people and to extricate this country from the supranational system. There is no need to invoke Article 50.
And to those who may be anxious both at home and abroad, this does not mean that the United Kingdom will be in anyway less united, it does not mean it will be any less European.
I want to speak directly to the millions of people who did not vote for this outcome, especially young people who may feel that this decision involves somehow pulling up the drawbridge because I think the very opposite is true.
We cannot turn our backs on Europe. We are part of Europe, our children and our grandchildren will continue to have a wonderful future as Europeans, travelling to the continent, understanding the languages and the cultures that make up our common European civilisation, continuing to interact with the peoples of other countries in a way that is open and friendly and outward looking.
And I want to reassure everyone Britain will continue to be a great European power, leading discussions on defence and foreign policy and the work that goes on to make our world safer.
But there is simply no need in the 21st century to be part of a federal government in Brussels that is imitated nowhere else on Earth. It was a noble idea for its time but it is no longer right for this country.
It is the essence of our case that young people in this country can look forward to a more secure and more prosperous future, if we take back the democratic control which is the foundation of our economic prosperity.
We have a glorious opportunity, to pass our laws and set our taxes entirely according to the needs of the UK, we can control our borders in a way that is not discriminatory but fair and balanced and take the wind out of the sails of the extremists and those who would play politics with immigration.
Above all, we can find our voice in the world again, a voice commensurate with the fifth biggest economy on earth. Powerful, liberal, humane, an extraordinary force for good in the world.
The most precious thing this country has given the world is the idea of parliamentary democracy. Yesterday, I believe the British people have spoken up for democracy in Britain and across Europe and we can be proud of the result."
I don't like Boris personally but I think that is an excellent summation and should be praised for. That is what I voted Leave for, not some nebulous 'hurrr, immigration bad' concept that some in the Remain camp wish to paint us with.
filbert wrote: I don't like Boris personally but I think that is an excellent summation and should be praised for. That is what I voted Leave for, not some nebulous 'hurrr, immigration bad' concept that some in the Remain camp wish to paint us with.
Sorry but the "no need to invoke art 50" sounds like someone's getting cold feet.
You were a prominent member in a campaign full of vitriol and misinformation. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
filbert wrote: I don't like Boris personally but I think that is an excellent summation and should be praised for. That is what I voted Leave for, not some nebulous 'hurrr, immigration bad' concept that some in the Remain camp wish to paint us with.
I didn't follow the vast majority of the Leave campaign. For me, the vote came down to one point on either side: Remain's vote to try and spearhead reform from inside the EU, or Leave because the EU is too stubborn and resistant to change, and only wants to become a superstate under the single currency, where they rule over everyone. I was heavily on the fence the entire way, and the only thing that swayed me was the lack of debate around that Leave point, specifically the Five President's Report. It's been discussed a bit here, but the view has been rather overwhelmingly 'this is bad, we should leave', so I tried to ask a few Remainers I know to be intelligent people about what they thought of the report, so I could get some more insight into it from that perspective. I was met with silence across the board. Nobody was interested. That's what tipped me that half a percent over to leave. I voted on a 49.5%-50.5% split, because nobody I asked could come up with a reason why I should vote remain despite the 5PR, or Juncker's claims on Wednesday that there would be no reform.
To provide a metaphor, for me, it was like buying a car. I researched two that I thought to be the best, and now want to see what others think of them. The first is well-debated by people with more knowledge of it than me, and has many pros and cons laid bare. The second, however, is not well-debated, and has no cons to challenge the pros that those with more knowledge than me have provided. Do I choose the car with as many flaws as strengths? Or the one with apparently no, or very few/minor flaws versus significantly more strengths?
My vote was a call I had to make based on what information I had at the time. That was the best I could do. Do I regret it? Yes. Do I think it was the right call? Not really, no. But I needed to make a call, so I did.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
What a pity that Farage was happy to let the false claim slide for weeks during the campaign. I am sure it was all justified in the support of a greater cause.
Oh, get over yourself.
It was not a "False pledge". Farage did not make the pledge. He has no responsibility for keeping it, or for holding the other Leave Campaign to account before or after the Referendum over the promises they make. He's merely given his opinion that he doesn't agree with it, because he thinks its a promise that can't be kept.
The actual people who made the pledge, the Official Leave Campaign, have not to my knowledge, recanted it.. Ergo its not (yet) a "false pledge" and you're geting your knickers in a twist for no reason. Who knows? Maybe the people who actually made the pledge will be able to keep it.
If you could just get over your hate for Farage for one moment, perhaps you could direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible.
As you know perfectly well、Farage has been a leading mover in the Brexit campaign for years.
filbert wrote: I don't like Boris personally but I think that is an excellent summation and should be praised for. That is what I voted Leave for, not some nebulous 'hurrr, immigration bad' concept that some in the Remain camp wish to paint us with.
Sorry but the "no need to invoke art 50" sounds like someone's getting cold feet.
You were a prominent member in a campaign full of vitriol and misinformation. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
Just like the campaign for remain.
If anything the bias of the media has been spectacularly vulgar in some cases. Robert Petson for ITV is particularly guilty of a pro European bias. Just sat through a piece in ITV news and his commentary was just dripping honeyed venom.
If you go by the TV remainers have been hard done by. Starry eyed youngsters, now never able to spread their wings and fly thanks to the bumbling, incoherent, racist exiters. who put their X in the leave box. (if they could have shown someone with a pencil in their clenched fist it would have been perfect).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
What a pity that Farage was happy to let the false claim slide for weeks during the campaign. I am sure it was all justified in the support of a greater cause.
Oh, get over yourself.
It was not a "False pledge". Farage did not make the pledge. He has no responsibility for keeping it, or for holding the other Leave Campaign to account before or after the Referendum over the promises they make. He's merely given his opinion that he doesn't agree with it, because he thinks its a promise that can't be kept.
The actual people who made the pledge, the Official Leave Campaign, have not to my knowledge, recanted it.. Ergo its not (yet) a "false pledge" and you're geting your knickers in a twist for no reason. Who knows? Maybe the people who actually made the pledge will be able to keep it.
If you could just get over your hate for Farage for one moment, perhaps you could direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible.
As you know perfectly well、Farage has been a leading mover in the Brexit campaign for years.
Thats...not a counter argument.
You know perfectly well that one cannot be held responsible for the actions and promises of people you are not associated with and have no influence or authority over.
You do realise that there were two entirely separate Leave Campaigns, right? One with official acknowledgement and public funding, and one without. The former made the NHS pledge, the latter is the campaign to which Farage belongs.
Sorry but the "no need to invoke art 50" sounds like someone's getting cold feet.
You were a prominent member in a campaign full of vitriol and misinformation. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
However it sounds to you, it is reasonable. An important battle was won and in that situation it is not unwise to dodge a force of pace. Given the current PM was on the losing side, we don't just need to pick a path out of the maze we need to also pick a new PM to lead us out. There is a lot still to do.
filbert wrote: I don't like Boris personally but I think that is an excellent summation and should be praised for. That is what I voted Leave for, not some nebulous 'hurrr, immigration bad' concept that some in the Remain camp wish to paint us with.
Sorry but the "no need to invoke art 50" sounds like someone's getting cold feet.
You were a prominent member in a campaign full of vitriol and misinformation. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
Just like the campaign for remain.
If anything the bias of the media has been spectacularly vulgar in some cases. Robert Petson for ITV is particularly guilty of a pro European bias. Just sat through a piece in ITV news and his commentary was just dripping honeyed venom.
If you go by the TV remainers have been hard done by. Starry eyed youngsters, now never able to spread their wings and fly thanks to the bumbling, incoherent, racist exiters. who put their X in the leave box. (if they could have shown someone with a pencil in their clenched fist it would have been perfect).
I'm sure that if the remain camp had won they would not try to backtrack so blatantly.
Cameron and Boris held the whole country hostage over internal party politics.
filbert wrote: I don't like Boris personally but I think that is an excellent summation and should be praised for. That is what I voted Leave for, not some nebulous 'hurrr, immigration bad' concept that some in the Remain camp wish to paint us with.
I didn't follow the vast majority of the Leave campaign. For me, the vote came down to one point on either side: Remain's vote to try and spearhead reform from inside the EU, or Leave because the EU is too stubborn and resistant to change, and only wants to become a superstate under the single currency, where they rule over everyone. I was heavily on the fence the entire way, and the only thing that swayed me was the lack of debate around that Leave point, specifically the Five President's Report. It's been discussed a bit here, but the view has been rather overwhelmingly 'this is bad, we should leave', so I tried to ask a few Remainers I know to be intelligent people about what they thought of the report, so I could get some more insight into it from that perspective. I was met with silence across the board. Nobody was interested. That's what tipped me that half a percent over to leave. I voted on a 49.5%-50.5% split, because nobody I asked could come up with a reason why I should vote remain despite the 5PR, or Juncker's claims on Wednesday that there would be no reform.
To provide a metaphor, for me, it was like buying a car. I researched two that I thought to be the best, and now want to see what others think of them. The first is well-debated by people with more knowledge of it than me, and has many pros and cons laid bare. The second, however, is not well-debated, and has no cons to challenge the pros that those with more knowledge than me have provided. Do I choose the car with as many flaws as strengths? Or the one with apparently no, or very few/minor flaws versus significantly more strengths?
My vote was a call I had to make based on what information I had at the time. That was the best I could do. Do I regret it? Yes. Do I think it was the right call? Not really, no. But I needed to make a call, so I did.
This was one of my prime reasons for voting leave.
The 5PR. TTIP. Remainers either had no idea what they are or in the worst examples the 5PR was brushed off as irrelevant and not worth looking into.
I am also a class traitor now in someways..I'm not sure why or how, and racist, very racist....I think I am on par with Hitler or the Klan.
This was one of my prime reasons for voting leave.
The 5PR. TTIP. Remainers either had no idea what they are or in the worst examples the 5PR was brushed off as irrelevant and not worth looking into.
I am also a class traitor now in someways..I'm not sure why or how, and racist, very racist....I think I am on par with Hitler or the Klan.
If you think we are safe from TTIP then I think we are all going to be very disappointed. We have moved to a position of less power to negotiate with the US from. We are now more likely to get it pushed onto us without any limitations.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you think we are safe from TTIP then I think we are all going to be very disappointed. We have moved to a position of less power to negotiate with the US from. We are now more likely to get it pushed onto us without any limitations.
Yeah, it's like we went from being in a prison gang to bending over in the TTIP showers.
"My husband is British, but could not vote because the UK strips citizens of their vote if they've lived outside the UK for 15 years or more. Here's his take on why this happened:
"I think there are several reasons, some complicated, some not.
In no particular order:
1) Bigotry. At the end of the day UKIP is just the BNP by a different name. As already mentioned above there is a perception that immigrants are taking people's jobs. While there may be an element of truth to this, there is also the side that many come over and do jobs that the locals are unwilling to do.
2) The little england (deliberate lower case e) mentality is still alive and thriving. The whole we used to rule half the world bs.
3) Lowered standards of living. Which was caused by the 2008 financial crisis, and tax payers are still covering the cost for this.
4) Lack of affordable housing, deterioration of the NHS & schools. All down to a tory ideological mantra of cutting state services.
5) 30 years of declining educational standards. Analytical thinking is no longer taught properly or considered a desirable skill, learning by rote is instead. This leaves many people totally unable, or just too damn lazy, to actually see through the bs and lies (from both sides it has to be said) to get to the actual facts.
6) The remain camp has been absolutely awful at debunking the total lies spread by BoJo & Co.
7) The Murdoch effect. Similar to the US, Murdoch controls a vast amount of the UK media industry, and has been blocked several times by the EU from expanding his monopoly in the UK. When people are constantly bombarded with lies & sensationalism, with again either not having the will or the ability to look through the crap. Murdoch's so called news sources have waged a huge propaganda campaign on the leave side.
At the end of the day the EU is far from perfect, and does need to become more accountable, but this is pretty much true of all governments. Overall it has had far more positive than negative effects.
If I have offended anyone with the above then suck it up and deal with it. Today I am ashamed and disgusted to call myself British. I sincerely hope you get the fethed up screw the people over government of Johnson, Gove and Duncan-Smith you deserve.
Asterios wrote: i'm curious with Britain leaving will other countries follow suit and leave the Euro ? I mean before now the only country to leave the EU was Greenland, albeit Greece had talked of it, but now that Britain is allegedly doing it, will other countries follow suit? and if so where will that leave the countries that relied on their cash flush neighbors for support?
still it will take Britain years to untangle themselves from the agreements and policies and such, but it does beg one to wonder if other countries will follow suit?
AFAIK The Netherlands are considering a plebiscite whether to leave or stay with the EU. but I don't think France and Germany will follow. they represent the entire EU for so long, even the founding membership themselves, why leave?
Hell no they aren't. That would not even be possible under Dutch law. The Dutch aren't any less grumpy and suspicious of the EU than the British, but the vast majority do recognise that the benefits are worth the drawbacks (as far as those exist anyway, most of the "drawbacks" cited by anti-EU folks are completely made up) and the EU is simply something we can't do without in the modern world. The Dutch are a nation of traders. Open borders and the EEC common market are essential for Dutch economical success.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If you think we are safe from TTIP then I think we are all going to be very disappointed. We have moved to a position of less power to negotiate with the US from. We are now more likely to get it pushed onto us without any limitations.
Yeah, it's like we went from being in a prison gang to bending over in the TTIP showers.
....I sincerely hope you get the fethed up screw the people over government of Johnson, Gove and Duncan-Smith you deserve.
48% of us are still here and have to make the best of it now.
I'd rather sh1t a redhot brick than have Johnson as PM, but I guess we'll see what the tories do next. They seem determined to do what the hell they want anyway.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
What a pity that Farage was happy to let the false claim slide for weeks during the campaign. I am sure it was all justified in the support of a greater cause.
Oh, get over yourself.
It was not a "False pledge". Farage did not make the pledge. He has no responsibility for keeping it, or for holding the other Leave Campaign to account before or after the Referendum over the promises they make. He's merely given his opinion that he doesn't agree with it, because he thinks its a promise that can't be kept.
The actual people who made the pledge, the Official Leave Campaign, have not to my knowledge, recanted it.. Ergo its not (yet) a "false pledge" and you're geting your knickers in a twist for no reason. Who knows? Maybe the people who actually made the pledge will be able to keep it.
If you could just get over your hate for Farage for one moment, perhaps you could direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible.
As you know perfectly well、Farage has been a leading mover in the Brexit campaign for years.
Thats...not a counter argument.
You know perfectly well that one cannot be held responsible for the actions and promises of people you are not associated with and have no influence or authority over.
You do realise that there were two entirely separate Leave Campaigns, right? One with official acknowledgement and public funding, and one without. The former made the NHS pledge, the latter is the campaign to which Farage belongs.
No I don t. I don t care if there are two separate campaigns. They are both aiming at the same thing.
The Dutch aren't any less grumpy and suspicious of the EU than the British, but the vast majority do recognise that the benefits are worth the drawbacks (as far as those exist anyway, most of the "drawbacks" cited by anti-EU folks are completely made up)
People like you are one of the reasons people voted to leave the EU. There are very real drawbacks to the EU, the root being its fundamental and intended lack of democracy and it's enforcement of an economic order meant to favour core nations. Pretending that these things simply don't exist is going to soon leave you with a collapsed union and no clue whatsoever how you got there.
There isn't a fundamental and intended lack of democracy in the EU.
Every single EU directive is directed, developed and authorised by the elected representatives of the member nations. The top level is the council of ministers comprising the elected political leaders of the member countries, like Cameron for the UK.
The working parties on specialist areas are headed up by the elected ministers of the member countries who deal with those specialist areas, such as the health minister for medical issues.
Finally, the directives are scrutinised by the directly elected European Parliament. After that they only become law within each member state by the directly elected member state parliaments creating laws to enact them.
In effect there are four levels of democratic oversight.
This is one of the dreadful sad things. The democratic structure is there, but people haven't been informed about it.
For anyone who voted to remain:
I was basically prepping myself to be in your position not 24 hours ago, so i get that you are pretty pee-ed off right now, but this doesn't mean your opinion will be ignored.
48% of the voters is by no means a small number and your opinion WILL be used in future political debate, i can almost garuantee it.
... or just willfully ignored it because of agenda.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirDonlad wrote: For anyone who voted to remain:
I was basically prepping myself to be in your position not 24 hours ago, so i get that you are pretty pee-ed off right now, but this doesn't mean your opinion will be ignored.
48% of the voters is by no means a small number and your opinion WILL be used in future political debate, i can almost garuantee it.
To further what end, exactly? Our opinion has been ignored, and we will be forced into a situation we did not want, or agree with. That hardly salves the wounds tbh, rather just rubs our noses in it.
Wyrmalla wrote: So much for fear mongering to vote no two years ago, where the Scots being told if they went independent they'd be kicked out of the EU...
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
What a pity that Farage was happy to let the false claim slide for weeks during the campaign. I am sure it was all justified in the support of a greater cause.
Oh, get over yourself.
It was not a "False pledge". Farage did not make the pledge. He has no responsibility for keeping it, or for holding the other Leave Campaign to account before or after the Referendum over the promises they make. He's merely given his opinion that he doesn't agree with it, because he thinks its a promise that can't be kept.
The actual people who made the pledge, the Official Leave Campaign, have not to my knowledge, recanted it.. Ergo its not (yet) a "false pledge" and you're geting your knickers in a twist for no reason. Who knows? Maybe the people who actually made the pledge will be able to keep it.
If you could just get over your hate for Farage for one moment, perhaps you could direct your ire at the people who are actually responsible.
As you know perfectly well、Farage has been a leading mover in the Brexit campaign for years.
Thats...not a counter argument.
You know perfectly well that one cannot be held responsible for the actions and promises of people you are not associated with and have no influence or authority over.
You do realise that there were two entirely separate Leave Campaigns, right? One with official acknowledgement and public funding, and one without. The former made the NHS pledge, the latter is the campaign to which Farage belongs.
No I don t. I don t care if there are two separate campaigns. They are both aiming at the same thing.
So that makes them responsible for the actions of each other? That is fething ridiculous. It doesn't matter if they share the same goal, they are two separate campaigns with different members and different leaders.
This is like blaming the Labour party for the actions of members of the Liberal Democrat party because they share some political positions and occasionally campaign for the same thing.
Wyrmalla wrote: So much for fear mongering to vote no two years ago, where the Scots being told if they went independent they'd be kicked out of the EU...
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
My point being that, and it was said at the time, if we stayed in Britain we would be leaving regardless - which has come to pass.
Par the course for driveling propaganda these days in the UK though.
Kilkrazy wrote: There isn't a fundamental and intended lack of democracy in the EU.
Every single EU directive is directed, developed and authorised by the elected representatives of the member nations. The top level is the council of ministers comprising the elected political leaders of the member countries, like Cameron for the UK.
The working parties on specialist areas are headed up by the elected ministers of the member countries who deal with those specialist areas, such as the health minister for medical issues.
Finally, the directives are scrutinised by the directly elected European Parliament. After that they only become law within each member state by the directly elected member state parliaments creating laws to enact them.
In effect there are four levels of democratic oversight.
This is one of the dreadful sad things. The democratic structure is there, but people haven't been informed about it.
That's on the remain campaign. If they had stopped the project fear and gone for more that it may have changes things.
Wyrmalla wrote: So much for fear mongering to vote no two years ago, where the Scots being told if they went independent they'd be kicked out of the EU...
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
What if they get their act together, negotiate with the French and Germans,and sort out a Scottish exit within 2 years whilst still a member of the EU?
I can imagine our Euro cousins might enjoy the ramifications and humiliation of England I those circumstances, and it might serve as warning to other countries considering their own indy ref.
The Dutch aren't any less grumpy and suspicious of the EU than the British, but the vast majority do recognise that the benefits are worth the drawbacks (as far as those exist anyway, most of the "drawbacks" cited by anti-EU folks are completely made up)
People like you are one of the reasons people voted to leave the EU. There are very real drawbacks to the EU, the root being its fundamental and intended lack of democracy and it's enforcement of an economic order meant to favour core nations. Pretending that these things simply don't exist is going to soon leave you with a collapsed union and no clue whatsoever how you got there.
Of course the EU is not perfect, there are drawbacks, I did not say there weren't. Maybe you should try to read?
What I said is that most of the drawbacks anti-EU folks love to repeat are made up. Not that all of the drawbacks are made up.
And well, while improvement really can and does need to be made (and the EU is aware of this and is continuously making attempts of improvement already) you really can't blame the EU for not being more democratic when the people of Europe seem for the most part to have absolutely no interest at all in European elections or in even finding out how the EU works or what it actually does. The EU really isn't much less democratic than your average representative democracy, and it is likely to be much more transparent if people actually bothered to look up information. Democracy needs to come from both sides. It only works if people actually bother to inform themselves and participate. This is the biggest problem the EU faces. If they don't do anything to improve democracy and transparancy, people will shout that they are undemocratic bureacrats. If they do improve democracy and transparancy, people simply don't pay any attention and continue to shout that they are undemocratic bureacrats. This doesn't really help further improvement to the accountability of the EU to the European people.
That the EU enforces an economic order that somehow only benefits "core nations" is just bs. In fact, smaller and poorer members benefit proportionally more from the EU than the larger and wealthier ones.
Wyrmalla wrote: So much for fear mongering to vote no two years ago, where the Scots being told if they went independent they'd be kicked out of the EU...
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
What if they get their act together, negotiate with the French and Germans,and sort out a Scottish exit within 2 years whilst still a member of the EU?
I can imagine our Euro cousins might enjoy the ramifications and humiliation of England I those circumstances, and it might serve as warning to other countries considering their own indy ref.
Scotland might be able to succeed the UK's position in the EU, in the same way the Russian Federation succeeded the Soviet Union's position in the UN.
So that makes them responsible for the actions of each other? That is fething ridiculous. It doesn't matter if they share the same goal, they are two separate campaigns with different members and different leaders.
This is like blaming the Labour party for the actions of members of the Liberal Democrat party because they share some political positions and occasionally campaign for the same thing.
Funny, that isn't the impression I got when European politicians with no official links to Remain said things you disagreed with. They were all lumped in to "Project Fear" together.
That the EU enforces an economic order that somehow only benefits "core nations" is just bs. In fact, smaller and poorer members benefit proportionally more from the EU than the larger and wealthier ones.
This. The EU puts a lot of money into developing some of the less affluent nations, such as the eastern european ones. This has a net benefit for everyone as it means that those countries can then train up skilled citizens to go out into the EU workforce and contribute.
What? I never said that. My complaints were more along the lines of "I wish they'd mind their own business and not interfere". I (personally) certainly never blamed Cameron for the words of European leaders.
Do you have an actual counter argument, or just whataboutism fallacies?
What a day in politics can bring! It's been a busy weekend me alright.
Finding it all very exciting! I voted out after much deliberation, I live in Northern Ireland and I'm a farmer so the result will definitely effect me!
Got to say I'm really really saddened by the way the remain supporters are behaving. Really hope for the sake of the country everyone get back on the bike and starts peddling to make the country work. I'm disappointed for David Cameron, not a major fan but i liked the guy and Sam Cam was a great looking by las at the top
Forgetting all Campaign promises (on both sides) or predicted outcomes.
Look at the facts now.
Since 'we' voted Leave:
- The Pound has plummeted, twice as bad as the infamous 'Black Wednesday'.
- Scotland is calling for another referendum.
- Ireland is looking for their own referendum.
- Economies across the globe are taking a hit (For example, Japan dropping 8% or Australia dropping 3%)
- Our own Economy has lost £125 BILLION since yesterday.
- Companies have already begun to cut jobs in the UK (For example, J.P.Morgan telling its employees in a letter 'some jobs will have to be moved from the UK')
This choice to leave has negatively affected not only us but other countries and it hasn't even been 24 hours since we got the results.
Finally, the directives are scrutinised by the directly elected European Parliament. After that they only become law within each member state by the directly elected member state parliaments creating laws to enact them.
Any changes made by the parliament to legislature must be approved by the commission, the unelected body that it is supposedly meant to be a check on. There's also the issue of unclear committees and lobbyist influence. This is in the service of the EU's function as a trade union. Countries aren't meant to be able to genuinely oppose its economic policy. Look at all the nonsense with Greece and the general mad boner the European elite has for austerity.
Otto Weston wrote: Forgetting all Campaign promises (on both sides) or predicted outcomes.
Look at the facts now.
Since 'we' voted Leave:
- The Pound has plummeted, twice as bad as the infamous 'Black Wednesday'.
- Scotland is calling for another referendum.
- Ireland is looking for their own referendum.
- Economies across the globe are taking a hit (For example, Japan dropping 8% or Australia dropping 3%)
- Our own Economy has lost £125 BILLION since yesterday.
- Companies have already begun to cut jobs in the UK (For example, J.P.Morgan telling its employees in a letter 'some jobs will have to be moved from the UK')
This choice to leave has negatively affected not only us but other countries and it hasn't even been 24 hours since we got the results.
There's cutting off your nose to spite your face and then there's slitting your throat to spite your face. The "leavers" chose the latter...well played! That'll show the EU!
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Otto Weston wrote: Forgetting all Campaign promises (on both sides) or predicted outcomes.
Look at the facts now.
Since 'we' voted Leave:
- The Pound has plummeted, twice as bad as the infamous 'Black Wednesday'.
- Scotland is calling for another referendum.
- Ireland is looking for their own referendum.
- Economies across the globe are taking a hit (For example, Japan dropping 8% or Australia dropping 3%)
- Our own Economy has lost £125 BILLION since yesterday.
- Companies have already begun to cut jobs in the UK (For example, J.P.Morgan telling its employees in a letter 'some jobs will have to be moved from the UK')
This choice to leave has negatively affected not only us but other countries and it hasn't even been 24 hours since we got the results.
There's cutting off your nose to spite your face and then there's slitting your throat to spite your face. The "leavers" chose the latter...well played! That'll show the EU!
It's not about showing anyone, it was about the freedom of the people to choose not to be part of a federal Europe..
Come back to us when you have such freedom in the US; assuming you have time from prepping and 2nd Amendment gun shenanigans.
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Absolutely the same dynamics at play. Very scary, indeed!
That the EU enforces an economic order that somehow only benefits "core nations" is just bs.
Germany repressing wages and using the Euro as a battering ram to crush southern European economies through exports rather disagrees.
Germany did not crush southern European economies. Not at all! In fact, Germany has spent billions of euros (all paid for by the German people) to save southern European economies. If anything, Germany is the one that suffers most because of the EU, because it has to pay for the economical mismanagement of southern Europeans. Southern Europeans may not like the German-imposed austerity measures, but without the EU and those measures, they'd be much, much worse off.
Otto Weston wrote: Forgetting all Campaign promises (on both sides) or predicted outcomes.
Look at the facts now.
Since 'we' voted Leave:
- The Pound has plummeted, twice as bad as the infamous 'Black Wednesday'.
And has recovered to what it was 14 days ago
- Scotland is calling for another referendum.
Whats new there then any reason will do sturgeon has been threatening scince the last one.
- Ireland is looking for their own referendum.
One party and all the others have said no.
- Economies across the globe are taking a hit (For example, Japan dropping 8% or Australia dropping 3%)
Thats what investers get for betting on an unknown.
- Our own Economy has lost £125 BILLION since yesterday.
Markets are down just 160 or so points and still higher than last week
- Companies have already begun to cut jobs in the UK (For example, J.P.Morgan telling its employees in a letter 'some jobs will have to be moved from the UK')
Speculation and companys move staff all the time.
This choice to leave has negatively affected not only us but other countries and it hasn't even been 24 hours since we got the results.
You shouldn't talk about the economy. It has been one day since the vote. And everyone got upset because Remain was supposed to win and they poured money into it.
Give it a month and then start talking about the economy.
welshhoppo wrote: Well give it a month to see if there is a short term effect on the economy. Then see how it moves after that.
There is no if, the pound has tanked and banks are starting to leave the UK already. There will be a detrimental financial affect. What remains to be seen is how long it will last for.
welshhoppo wrote: Well give it a month to see if there is a short term effect on the economy. Then see how it moves after that.
There is no if, the pound has tanked and banks are starting to leave the UK already. There will be a detrimental financial affect. What remains to be seen is how long it will last for.
the pound has not "tanked" yet (well it did but rebounded $1 = 1.37 pounds), but it has been dropping but this has been an ongoing trend for the past couple of years. furthermore the Euro is not faring any better at 1.11 per $1,, will both groups survive? most likely will there be effect? most definitely, will the world keep turning?
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Nothing to worry about. People have tried to succeed from our Union before- and, well...
Kilkrazy wrote: There isn't a fundamental and intended lack of democracy in the EU.
Every single EU directive is directed, developed and authorised by the elected representatives of the member nations. The top level is the council of ministers comprising the elected political leaders of the member countries, like Cameron for the UK.
The working parties on specialist areas are headed up by the elected ministers of the member countries who deal with those specialist areas, such as the health minister for medical issues.
Finally, the directives are scrutinised by the directly elected European Parliament. After that they only become law within each member state by the directly elected member state parliaments creating laws to enact them.
In effect there are four levels of democratic oversight.
This is one of the dreadful sad things. The democratic structure is there, but people haven't been informed about it.
Its what happens when people base their opinions on emotions and not knowledge and facts.
It is something that is currently going on in the united states.
The states and their people are instead of using logic are ignoring the problems of the country and only think about themselves in the short term, and follow slogans because they think it is right through emotion.
WE are seeing this more and more.
The working class will be hit tremendously by leaving the EU, students who could go abroad to other countries to study can't anymore because they need a passport. Travel throughout the EU is now sort of harder.
The british pound will fall and so will the EU.
It is not good that the Brits left the EU, which was trying to become a super power that could rival the US, which is slowly losing its hegemonic power, as is russia and china.
IT is incredibly short sighted personally to say "Good riddance to the EU!"
Without thinking what happens if there was a revolt, your country is split down the middle now. That sense of unity has been replaced with hatred of the other, and it might give rise to the British Version of the Republician party from the united states.
It is wholly possible within reason for that to happen because of such a division exists.
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Nothing to worry about. People have tried to succeed from our Union before- and, well...
... or just willfully ignored it because of agenda.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SirDonlad wrote: For anyone who voted to remain:
I was basically prepping myself to be in your position not 24 hours ago, so i get that you are pretty pee-ed off right now, but this doesn't mean your opinion will be ignored.
48% of the voters is by no means a small number and your opinion WILL be used in future political debate, i can almost garuantee it.
To further what end, exactly? Our opinion has been ignored, and we will be forced into a situation we did not want, or agree with. That hardly salves the wounds tbh, rather just rubs our noses in it.
This referendum gained a massive turnout based on a variety of issues not normally talked about in the UK and if any politician wants to win people over in a way which ensures their election they will HAVE to incorporate your opinion. 52/48 in favour is a win, but not a comfortable enough margin to ignore the other 48%.
In terms of raw data about the British peoples political leanings this referendum was a gold mine.
I did a quick calculation and found that in this referendum my vote was worth 0.00000298% of the overall vote. not bad i thought.
Of the 46501241 people with a vote, 12949258 people did not vote.
Anyone got any words for them?
There is a question I'd liked to pick everyone's brain about in lieu of the vote.
Why are these momentous, important, decisions decided by simple majority?
It was the same with the Scottish referendum. If 50.00001% of the population thinks something should happen, that means nearly fifty doesn't. Something this important and with so many changes should be decided by more than a simple majority. You want there to be a general support by most of the country. I'd say both of these votes are at least as important as a new constitutional amendment here in the US, and we 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4s of the states to ratify. I'd say any decision this big should need at least a super-majority. What do you guys think?
In terms of raw data about the British peoples political leanings this referendum was a gold mine.
I did a quick calculation and found that in this referendum my vote was worth 0.00000298% of the overall vote. not bad i thought.
Of the 46501241 people with a vote, 12949258 people did not vote.
Anyone got any words for them?
Several words, none of which are acceptable here on Dakka.
I did a quick calculation and found that in this referendum my vote was worth 0.00000298% of the overall vote. not bad i thought.
Of the 46501241 people with a vote, 12949258 people did not vote.
Anyone got any words for them?
yeah they don't care, just like the millions in the US who do not vote.
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Nothing to worry about. People have tried to succeed from our Union before- and, well...
Spoiler:
The American South is crazy, but it ain't dumb.
I doubt Northern American States would get away with killing people these days if they just wanted to take their states out of the union.
I did a quick calculation and found that in this referendum my vote was worth 0.00000298% of the overall vote. not bad i thought.
Of the 46501241 people with a vote, 12949258 people did not vote.
Anyone got any words for them?
yeah they don't care, just like the millions in the US who do not vote.
Happens, but I rather they have the choice to, than not be mandated to by a higher government because most typical citizens will fail economics 101 and can't even identify a potential candidate.
The reality is that not voting is a vote in itself; it's a vote for "I don't care." Breaking down why people don't care enough to vote can be just as, and maybe even more, politically significant than breaking down why they vote for one side or the other.
In terms of raw data about the British peoples political leanings this referendum was a gold mine.
I did a quick calculation and found that in this referendum my vote was worth 0.00000298% of the overall vote. not bad i thought.
Of the 46501241 people with a vote, 12949258 people did not vote.
Anyone got any words for them?
Several words, none of which are acceptable here on Dakka.
@Co'tor Shas: tough question.
I think that in this case, the scenario was set in a binary fasion.
I'm trying not to just go "it was the EU!!" but Mr Cameron didn't seem to have an in-between option available to him.
LordofHats wrote: The reality is that not voting is a vote in itself; it's a vote for "I don't care." Breaking down why people don't care enough to vote can be just as, and maybe even more, politically significant than breaking down why they vote for one side or the other.
Ideally it is called the way of doing nothing by some. It is usually the best answer for most things in the world.
"Honey do you have an opinion on (Female Related issue that a guy has no business talking about)"
*Do nothing = profit *
You can avoid a great many political circumstances as well. Infact that was essentially the cold war, doing nothing to Russia or to the United States.
LordofHats wrote: The reality is that not voting is a vote in itself; it's a vote for "I don't care." Breaking down why people don't care enough to vote can be just as, and maybe even more, politically significant than breaking down why they vote for one side or the other.
kind of like PB when they did their infamous GenCon vote, those who did not vote were allegedly saying it was ok for PB to sell at GenCon before issuing to backers.
LordofHats wrote: The reality is that not voting is a vote in itself; it's a vote for "I don't care." Breaking down why people don't care enough to vote can be just as, and maybe even more, politically significant than breaking down why they vote for one side or the other.
I am reminded of Rush, funnily enough:
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
I'm curious to see what will happen from now. No, really. I wonder if that decision will truly be respected or if people will realize what they have done and try to find a way out of it.
And yes, the referendum on simple majority was a very stupid thing to do. Now we can see the UK is totally divided in two sides, blaming/hating each other.
But then, some very interesting changes may come out of it...it's like a kick in the anthill, after all!
I'm curious to see what will happen from now. No, really. I wonder if that decision will truly be respected or if people realize what they have done and try to find a way out of it.
And yes, the referendum on simple majority was a very stupid thing to do. Now we can see the UK is totally divided in two sides.
But then, some very interesting changes may come out of it...it's like a kick in the anthill, after all!
Mmmm, a slim majority that may not even last a week due to people changing their minds is not a good starting point for something that will affect the whole country.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There is a question I'd liked to pick everyone's brain about in lieu of the vote.
Why are these momentous, important, decisions decided by simple majority?
It was the same with the Scottish referendum. If 50.00001% of the population thinks something should happen, that means nearly fifty doesn't. Something this important and with so many changes should be decided by more than a simple majority. You want there to be a general support by most of the country. I'd say both of these votes are at least as important as a new constitutional amendment here in the US, and we 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4s of the states to ratify. I'd say any decision this big should need at least a super-majority. What do you guys think?
I think you have a point. I'm starting to think that a mere 2% is not enough to go on.
Ah right, gotcha - he was talking about the difference between the vote and i thought he was talking about the people who didn't bother turning up.
I should probably rest too, i haven't had a day feeling as good as this for quite some time and its wearing me down.
Time for a batrep or two methinks.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The petition for requiring a 60% majority with 75% turnout has hit 390k signatures.
Wait so the sore losers want to remove the winners victory (essentially giving them victory) because the majority aren't majority enough for their tastes?
It is 1.8% of the total population. That's not a lot.
3.8% of the voters. It's not much but it's enough. Those saying it was unwise to vote to leave because of the divisiveness could easy see it the other way around; it was unwise to vote Remain because now the country is split.
problem is if the UK back peddles now it will make them look weak and needing the EU, thereby giving the EU leverage over the UK, so either the UK sticks with leaving or they will be returning as lesser then when they left.
that and the EU just slapped the UK with the proverbial glove, telling them to get out now:
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
What if they get their act together, negotiate with the French and Germans,and sort out a Scottish exit within 2 years whilst still a member of the EU?
I can imagine our Euro cousins might enjoy the ramifications and humiliation of England I those circumstances, and it might serve as warning to other countries considering their own indy ref.
I think this is a real possibility. They will do it to don't bypass the language filter like this. Last warning. reds8n us over and I don't blame them.
England has declared economic war on Europe. I don't think people have comprehended the depths of hatred this will unleash. On C4 this evening, a Polish MEP was invoking the Polish airmen that died in the Battle of Britain and saying, don't expect any more.
Remember, the Poles lost their freedom and didn't get it back fully until the EU. And now the English have told them to feth off because their plumbers are too good.
I sensed his hate - and I know he was right. I felt profoundly ashamed. We have not begun to experience the magnitude of this . There are some deluded souls in the tory party revelling in the possible collapse of the whole EU project. But the guilt will be on us.
A quick self-serving note for any Europhiles in rUK - keep in mind that the franchise in Scotland is dependent on residence not nationality, so if you want to keep your EU citizenship feel free to move up here before indyref2 and vote away, we've plenty of room
A Town Called Malus wrote: The petition for requiring a 60% majority with 75% turnout has hit 390k signatures.
Wait so the sore losers want to remove the winners victory (essentially giving them victory) because the majority aren't majority enough for their tastes?
The people who sign that petition are pathetic.
Nah, they are smart.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such tiny majorities because doing something virtually half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like Scotland, Gibraltar and London voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU and are now forced to go along with what England and Wales decided just because they happen to have larger populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the majority. It is for this reason that many states require supermajorities of 65%, 75% or even larger for changes to their constitution. I think the same should apply to decisions that are similarly impactful.
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
What if they get their act together, negotiate with the French and Germans,and sort out a Scottish exit within 2 years whilst still a member of the EU?
I can imagine our Euro cousins might enjoy the ramifications and humiliation of England I those circumstances, and it might serve as warning to other countries considering their own indy ref.
I think this is a real possibility.
They will do it to f*ck us over and I don't blame them.
Spoiler:
England has declared economic war on Europe. I don't think people have comprehended the depths of hatred this will unleash. On C4 this evening, a Polish MEP was invoking the Polish airmen that died in the Battle of Britain and saying, don't expect any more.
Remember, the Poles lost their freedom and didn't get it back fully until the EU. And now the English have told them to feth off because their plumbers are too good.
I sensed his hate - and I know he was right. I felt profoundly ashamed. We have not begun to experience the magnitude of this . There are some deluded souls in the tory party revelling in the possible collapse of the whole EU project. But the guilt will be on us.
Traitor!
That polish dude needs some perspective - we rescued their pilots from capture by the nazi's and helped win back Europe; trying to say they did it out of some kind of 'good faith' arrangement is just wrong and misleading; don't get caught up in his emotive verbiage.
Yodhrin wrote: A quick self-serving note for any Europhiles in rUK - keep in mind that the franchise in Scotland is dependent on residence not nationality, so if you want to keep your EU citizenship feel free to move up here before indyref2 and vote away, we've plenty of room
Thanks for the offer but I'm going to get Irish citizenship instead, it's not dependant on referendums
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia. What if they get their act together, negotiate with the French and Germans,and sort out a Scottish exit within 2 years whilst still a member of the EU? I can imagine our Euro cousins might enjoy the ramifications and humiliation of England I those circumstances, and it might serve as warning to other countries considering their own indy ref.
I think this is a real possibility.
They will do it to f*ck us over and I don't blame them.
Spoiler:
England has declared economic war on Europe. I don't think people have comprehended the depths of hatred this will unleash. On C4 this evening, a Polish MEP was invoking the Polish airmen that died in the Battle of Britain and saying, don't expect any more.
Remember, the Poles lost their freedom and didn't get it back fully until the EU. And now the English have told them to feth off because their plumbers are too good.
I sensed his hate - and I know he was right. I felt profoundly ashamed. We have not begun to experience the magnitude of this . There are some deluded souls in the tory party revelling in the possible collapse of the whole EU project. But the guilt will be on us.
Traitor!
That polish dude needs some perspective - we rescued their pilots from capture by the nazi's and helped win back Europe; trying to say they did it out of some kind of 'good faith' arrangement is just wrong and misleading; don't get caught up in his emotive verbiage.
But the poles massively hastened the end of the whole war before it even began. If it weren't for them breaking the 3 rotor enigma machine and sharing their success with the allies before being conquered, Bletchley Park would not have succeeded in cracking the more complex machines anywhere near as fast as it did, if at all.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The petition for requiring a 60% majority with 75% turnout has hit 390k signatures.
Wait so the sore losers want to remove the winners victory (essentially giving them victory) because the majority aren't majority enough for their tastes?
The people who sign that petition are pathetic.
Nah, they are smart.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such tiny majorities because doing something virtually half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like Scotland, Gibraltar and London voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU and are now forced to go along with what England and Wales decided just because they happen to have larger populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the majority. It is for this reason that many states require supermajorities of 65%, 75% or even larger for changes to their constitution. I think the same should apply to decisions that are similarly impactful.
You can say the exact same in reverse though to a word.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such minorities because doing something over half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like England and Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU and are now forced to go along with what London and Scotland decided just because they happen to have smaller populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the minority.
I think this is a real possibility. They will do it to f*ck us over and I don't blame them.
England has declared economic war on Europe. I don't think people have comprehended the depths of hatred this will unleash.
Yeah, Juncker, the president of the EU Commission, already said what pretty much amounted to a nice way of saying "The British people voted leave, so now GTFO." I don't think the EU will make things easy for the UK and agree to years of negotiations and special treaties. Juncker's "no matter how painful this process will be" really sounds like a veiled threat.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683042/EU-referendum-Brexit-Britain-leaves
I think this is a real possibility. They will do it to f*ck us over and I don't blame them.
England has declared economic war on Europe. I don't think people have comprehended the depths of hatred this will unleash.
Yeah, Juncker, the president of the EU Commission, already said what pretty much amounted to a nice way of saying "The British people voted leave, so now GTFO." I don't think the EU will make things easy for the UK and agree to years of negotiations and special treaties. Juncker's "no matter how painful this process will be" really sounds like a veiled threat. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683042/EU-referendum-Brexit-Britain-leaves
People seem to have forgotten that the EUs job is to get the best deal for the EU. If we're not in it anymore then it's job is to gouge us for everything it can get, same as our politicians against it.
Yodhrin wrote: A quick self-serving note for any Europhiles in rUK - keep in mind that the franchise in Scotland is dependent on residence not nationality, so if you want to keep your EU citizenship feel free to move up here before indyref2 and vote away, we've plenty of room
Whilst I am sorely tempted by that to be brutally honest, unfortunately I simply can't do it because I'm a poor, indebted, obligated university student in England
Sigh.
Putting aside all economic and political motivations aside, I believed the EU was a step in the right direction for the unification of the Human Species as a whole; since the advent of Nuclear Weaponry, global unification through war became a nigh-impossibility (especially if you don't count global annihilation as unification).
A Town Called Malus wrote: The petition for requiring a 60% majority with 75% turnout has hit 390k signatures.
Wait so the sore losers want to remove the winners victory (essentially giving them victory) because the majority aren't majority enough for their tastes?
The people who sign that petition are pathetic.
Nah, they are smart.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such tiny majorities because doing something virtually half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like Scotland, Gibraltar and London voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU and are now forced to go along with what England and Wales decided just because they happen to have larger populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the majority. It is for this reason that many states require supermajorities of 65%, 75% or even larger for changes to their constitution. I think the same should apply to decisions that are similarly impactful.
You can say the exact same in reverse though to a word.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such minorities because doing something over half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like England and Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU and are now forced to go along with what London and Scotland decided just because they happen to have smaller populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the minority.
Uh... no.
Remaining in the EU would not have been a big, impactful decision. The UK already was in the EU, so it would just have meant the rejection of the changes proposed in the referendum. Things would have just carried on as they were.
That is an important difference. Supermajorities should be needed for making big changes, not for not making big changes (that is quite frankly a ridiculous idea).
A Town Called Malus wrote: The petition for requiring a 60% majority with 75% turnout has hit 390k signatures.
Wait so the sore losers want to remove the winners victory (essentially giving them victory) because the majority aren't majority enough for their tastes?
The people who sign that petition are pathetic.
Nah, they are smart. I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such tiny majorities because doing something virtually half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like Scotland, Gibraltar and London voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU and are now forced to go along with what England and Wales decided just because they happen to have larger populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the majority. It is for this reason that many states require supermajorities of 65%, 75% or even larger for changes to their constitution. I think the same should apply to decisions that are similarly impactful.
You can say the exact same in reverse though to a word.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such minorities because doing something over half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like England and Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU and are now forced to go along with what London and Scotland decided just because they happen to have smaller populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the minority.
Uh... no. Remaining in the EU would not have been a big, impactful decision. The UK already was in the EU, so it would just have meant the rejection of the changes proposed in the referendum. Things would have just carried on as they were. That is an important difference. Supermajorities should be needed for making big changes, not for not making big changes (that is quite frankly a ridiculous idea).
I disagree. This sort of petition should be done beforehand not afterwards. It was clear it would be decided by majority vote. These people only complain because they lost.
I would agree had the issue of how to decide how much majority is needed was beforehand because it is a very real concern. (If this was an issue before hand I missed it). The time for change is over, it has been done. They missed both their chances.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The petition for requiring a 60% majority with 75% turnout has hit 390k signatures.
Wait so the sore losers want to remove the winners victory (essentially giving them victory) because the majority aren't majority enough for their tastes?
The people who sign that petition are pathetic.
Nah, they are smart.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such tiny majorities because doing something virtually half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like Scotland, Gibraltar and London voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU and are now forced to go along with what England and Wales decided just because they happen to have larger populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the majority. It is for this reason that many states require supermajorities of 65%, 75% or even larger for changes to their constitution. I think the same should apply to decisions that are similarly impactful.
You can say the exact same in reverse though to a word.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such minorities because doing something over half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like England and Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU and are now forced to go along with what London and Scotland decided just because they happen to have smaller populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the minority.
Uh... no.
Remaining in the EU would not have been a big, impactful decision. The UK already was in the EU, so it would just have meant the rejection of the changes proposed in the referendum. Things would have just carried on as they were.
That is an important difference. Supermajorities should be needed for making big changes, not for not making big changes (that is quite frankly a ridiculous idea).
I disagree. This sort of petition should be done beforehand not afterwards. It was clear it would be decided by majority vote. These people only complain because they lost.
I would agree had the issue of how to decide how much majority is needed was beforehand because it is a very real concern. (If this was an issue before hand I missed it). The time for change is over, it has been done. They missed both their chances.
Nigel Farage (supporting the winning side), said before the Referendum that if Leave had lost by 48 - 52 (turns out they won by that), he wouldn't have accepted it and he would have pushed for another Referendum. Now he's won, he's completely forgetting that.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The petition for requiring a 60% majority with 75% turnout has hit 390k signatures.
Wait so the sore losers want to remove the winners victory (essentially giving them victory) because the majority aren't majority enough for their tastes?
The people who sign that petition are pathetic.
Nah, they are smart.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such tiny majorities because doing something virtually half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like Scotland, Gibraltar and London voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU and are now forced to go along with what England and Wales decided just because they happen to have larger populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the majority. It is for this reason that many states require supermajorities of 65%, 75% or even larger for changes to their constitution. I think the same should apply to decisions that are similarly impactful.
You can say the exact same in reverse though to a word.
I agree with them. Decisions this huge and impactful should not be decided by such minorities because doing something over half the people disagrees with is not very democratic any way you look at it. Especially when you consider that places like England and Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU and are now forced to go along with what London and Scotland decided just because they happen to have smaller populations. That is no democracy, that is tyranny of the minority.
Uh... no.
Remaining in the EU would not have been a big, impactful decision. The UK already was in the EU, so it would just have meant the rejection of the changes proposed in the referendum. Things would have just carried on as they were.
That is an important difference. Supermajorities should be needed for making big changes, not for not making big changes (that is quite frankly a ridiculous idea).
I disagree. This sort of petition should be done beforehand not afterwards. It was clear it would be decided by majority vote. These people only complain because they lost.
I would agree had the issue of how to decide how much majority is needed was beforehand because it is a very real concern. (If this was an issue before hand I missed it). The time for change is over, it has been done. They missed both their chances.
Yes, I can agree that changing the requirements should not be done afterwards anymore. Still, it would be for the good of democracy and the entire British nation, even those who voted leave
I find it incredulous how many of my Leave voting friends and family called me 'butthurt' at the result, as well as the petition that's already reached 400,000 signatures.
I'm not 'butthurt', I can accept decisions, I accepted the general election outcomes despite them not being the result I wanted. I'm just very concerned about my future. My career in science is probably dead without the EU funding into research facilities.
The banks have also started to considering moving their money/HQ to Frankfurt and Dublin.
It's worth keeping in mind, the 5 Presidents Report specifically is about making big changes for Europe, expected to be done in 2025.
In other words. 9 years time. To put things in context, the first Bayformers film came out 9 years ago. That really isn't a long span of time at all.
A lot of the posts just take me back to the, well, goals, I suppose you could call them in the speech.
"I want to speak directly to the millions of people who did not vote for this outcome, especially young people who may feel that this decision involves somehow pulling up the drawbridge because I think the very opposite is true. We cannot turn our backs on Europe. We are part of Europe, our children and our grandchildren will continue to have a wonderful future as Europeans, travelling to the continent, understanding the languages and the cultures that make up our common European civilisation, continuing to interact with the peoples of other countries in a way that is open and friendly and outward looking. "
So many people just want to focus on the negative cynicism and as any business training ends up repeating and repeating, that sort of negative cynicism ends up causing the thing people are being cynical about.
Just because being roommates can be cause tension if they're not the right mesh of people doesn't mean that being next-door neighbours will go the same way.
And, if we do this right, maybe both the EU and the UK can be better off from this.
A spokesman for Morgan Stanley told the Independent that the reports were untrue and that the bank has no immediate plans to make changes.
“The UK’s vote to leave the European Union is a very significant decision which will have a considerable impact, the extent of which will not be known for some time," the spokesman said.
"There will be at least a period of two years before an actual exit takes place, so there will be time to implement any changes required to adjust our business to the new environment. Morgan Stanley will continue to monitor developments very closely and will adapt accordingly while prioritising the interests of our clients, our shareholders and our employees," he added.
Yet, I imagine this will be brought up another dozen times in this thread and many other discussions.
That polish dude needs some perspective - we rescued their pilots from capture by the nazi's and helped win back Europe; trying to say they did it out of some kind of 'good faith' arrangement is just wrong and misleading; don't get caught up in his emotive verbiage.
Sometimes I'm so ashamed of my countrymen
Many Polish pilots fought the Germans in Poland, then in France, then made their way to Britain. Under their own steam.
Then they got abandoned at Potsdam. Understandable, realpolitik, but still.
They were the ally when all the sh*tstorm that we invoke all the time kicked off. And now we've left them. While the KGB fella waits in the wings.
Yodhrin wrote: A quick self-serving note for any Europhiles in rUK - keep in mind that the franchise in Scotland is dependent on residence not nationality, so if you want to keep your EU citizenship feel free to move up here before indyref2 and vote away, we've plenty of room
Thanks for the offer but I'm going to get Irish citizenship instead, it's not dependant on referendums
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
What if they get their act together, negotiate with the French and Germans,and sort out a Scottish exit within 2 years whilst still a member of the EU?
I can imagine our Euro cousins might enjoy the ramifications and humiliation of England I those circumstances, and it might serve as warning to other countries considering their own indy ref.
I think this is a real possibility.
They will do it to f*ck us over and I don't blame them.
Spoiler:
England has declared economic war on Europe. I don't think people have comprehended the depths of hatred this will unleash. On C4 this evening, a Polish MEP was invoking the Polish airmen that died in the Battle of Britain and saying, don't expect any more.
Remember, the Poles lost their freedom and didn't get it back fully until the EU. And now the English have told them to feth off because their plumbers are too good.
I sensed his hate - and I know he was right. I felt profoundly ashamed. We have not begun to experience the magnitude of this . There are some deluded souls in the tory party revelling in the possible collapse of the whole EU project. But the guilt will be on us.
Traitor!
That polish dude needs some perspective - we rescued their pilots from capture by the nazi's and helped win back Europe; trying to say they did it out of some kind of 'good faith' arrangement is just wrong and misleading; don't get caught up in his emotive verbiage.
But the poles massively hastened the end of the whole war before it even began. If it weren't for them breaking the 3 rotor enigma machine and sharing their success with the allies before being conquered, Bletchley Park would not have succeeded in cracking the more complex machines anywhere near as fast as it did, if at all.
Absoluteley! They were pivotal in the war effort, the polish resistance being responsible for some of my favourite war stories.
We drive past the polish war memorial when we go to london, so i suppose in a way he has highlighted an issue we will need to resolve with sympathy - allowing polish war veterans and their families free movment through our borders to visit the polish war memorial and potentially their graves. (assuming they haven't been exhumed and repatriated)
That polish dude needs some perspective - we rescued their pilots from capture by the nazi's and helped win back Europe; trying to say they did it out of some kind of 'good faith' arrangement is just wrong and misleading; don't get caught up in his emotive verbiage.
Sometimes I'm so ashamed of my countrymen
Many Polish pilots fought the Germans in Poland, then in France, then made their way to Britain. Under their own steam.
Then they got abandoned at Potsdam. Understandable, realpolitik, but still.
They were the ally when all the sh*tstorm that we invoke all the time kicked off. And now we've left them. While the KGB fella waits in the wings.
Why be ashamed? i'll admit it's blunt, but it's true.
All surviving polish airforce planes got captured and they made their way through occupied territory, throough france and escaped to britain.
Fishermen from both sides probably were responsible for the channel crossing section but we took them in when they needed it and then gave them a warplane to exact some payback.
Those men (heroes, potentially?) who died over our skies did so on their own terms because at the time it wasn't about who's from which country, it was about stopping the nazi ideology.
Agreed - poland got hung out to dry at least three times by the 'allies', i recon.
Russia is complicated - I dunno, NATO needs to up it's response mechanisms, but i get the feeling that putin is getting tired of the games. some of the statements i see him make (assuming that the translator isn't pranking him) are almost reasonable. But as he is an an ex-KGB man i would be expecting him to do something sneaky, even if it's just force of habbit for him.
"sorry, i appear to have left an exclusion for putting russian nuclear weapons next to the american ones in your country within this document.."
What if those who prefer to be place their allegiences with brussels rather than the UK could be given EU citizenship with indefinite leave to remain in the UK? I am sure something could be worked out to that end. The UK coming out of the EU just means we are not their subjects and they can't pass legislation over us, it doesn't mean EU patriots have to be deported.
I'm not sure what else to call them? A lot of thin skinned people started crying when I called them traitors. "Patriot" is a lot more flattering don't you think?
If it does happen it might not mean what the scaremongers like to imply aka rats deserting sinking ship.
Major banks with EU headquarters in London will also need new headquarters elsewhere, interest in the city will not diminish, and for every financial institution needing to move some of its staff out of the UK to another Eu country other with no current presence in the UK will want to make the opposite move to ensure they are represented everywhere.
Kilkrazy wrote: You're ignoring the result of the 2014 referendum that rejected independence by 55:45 and you want a new referendum.
That's a completely ridiculous claim and you know it is. It's like saying I'm ignoring the result of the last general election because I'm campaigning in the next one for a party that didn't win it. Scotland remains within the UK and no serious voices from the independence movement have argued for a UDI - those are the only two requirements for the 2014 result being respected. The question was "Should Scotland be an independent country?", not "Should Scotland be an independent country and after this nobody can argue differently or change their mind for at least twenty years". A pro-indy majority in the Scottish parliament was considered sufficient justification for a referendum last time, so what is different - is there some quota of self-determination that we have exceeded?
Referenda are not like parliamentary elections, you can't have the with any regularity. You certainly cant have a case of repeat until successful.
Had Scotland voted Yes and left and found they cant afford Salmonds false promises, would the SNP be lining up to offer a chance to redeem the mistake. I wouldn't count on it.
Better Together explicitly and repeatedly tied voting No to retaining EU citizenship, and for a lot of people that was a major motivator in how they chose to vote. I don't see how it's unreasonable given the democratically-elected(and a good deal moreso than WM) Scottish Parliament election results two months ago, to offer those people a chance to reconsider. And I don't see why we should make that offer based on when it's most convenient for the government which is making t necessary in the first place.
Better Together did indeed imply that voting No meant continued EU membership. This is what you got. Had Scotland voted 'Yes' you would have been out of the EU there and then. When Scotland voted 'No' it was not without knowledge that a referendum was coming on EU membership, a No vote confirmed that Scots were UK citizens and would be balloted. The people decided, it matters not which 52% voted out of Europe, Scots do not and should have special privilege status within the UK democratic medium.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Regarding the allegation that Farage is "backtracking" on taking the £350m we give to to the EU and using it for the NHS...thats utter bs. The Official Leave Campaign made that pledge. Farage was not part of that campaign, he helped lead a separate campaign. He had no part in making that pledge.
That ITV/Good Morning interview was an ignorant hit piece attacking Farage for something he wasn't responsible for.
What a pity that Farage was happy to let the false claim slide for weeks during the campaign. I am sure it was all justified in the support of a greater cause.
Who confirmed it was a 'false claim'?
Who made the claim, do you know?
Have those who made the advert said they wont honour it?
Have those who made the advert been in a position to honour it?
Also have you seen what the claim said.
There is no promise to give ALL the 350 million to the NHS, just an indication that the NHS would be a better investment with the money.
It could even be supported as it is anticipatory.
I'd rather attack him for being a frog faced little englander.
Why would you make that any better?
Calling someone a 'Little Englander'under its current context is basically like calling someone the n-word.
Would you call someone a Little American, or a Little Frenchman or a Little Scot. They can wave flags just as much as the English can
You denegrate people for being English and proud of it, in ways that any other subculture would be respected for, and defended in so doing. Everyone else can be loud and proud about their culture, so why cant the English?
Wyrmalla wrote: So much for fear mongering to vote no two years ago, where the Scots being told if they went independent they'd be kicked out of the EU...
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
My point being that, and it was said at the time, if we stayed in Britain we would be leaving regardless - which has come to pass.
Par the course for driveling propaganda these days in the UK though.
I can sympathise with that position, but it was no secret in 2014 that this referendum was coming. You cant say you were not balloted as UK citizens. You also dont have special snowflake privilege to override the majority.
The outcome is unfortunate and the Scottish government has every reason to table options and seek consultation with the EU and Westminster.
Nigel Farage (supporting the winning side), said before the Referendum that if Leave had lost by 48 - 52 (turns out they won by that), he wouldn't have accepted it and he would have pushed for another Referendum. Now he's won, he's completely forgetting that.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017
That was Farage being a dick. Had Leave lost he would have been told to put up and shut up, and rightly so.
Even the concept of multiple referenda is permanently destabilising, as nothing is ever secure again.
That polish dude needs some perspective - we rescued their pilots from capture by the nazi's and helped win back Europe; trying to say they did it out of some kind of 'good faith' arrangement is just wrong and misleading; don't get caught up in his emotive verbiage.
Sometimes I'm so ashamed of my countrymen
Many Polish pilots fought the Germans in Poland, then in France, then made their way to Britain. Under their own steam.
Then they got abandoned at Potsdam. Understandable, realpolitik, but still.
They were the ally when all the sh*tstorm that we invoke all the time kicked off. And now we've left them. While the KGB fella waits in the wings.
The smarter Poles and Czechs didnt attempt to return home in 1945, and they were warned of the consequences and offered UK citizenship. I know many WW2 era Polish and Czech families, the post war generations of them are indistinguishable from native Britons except by surname.
There was little to nothing that UK or USA for that matter could reasonable do about Stalins position in eastern Europe. With sole exception of the Vienna deal. Poland however was behind lines.
Certain Americans are - I am one such. Europe is not a nation; therefore one cannot be a "Europatriot" ... and indeed the very notion of holding your own nation in such low regard as to conceptualize renouncing citizenship in favor of some abstract neoliberal scheme like the European Union is the very antithesis of patriotism.
How so? I thought Americans were big on patriotism?
When you're aligning the term with "Traitors"...
I guess half the UK are "traitors" then. Oh well, off you pop to start a civil war on your own.
People are aware that the EU isn't going to dissolve overnight, and that plenty support it right? All this anti-EU rhetoric maybe isn't a great idea considering that where our largest trading partners reside.
Manchu wrote: Certain Americans are - I am one such. Europe is not a nation; therefore one cannot be a "Europatriot" ... and indeed the very notion of holding your own nation in such low regard as to conceptualize renouncing citizenship in favor of some abstract neoliberal scheme like the European Union is the very antithesis of patriotism.
The EU is intended to become a nation, that is the next phase of the project. It already has some patriots as this thread bears witness. With the passing of the decades that patriotism will be propagated through EU controlled schooling. I am fairly sure that the development of the USA out of the 13 colonies, though the various independent states, to the post-civil war union and on, is the very model the EU is hoping to ape.
Euroskepticism will never be a concern in Germany given the EU is the improbable means by which Berlin has at long last dominated the continent. But what about France? The day may come there, as it already has in Britain.
Wyrmalla wrote: So much for fear mongering to vote no two years ago, where the Scots being told if they went independent they'd be kicked out of the EU...
That is true, though. Scotland as a new nation would have had to apply for membership of the EU like Slovenia or Latvia.
My point being that, and it was said at the time, if we stayed in Britain we would be leaving regardless - which has come to pass.
Par the course for driveling propaganda these days in the UK though.
I can sympathise with that position, but it was no secret in 2014 that this referendum was coming. You cant say you were not balloted as UK citizens. You also dont have special snowflake privilege to override the majority.
The outcome is unfortunate and the Scottish government has every reason to table options and seek consultation with the EU and Westminster.
We'll have to see what Westminster looks like over the coming year. Either the new government will be pro-devolution or against it (the current one offered more powers, then went back on their word).
I'm suspecting the new administration will continue with the bull, perhaps yes calling Scotland a special snowflake, whilst the UK itself goes independent over its "me, me, me" desires.
Woe betide the SNP going up against a far right Tory party or UKIP at a questions time. I can imagine Nicola Sturgeon facepalming a lot like her predecessor.
To be clear, the US was a single nation from its inception. The ACW was a very bloody demonstration of that pre-existing fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, can Brits really detect no irony in romanticizing Euro-federalism in one breath while discussing an "inevitable" second Scottish independence referendum in the very next?
I guess half the UK are "traitors" then. Oh well, off you pop to start a civil war on your own.
People are aware that the EU isn't going to dissolve overnight, and that plenty support it right? All this anti-EU rhetoric maybe isn't a great idea considering that where our largest trading partners reside.
You should try to see the world through two eyes not just one; you will get a better perspective. Traitor and patriot are opposite sides of the same coin. I am a british patriot therefore I am also a traitor to the EU. The 13 colonists who betrayed his Majesty King George III just so they could keep slavery going a bit longer and avoid paying the pensions of British Officers who risked their lives defending them from the expansion of the French Empire were traitors but in their own national mythology were patriots... Those colonists that prefered to remain loyalists were called traitors by the "patriots". If one term fits then very often the other does too from another perspective. I am willing to use the more flattering term patriot for those whose allegiances are with Brussels rather than Her Majesty and her loyalist subjects, is this not agreeable to you? What else shall we call you?
Manchu wrote: Certain Americans are - I am one such. Europe is not a nation; therefore one cannot be a "Europatriot" ... and indeed the very notion of holding your own nation in such low regard as to conceptualize renouncing citizenship in favor of some abstract neoliberal scheme like the European Union is the very antithesis of patriotism.
The EU is intended to become a nation, that is the next phase of the project. It already has some patriots as this thread bears witness. With the passing of the decades that patriotism will be propagated through EU controlled schooling. I am fairly sure that the development of the USA out of the 13 colonies, though the various independent states, to the post-civil war union and on, is the very model the EU is hoping to ape.
Here mister, please have this tinfoil hat: It will prevent the Eurocrats from reading your mind and learning that you know of their dastardly schemes!
.
Wheres a Guy Fawkes when you need him? 
