brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

Anyway, this has now become depressingly like a large part of my social media feed.  

Indeed, and i for one don't want to disturb you when you should be concentrating on your next CD.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

and i for one don't want to disturb you when you should be concentrating on your next CD.

Indeed. More Brassin, less Brexit. Go to Jaell.

Have sent you a pm listing the provisional content. It's not quite all edited yet.

[thalbergmad]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/147101/sponsors/GR9Cb7yTm4NETmMs

I wonder if all British members of this forum would consider signing my petition to rerun the 1975 EEC referendum so hopefully, it can be worked that we never actually joined.

I am slightly drunk and this could be amusing.

Thal

[ahinton]

Is it not the case that they are obligated to at least discuss it (or any other petition) once 100k signatures are reached?

Yes.

For the record, I completely disagree with such a petition. If we are going to live in a democracy, we should respect its decisions, even when we don't like them. All the above conditions and rules should have been discussed before the event, not used as a retrospective attempt to cavil and subvert the decision. Very wrong indeed.

What you appear to overlook here is that this petition was launched by someone who supports Leave. It's not about what you write, except to the extent that, if something as fundamental as this referendum has been launched in an undemocratic manner and for questionable reasons, members of the UK electorate have a democratic right to protest against it by any legal means at their disposal, including a petition on Parliament's website and, after all, Parliament did agree to accept this one for publication.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Parliament did agree to accept this one for publication.

Mine has been accepted as well.

Thal

[ahinton]

I don't think the referendum is legally binding.

It isn't; all referenda in UK are advisory, not mandatory.

It would be a brave politician who over-rode it though

And if there's anything that we need right now is one of those!

The Queen is supposed to be apolitical

Indeed - and if Scotland and NI leave the Union, she may feel obliged to consider her position

This is going to run and run..

You bet it will and, sadly, with increasing acrimony of the kind not even witnessed in the campaign.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Farage is just a s**t

Well, you said it!...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/147101/sponsors/GR9Cb7yTm4NETmMs

I wonder if all British members of this forum would consider signing my petition to rerun the 1975 EEC referendum so hopefully, it can be worked that we never actually joined.

I am slightly drunk and this could be amusing.

Not without the text of your desires on this being displayed in the petition text; it is important for people to have the opportunity to understand what it is that they're being asked to sign for.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

bollox

[ahinton]

Mine has been accepted as well.

And you expect to secure signatories when there's no petition agenda?

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

For the record, I completely disagree with such a petition. If we are going to live in a democracy, we should respect its decisions, even when we don't like them. All the above conditions and rules should have been discussed before the event, not used as a retrospective attempt to cavil and subvert the decision. Very wrong indeed.

What you appear to overlook here is that this petition was launched by someone who supports Leave. It's not about what you write, except to the extent that, if something as fundamental as this referendum has been launched in an undemocratic manner and for questionable reasons, members of the UK electorate have a democratic right to protest against it by any legal means at their disposal, including a petition on Parliament's website and, after all, Parliament did agree to accept this one for publication.

That it was launched by someone who supports Leave and was originally intended to generate a second referendum in the case of a narrow loss by their side (but has now been highjacked by Remain for the similar purpose) is irrelevant.

I would disagree with re-running the referendum on the bases cited within it irrespective of the political position. To take a varying stance dependent on the perceived motivation of the referendum signatories and its political intent is naked opportunism and intellectual hypocrisy.

[ahinton]

bollox

So you think that it's OK to petition for or against nothing, then? Your call, I guess.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

bollox

Is that what Corbyn grew this morning? 

[ahinton]

That it was launched by someone who supports Leave and was originally intended to generate a second referendum in the case of a narrow loss by their side (but has now been highjacked by Remain for the similar purpose) is irrelevant.

I would disagree with re-running the referendum on the bases cited within it irrespective of the political position. To take a varying stance dependent on the perceived motivation of the referendum signatories and its political intent is naked opportunism and intellectual hypocrisy.

What you now overlook is that the petition text is not about the result but about the need for much more stringent conditions to apply to it which, given the consquences upon UK, EU and elsewhere for generations to come, is hardly unreasonable.Of the approximately 25% of the electorate who did not vote, a considerable number refused to do so because of a belief that the referendum was unnecessary and rather more did so because they considered that its lax terms and conditions made it insufficiently credible, which was indeed the case given the immense gravity of its subject.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Is that what Corbyn grew this morning? 

No; if he'd had any, they'd have been removed from him but I suspect that he didn't.

In all seriousness, though, what we're now left with is a situation in which (a) the reluctance on anyone's part to press the Article 50 button is deafening by its silence and (b) both the Conservative and Labour parties are in unprecedented disarray over the situation.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

What you now overlook is that the petition text is not about the result but about the need for much more stringent conditions to apply to it which, given the consquences upon UK, EU and elsewhere for generations to come, is hardly unreasonable.Of the approximately 25% of the electorate who did not vote, a considerable number refused to do so because of a belief that the referendum was unnecessary and rather more did so because they considered that its lax terms and conditions made it insufficiently credible, which was indeed the case given the immense gravity of its subject.

I didn't overlook anything. ALL of the conditions should have been thought through beforehand, especially in light of the "immense gravity" of the issue. Just because they weren't doesn't give people the right to go "oh, oops this is serious now. We need a "proper" majority". I think the wrong result has been arrived at, but you simply can't go around retrospectively evading/subverting democratic decisions and still profess that we live in a democracy.

[thalbergmad]

So you think that it's OK to petition for or against nothing, then? Your call, I guess.

Best,

Alistair

The damned thing does not show up properly as it does on facebook.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Here is the petition:

I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?

Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/147101/sponsors/GR9Cb7yTm4NETmMs

My petition:

Re-run the 1975 EEC referendum so hopefully we never joined

To counter the idiocy of the petition to rerun the EU referendum, I propose that we rerun the 1975 referendum so hopefully we would end up never joining and all the hatred and division would vanish.

Being bored with politics and slightly drunk, i believe my petition is no less stupid than the recent one to have a 2nd EU referendum. I have spoken to at least one person who wishes that they voted NO in 1975 and I will use him as a reference if I can ever remember his name. If I can get enough signatures, hopefully any MP's who have yet to resign and who are fed up with pointless bickering and tearing each other to pieces, will consider the above.

[thalbergmad]

This 2nd referendum petition is complete horseshit and will never work. You cannot apply conditions after the event.

If people didnt vote or regret the way they voted, then tough titties. Everyone had the opportunity and more than sufficent time.

If this petition did acheive its purpose then nobody would ever bother voting again in the knowledge that some twonk would disagree with the result, start a petition and annul a mandate from the masses. Obviously, this cannot happen.

A referendum has been held, a majority voted Leave and Leave it must be.

A petition by a Crystal Palace fan to replay the FA Cup final would be less retarded.

Thal

[ahinton]

I didn't overlook anything. ALL of the conditions should have been thought through beforehand, especially in light of the "immense gravity" of the issue. Just because they weren't doesn't give people the right to go "oh, oops this is serious now. We need a "proper" majority". I think the wrong result has been arrived at, but you simply can't go around retrospectively evading/subverting democratic decisions and still profess that we live in a democracy.

I do agree (and indeed have said) that this should have been sorted out earlier and, if not by government itself, then at least petitioned in order that no one could accuse the petitioner of sour grapes. However, given that people were extensively lied to by both sides during the campaign, that the referendum was not necessary in the first place and appears to have been called in the (now vain) hope of patching up cracks in the Conservative party fabric and that some people refused to vote because of the latter and because they felt that its terms and conditions were insufficiently tough for something of this magnitude, its result and what follows already has large holes in it that are compounded by the fact that the result, whatever it might have been, is not legally binding on government in any case.

I also understand that, at the outset, Nicola Sturgeon sought to persuade the Prime Minister that, for the outcome to be acceptable, all four UK countries should favour the same, but he ignored this and probably now wishes that he hadn't.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Here is the petition:

I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?

Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/147101/sponsors/GR9Cb7yTm4NETmMs

My petition:

Re-run the 1975 EEC referendum so hopefully we never joined

To counter the idiocy of the petition to rerun the EU referendum, I propose that we rerun the 1975 referendum so hopefully we would end up never joining and all the hatred and division would vanish.

Being bored with politics and slightly drunk, i believe my petition is no less stupid than the recent one to have a 2nd EU referendum. I have spoken to at least one person who wishes that they voted NO in 1975 and I will use him as a reference if I can ever remember his name. If I can get enough signatures, hopefully any MP's who have yet to resign and who are fed up with pointless bickering and tearing each other to pieces, will consider the above.

Sorry, Thal; that wouldn't work. The 1975 ws not about whether UK should join EU's forerunner but, like the present one, whether or not it should remain a member state!

In any case, I see from the website the following:

"We're checking this petition.

5 people have already supported Michael John Britchfield's petition.

We need to check it meets the petition standards before we publish it.

Please try again in a few days."

I don't know how anyone managed to sign it if it's still being checked for suitability, but that's not really my problem, I guess.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

This 2nd referendum petition is complete horseshit and will never work. You cannot apply conditions after the event.

If people didnt vote or regret the way they voted, then tough titties. Everyone had the opportunity and more than sufficent time.

If this petition did acheive its purpose then nobody would ever bother voting again in the knowledge that some twonk would disagree with the result, start a petition and annul a mandate from the masses. Obviously, this cannot happen.

A referendum has been held, a majority voted Leave and Leave it must be.

Not necessarily; even without a second referendum, the first one's not legally binding on government, so a Brexit is not the inviolable and inescapable outcome.

But let's assume that the Article 50 button does eventually get pressed by someone (albeit holefully not be accident); do you relish the prospect that UK loses two of its four nations and becomes the United Kingdom of England and Wales (that's unless Yorkshire, Cornwall and Herefordshire don't decide to opt for independence therefrom)?

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I do agree (and indeed have said) that this should have been sorted out earlier and, if not by government itself, then at least petitioned in order that no one could accuse the petitioner of sour grapes. However, given that people were extensively lied to by both sides during the campaign, that the referendum was not necessary in the first place and appears to have been called in the (now vain) hope of patching up cracks in the Conservative party fabric and that some people refused to vote because of the latter and because they felt that its terms and conditions were insufficiently tough for something of this magnitude, its result and what follows already has large holes in it that are compounded by the fact that the result, whatever it might have been, is not legally binding on government in any case.

I also understand that, at the outset, Nicola Sturgeon sought to persuade the Prime Minister that, for the outcome to be acceptable, all four UK countries should favour the same, but he ignored this and probably now wishes that he hadn't.

Yes, but the fundamental problem is that these things WEREN'T thought through or examined beforehand. Of course they should have been.

I think the four UK nations argument is exceptionally dangerous. There has been more than enough "Scottish tail wagging the English dog" rhetoric and if applied here I could envisage serious consequences, as I indeed also do if the "will of the people" is denied. I expect civil unrest in certain areas of England, in all honesty, should that happen.

One possible fudge would be to federate the UK and negotiate towards a system where Scotland and the NI remain but England and Wales leave. I'm sure this would be a lengthy and complex process, but it might end up on the table should Westminster wish to avoid another Scottish referendum.

https://abceconomics.com/2015/05/28/brexit2/ and similar articles pertain to a vaguely similar precedent.

[chopinlover01]

And all this time, the Indians are just thinking,
"wait... you can VOTE them out?"

[iansinclair]

Ronde -- I have always like the idea of the UK becoming a federal type of organisation.  For that matter, it might be better if the EU were, also.  The idea does work, after all -- as dysfunctional as the US is these days, a lot of the dysfunction comes from the national government taking power which some, at least, should belong to the several States.  Canada is also a federal system, but it doesn't work as well simply because the upper house -- their Senate -- is not elected; the US one is, and each of the several States has equal representation in it.

For it to work properly, though, the present Lords would have to be rebuilt to be the House which has equal representation of the four Kingdoms, and its members elected on that basis, and would have to have equal power to Commons.  Somehow I don't see that happening...

On the ferries, which we mentioned in passing earlier -- yes, the flap was due to the application of the EU rules for tendering contracts.  However, it turns out on examination that Holyrood could have exempted the ferries from those rules, a fact which was not lost on either Orkney&Shetland or the Western Isles.  Those two districts, at least, have no fondness for Holyrood and its current occupants.

Indeed, in my humble (?) opinion, Holyrood is completely clueless about anything that happens north or west of the Highland line -- and couldn't care less, anyway!

[ahinton]

Yes, but the fundamental problem is that these things WEREN'T thought through or examined beforehand. Of course they should have been.

Indeed so.

I think the four UK nations argument is exceptionally dangerous. There has been more than enough "Scottish tail wagging the English dog" rhetoric and if applied here I could envisage serious consequences, as I indeed also do if the "will of the people" is denied. I expect civil unrest in certain areas of England, in all honesty, should that happen.

I'd expect some whatever happens (although no one yet seems sure what will or should happen).

One possible fudge would be to federate the UK and negotiate towards a system where Scotland and the NI remain but England and Wales leave. I'm sure this would be a lengthy and complex process, but it might end up on the table should Westminster wish to avoid another Scottish referendum.

Not only does there appear to be no obvious appetite for this and it wouldn't work anyway, it is also clear that the Scots - who, after all, have almost no non-SNP MPs (and all parts of Scotland voted to remain in EU) - will almost certainly hold a second referendum to get Scotland out of UK as in all probability will Northern Ireland which will seek to merge with the Republic.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Not necessarily; even without a second referendum, the first one's not legally binding on government, so a Brexit is not the inviolable and inescapable outcome.

A Brexit is the inescapable outcome and a 2nd referendum will not happen. If it did, there would be widespread civil unrest and riots and the UK would cease to be a democracy.

A majority voted to leave. Accept it and move on. If you don't want to be part of the healing and rebuilding process, then it would be best that your move to froggyland is sooner rather than later.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

One possible fudge would be to federate the UK and negotiate towards a system where Scotland and the NI remain but England and Wales leave. I'm sure this would be a lengthy and complex process, but it might end up on the table should Westminster wish to avoid another Scottish referendum.

Not only does there appear to be no obvious appetite for this and it wouldn't work anyway, it is also clear that the Scots - who, after all, have almost no non-SNP MPs (and all parts of Scotland voted to remain in EU) - will almost certainly hold a second referendum to get Scotland out of UK as in all probability will Northern Ireland which will seek to merge with the Republic.

It's early days. I, personally, prefer the referendum option, but I anticipate that someone may float a federation option, or, similarly, full fiscal autonomy for Holyrood. As it happens, the most recent poll put support for Scottish independence at 59%. Whether this will be sustained, we will have to see. The SNP leadership are wanting a significant majority in polls in favour of independence, and I think they are wise to do so. If there is a majority such as the EU referendum has just produced, it is likely to be horrendously divisive.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Indeed, in my humble (?) opinion, Holyrood is completely clueless about anything that happens north or west of the Highland line -- and couldn't care less, anyway!

Orkney, at least, is to some extent on the nationalist radar, though that may be largely to do with the Carmichael affair.

I'm not sure to what extent this is, or isn't, in place, but I would like to see some sort of subsidy grant made to the remote areas. They have traditionally had a poor deal due to geography, with greater costs for things like provisions and petrol.

[thalbergmad]

I'm not sure to what extent this is, or isn't, in place, but I would like to see some sort of subsidy grant made to the remote areas. They have traditionally had a poor deal due to geography, with greater costs for things like provisions and petrol.

The Shetlands seem to be doing OK. I was stunned when I visited that the Yell to Unst car ferry was free and it costs millions per annum to operate. You don't get much more remote than Unst.

Thal

[mjames]

some polarizing views and yet the discussion is so freaking civil. man, PS can be amazing.

[ahinton]

A Brexit is the inescapable outcome and a 2nd referendum will not happen.

We don't know that yet for sure. I accept that it seems unlikely even though almost 3.75m people have signed that petition, but that's not the only route; as I've said, UK referenda (not just this one) are advisory, not mandatory and so, whilst they themselves obviously have a legal basis but their results do not, Parliament has a democratic right to put two fingers up to it should it so choose. Furthermore, many Leavers did not anticipate and still do not want Scotland and Northern Ireland to quite the union, especially as a direct consequnce of the narrowest of margins in their favour in a referendum about UK's continued EU membership, not on which countries should remain within UK.

If it did, there would be widespread civil unrest and riots and the UK would cease to be a democracy.

Why? It's already done something undemocratic. Firstly, a government has no business to launch a petition of UK's EU membership purely in the hope of papering over cracks in its own party among (largely unfounded) fears of possible defections from it to UKIP. Secondly, given the gravity of the subject, the notion of setting a referendum on a 50/50 basis with no minimum turnout is not merely absurd but, whatever its result, it will not reveal a democratically achieved result unless the turnout is very high and the vote count decisive; in this instance, the turnout wasn't bad but the margin was tiny. Thirdly, a 3.8% difference between Remain and Leave when set against the fact that more than 25% of the electorate didn't vote is hardly representative of "the will of the UK populace".

A majority voted to leave.

No. A tiny majority of those who voted did so. 46,499,537 people were entitled to vote but only 33,552,983 did, so the percentage of the electorate that voted Leave was less than 37.5%.

Accept it and move on.

Whilst I accept the figures, I do not do so selectively; a majority of the electorate did NOT vote Leave.

If you don't want to be part of the healing and rebuilding process

When you consider the acrimony that is now developing between UK and EU and the wiening cracks in the Tory party and near-implosion in the Labour party that have all been direct consequences of the referendum - and when you also consider that (a) officialdom in all other EU member states did not want a Leave result and (b) the majority of UK MPs didn't either, any kind of "healing and rebilding process", howver desirable and welcome in itself, looks to be more remote than Unst and Yell; speaking of the building analogy, George Osborne's stuff about mending the roof comes across as risible and fatuous given that this is hardly a prime issue when the foundations of the very building are cracking.

then it would be best that your move to froggyland is sooner rather than later

A move to France (and am unaware that the frog population there is especially greater than in UK, although I do know that it's not possible for them to vote in either) will be scuppered by this, just as ex-pats there and in other EU countries will be adversely affected. The pound has lost around one-third of its value against the Euro beause of this and it would have lost more had it not been the case that the Brexit situation has damaged the value of the Euro and other currencies as well.

As someone who seems very keen to curb migration, how would you feel if a lot Brits who feel no longer able to afford to live in other EU states - especially those dependent upon incomes in sterling - decide that they've no option but to return to UK?

Whilst I voted Remain, I would feel the same about a second referendum had the first one achieved a win for Remain on the same slender margin as it has generated for Leave; it's far less about what I think personally and far more about whether the referendum as designed (and the government that launched it) are fit for democratic purpose.

By the way, any savings that UK might make from no longer having to pay dues to EU will largely be mopped up post-Brexit by the new costs of its remaining in the single market, as Norway and Switzerland know.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

some polarizing views and yet the discussion is so freaking civil

It's mercifully a good deal more civil than the angry, acerbic exchanges full of lies and other misleading content that characterised all to much of the noise generated by the campaign, to say nothing of the even more acrimonious ones now!

By the way - and for Thal's benefit - while you await the outcome of whether your petition is or is not deemed to acceptable, the Parliamentary petition website provides that Parliament will only reject a petition under certain circumstances which include but are not limited to whether it is:

    not clear what you're asking for
    about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for
    confidential, libellous, false or defamatory
    deceptive or misleading
    nonsensical, or a joke
    (see https://petition.parliament.uk/help#standards )

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

a majority of the electorate did NOT vote Leave.

A majority of those that voted did and that is all that is required.

All the grizzling will get you knowhere.

Thal

[visitor]

A majority of those that voted did and that is all that is required.

All the grizzling will get you knowhere.

Thal

As for folks reason to vote, this must.be read and watched/listened to.
its halarious but oh so sad too....



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/confused-girlfriend-hilariously-explains-reasons-8282396

maybe everyone calling for referendum just really want to go to Disney Paris....

[ahinton]

A majority of those that voted did and that is all that is required.

All the grizzling will get you knowhere.

"Knowhere"? No, I don't "know where" you're coming from on this! And I see no grizzly bears anywhere.

You mention "all that is required", but you do not specify for what. The figures are what they are, to be sure, but Parliament, whilst it has to accept them as fact just as we all do, is not obliged by law to act on them because, as has already been said, UK referenda are advisory, not mandatory.

There may indeed be no change to the situation of UK decoupling from EU but there could well be reasons for preventing or vetoing it in the meantime, including but not limited to the following:

1. was it democratic to hold a referendum on so grave a subject on a mere 50/50 basis (i.e. one just one vote in it) and in disregard of turnout?

2. did the various lies, misleadings, speculations paraded as fact and all the rest (mainly though not exclusively by Leave campaigners) - to say nothing of "that" poster - during the campaign help to scupper serious debate and exact undue and unwarranted influence on voters?

3. as most MPs of all parties other than UKIP openly support/ed Remain, will Parliament risk being seen as even more untrustworthy and unfit for purpose as some already see it if it goes ahead with an exit process that this majority of MPs did not and do not support?

4. if the tiny margin in favour of Leave precipitates the withdrawal of Scotland, Northern Ireland and now apparently also possibly Gibraltar from UK and such withdrawals were neither the subject and intention of the referendum nor the wish of a majority of Remainers or Leavers but is instead a practial illustration of the law of unintended consequences, is that democratically acceptable?

5. what consideration should be given to the fact that the official line in all 27 other EU members states favoured Remain?

6. what confidence can the electorate have in a government that launched a referendum unnecessarily and on false and arguably cynical premises but which, now that there's been an unxepected Leave vote, is having to reveal to that electorate that it has not planned for that eventuality?

7. if all else fails - and/or if any of the above might influence Parliament before it makes an irrevocable decision to invoke Article 50 (which, despite the wishes of senior figures at the European Commission, it seems that it is so far very coy indeed about doing) - what's to stop Parliament deciding to veto Brexit?

The answers are:

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. No

5. It certainly should not be ignored if UK wants to preserve good relations with them post-Brexit

6. Bu**er all

7. Nothing in law; only the risk of looking more incompetent and irresponsible than it does already.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/confused-girlfriend-hilariously-explains-reasons-8282396

Well, if Mr Corbyn is indeed deposed as Labour Party leader, they'll not have to go far to find his replacement.

Best,

Alistair

[visitor]

Well, if Mr Corbyn is indeed deposed as Labour Party leader, they'll not have to go far to find his replacement.

Best,

Alistair

whats sad is that she is still better informed about her issues than the instagram addicted masses are of theirs over on this side of pool...heck at least she was passionate about eggs, foot ball and Disney/borders 


any truth to the statistic floating around that post vote results the top/most common google search coming
Out of the UK was "what is the EU"?....saw a few times but didnt know if was true or not.

Over here similar could happen.  If a kardashian says vote for something, itd probably all but come to pass...

[thalbergmad]

I think Hinty should give his fingers a rest.

Thal

[visitor]

I think Hinty should give his fingers a rest.

Thal

ps,
https://fortune.com/2016/06/24/brexit-google-trends/
I suspect it's propaganda though, it people against it putting otu bad press maybe?>

[gep]

Having followed the proceedings in the Untied Kingdom of the past few day from a bit of a distance, let me be impudent enough to offer some (unedited) points (*ahem*)

(Warning: lot of text ahead!)

1)   I don’t know how the rules and procedures in the UK with regard to organising referenda and following up on its outcome are, but I will assume things went according to the rules, and the results FOR Brexit, with 52/48, stand.
2)   But I very much doubt these results mean something like ‘52% wants out, 48% want to remain in’ in black and white. Whilst a considerable number of people may be all-IN or all-OUT, I believe that a part, possibly a (vast) majority have had severe doubts about either staying in and accepting the way the EU is run (at the moment) with all possible doubt and hesitation, or getting out from under the EU’s workings and try going by itself, with all the cons that may have. In short, may have felt they have had to choose between two bad choices, and have been wavering which one was the least bad thing. The 52/48 may thus signify for many the fact that getting out sounded just ever so slightly less bad then remaining in.
3)   It seems clear that such doubts about the functioning of the EU at present are confirmed by the behaviour of the EU government, headed by Hauptmann Juncker, whose reaction that the UK should now leave the EU at the soonest inconvenience, and that the separation need not be smoothed in any way whatsoever (‘for the marriage was never a happy one’)something which says a lot about). Such indicates not just a rather scary disdain for a democratic process in a member country, but also seems to run rather ahead of things, for before any talk can begin about the separation, the UK government first has to formally accept the outcome as decisive (the referendum was consultative, therefor not binding), and then, if they accept the outcome, start the Article 50 procedure. And only then can there be any talk about how things are to proceed. But the initiative lies with the UK, and very much not the EU council, or Juncker, or anyone else in Brussels.
4)   To add to that, one might well ask the question as to why the EU council now goes all bezerk about the processes in the UK, when it presently, and completely against its own rules, is pumping any amount of money into a country that has been lying to the EU for a decade, rather than kicking it out. Bailing out a irreparably corrupt country (correction: making sure some shifty banks, guess who might be shareholders there, who lend the money against impossible interest) with taxpayers money is OK, but a free democratic process is very much not? Such is not exactly building trust in the powers that be, no?
5)   What seems also clear is that politicians in the UK at large, with but a few exceptions, have utterly failed to give any sensible, fact-based account about what would be the benefits of a Brexit, and what the drawbacks. Rather, sides seem to have drawn rather apocalyptical pictures, that the UK would invoke Ragnarök and Armageddon when going out, or drawn empyrean pictures about how the UK would float to Valhalla itself when separated from the stygian mire that is Europe. What they should have done is explain that the UK may be an independent country, but that for its sustenance it is very dependent on its various connections with the EU, ties that have become all the more intricate in all the years it has been part of the EU, and that unravelling them will have possible positive consequences, but also adverse ones.
6)   The UK politicians have failed to give an answer to some very basic questions, and it would appear they failed to give that answer because they haven’t thought about it yet. Such as:
a.   A lot of UK laws are based on EU regulations, which the UK inserted in their juridical system. If the UK bails out, all these laws, all of a sudden, become void. Does the UK fall back on previous (pre-EU) versions of these laws? Does it need to make these laws anew?
b.   There are some 3 million EU citizens in the UK, travelled there without passports because of Schengen. These 3 millions are, suddenly, illegal in the UK. What to do with them?
c.   Likewise, there are 1,2 million UK citizens living within the EU; they are suddenly illegal too; what to do with them?
d.   Trade. All agreements about buying, selling and traffic are off. The UK will need to negotiate new ones, while all benefits (such as subsidies for farmers) are gone, and with the Russian ‘blockade’, trade within the EU and without the UK isn’t all that booming at the moment, so not getting any farm goods from the UK on the EU market might be a boost for the EU market. But not for the UK market, which will implode.
e.   The Pound will devaluate considerably (it already has), which will mean it will be far more expensive for the UK to buy from the EU, which it will not be able to avoid. This may lead to a cascade in which the UK will have an increasingly worthless coin to buy increasingly expensive stuff from the EU. In other words, a skyrocketing inflation.
f.   The EU members will have a considerable diminished interest in letting the UK partake in any deciding developments with regard to the future course of the EU. With the UK needing the EU (with all its deficiencies) far more than the EU needing the UK, the UK will start to drift behind, with little or no influence on matters.
7)   The UK leaders, especially the ones campaigning in favour of the Brexit now all of a sudden seem to be running away from the responsibility they hold. The behaviour of Boris Johnson may be a showcase in this. After vigorously campaigning for the Brexit, it seems that he now has been scared to death by the result. For not only was his first speech after the results came in to be one of someone who is trying to crawl back and pretty much undo the result (‘we have no haste’), but after that he vanished. It seems he has been mainly campaigning with the intention of presenting himself as a ‘Brit for the Brittish’ without ever thinking he might get 52% of the voters, but rather was certain the UK would vote ‘remain’, and then use that ‘buy Brittish’ image in the next elections to play the populace. Now, all of a sudden, he has to take up what he helped engender. A bit like a priest leading a, rather overheated, praying session invoking the answer of the Lord, and then suddenly sees the roof being ripped off by a might hand and hearing “All RIGHT THEN, YOU HORRIBLE LITTLE TWURP, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?”
   Neither political side seem to have made any plans whatsoever about what was to happen when the vote would be ‘out’. No ideas as to what is to be done, let alone how, let alone how with the least bit of damage. This means the EU will be in the lead, to the considerable deficit and damage of the UK. More precisely, to the people living in the UK, who will pay a hefty price.
9)   The difference between Scotland and England has been set more pronounced, and the UK may come to face the decision whether it is one country, or just a, rather loose, alliance of two different ones. If it finds itself to be two rather than ine, yet another separation, with all its costs may be in the making. If Scotland does split off, and rejoins the EU, England will find itself isolated even more, and this time even deeper, for the closer partners have been before, the more alienated they will be after.
10)   However, perhaps, even if the UK leaves the EU, the very fact that the sentiments (or rather; doubts about and resentments against the EU that are very much and increasingly churning in the EU about the EU, especially in countries – not least my own -  that operate above the political/social/financial mean gross average of the EU, which in some respects is pretty mean and gross) have come so very undeniably into focus, may come to make that the EU takes note and changes course. The EU was once started with idea of increased cooperation between various states within Europe, to the betterment and benefit of its people living within these member states. But rather than advancing along that course, and letting new members states in when these candidates had reached the level needed to enter on the same level as the existing members, it has become the hostage of an utterly unrealistic attempt to force at the greatest speed possible all countries within Europe, especially those within the former Eastern Bloc, without checking if these countries were ‘fit’ to enter. A forced multiple marriage of convenience, rather than any sensible arrangement. With all negative repercussions to follow; it’s not the first time someone has tried to force Europe into one (the last attempt was sometime last century), but such attempts have not only never been successful, but rather have driven countries away from each other. Rifts taking decades if not centuries to close again.

As to the Brexit enthusiasts, let me state clearly that I have any amount of doubts as to how the EU is currently run, and increasingly so. But I fear the UK has more to lose from a Brexit than to gain. The UK getting out of the EU may well mean it is burning its ships behind it, which is never wise, but certainly not when you live upon an island. And I do wonder how many Brexit-voters will come to regret their vote, once they learn what the price is they will have to pay, once the British Pound will be reduced to the English Ounce. I wish them well!....


(I note they're pushing againt my country. Oh well, wouldn't be the first time. But do note England once had a Dutch king, but The Netherlands never an English queen!)

All best,
gep

[mjames]

ps,
https://fortune.com/2016/06/24/brexit-google-trends/
I suspect it's propaganda though, it people against it putting otu bad press maybe?>

It's google's stats lol, look at it yourself:

https://www.google.com/trends/

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=what+is+eu&geo=GB

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=what%20is%20eu&geo=GB&date=now%207-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

You can clearly see that in the UK alone, "what is EU" SKYROCKETED after the referendum LOL.

[visitor]

It's google's stats lol, look at it yourself:

https://www.google.com/trends/

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=what+is+eu&geo=GB

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=what%20is%20eu&geo=GB&date=now%207-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

You can clearly see that in the UK alone, "what is EU" SKYROCKETED after the referendum LOL.

lies. Google lies!
lol

[ahinton]

It is good to read a pragmatic and thoughtful review of the current situation from a semi-outsider - by which I mean someone from outside UK but inside EU. I refer here, of course, to gep's post above, which makes a great deal of sense indeed.

It is perhaps inevitable that most comment will be about the situation that now pertains and the way forward therefrom (whatever that might be - and no one yet seems to be certain) from the UK standpoint; after all, UK triggered the referendum, UK then campaigned for it, UK held it, UK citizens voted in it and UK published the result and now has to figure out where to go from here and, whilst it has a number of possible options, it is being pressurised by Brussels to get on with the exit procedures as rapidly as possible, which merely adds to the inconvenience. However, this entire business needs also to be perceived from the other EU member states' citizens' standpoint; it takes two to make an argument, it takes two to make a marriage, it takes two to make a divorce (and, yes, it takes two to tango, but with Gibraltar possibly leaving UK, let's not muddy the waters by introducing the idea of Argentina's accession to UK, even if that might end the long running and still sour dispute over the Falklands / Malvinas). In this instance, the possible severance of many conections between UK and EU that a Brexit would likely bring about must be seen from both sides - by which I don't just mean the Remainers and the Leavers in UK but by UK as a whole and EU as a whole.

Anyone who prefers to consider the current situation solely from the UK standpoint is not only being unwarrantably and unforgivably narrow-minded but also ignorant of what a possible Brexit is about and upon whom its consequences will impact. It should be remembered that the leaders of all 27 other EU member states favoured UK remaining within EU; this can hardly be ignored. Whilst there is mercifully no sign as yet that any other EU member states might consider trying to follow UK's example, it is perhaps inevitable that fears of this might yet surface and only serve further to destabilise the entire EU (including UK which, whatever happens from now, will remain one of its member states for a couple of years or more).

It is now some four days since voting in the referendum ended. Whatever anyone's view of the wholly unnecessary calling of that referendum, the campaign that followed and its often shoddy conduct, the voting that followed the campaign, the result that followed the voting and all the rest, what is beyond argument is that the real result - i.e. the overall outcome not just of the vote itself but in more general terms for both UK and the rest of EU - is the creation of vastly greater political, economic and other instabilities and uncertainties throughout the 28 EU member states than pertained before Mr Cameron set sail on this voyage in a Titanic of his own manufacture, carrying the half billion or so passangers of the 28 EU member states with him. I mention this because of the nautical references in his resignation speech which sounded to me utterly fatuous in that his nonsense about being willing to steer the ship until he steps down but not captain it took no accont of the fact that said ship is now sinking, or that he is largely responsible for failure to ensure its seaworthiness before embarkation (likewise, George Osborne's remark about "fixing the roof" seems risible given that this is a rather stupidly pointless thing to do when the very foundations of the building are crumbling).

The financial damage done over the past four days is alone immense. Over $2tn wiped of international markets, not just UK ones. Substantial decreases in the value not only of the pound but also of the US, Canadian and Australian dollars, the Euro and others. Whilst currencies might recover some of their losses over time (although they might not), the effect upon global markets will likely last for a very long time even though it's taken but a few hours to make its presence felt; this will inevitably come to impact upon international trade, employment prospects and the rest not only in UK, not only in EU but across large parts of the entire world. Whilst it might have sounded like a hyperbolic exaggeration at the time, French Président Hollande's warning that what has now happened will affect the entire planet embraces far too much truth for it to be ignored.

For UK to have launched and seen through a referendum for which there remains scant evidence of UK public demand only to find, following its far from conclusive and painfully close result, that the political machinery that set it all in motion did not anticipate a Leave majority and therefore the machine operatives have no plans as to what to do now in the event of it makes what was already a parlous situation infinitely worse. The prospect that it might result in Scotland and Gibraltar (a small but strategically important area) quitting UK and Northern Ireland joining the Irish Republic will be but one of the laws of unintended consequences in action for all to witness; after all, such internal severances were never the intended outcome of the referendum which was in reality about another severance altogether (i.e. UK from EU).

Healing process? Moving on? Can anyone seriously see the slightest evidence of either possibility in a haplessly and unnecessarily manufactured climate wherein so much international havoc has been wreaked, no one seems to know what to do next or how and when to do it and ever-increasing instability and uncertainty are the order of the day?

Something will have to give somewhere at some point but, at the moment, it is clear that what UK has done above all else is to create unprecedented, unfathomable and seemingly inescapable turmoil for almost all. That despite doing so it remains a great country (or group of countries) is all too ironically evident from the fact that so tiny an island nation with less than 1% of the world's population can cause so much international disarray in so short a time; au contraire, that it seems entirely uncertain as to what to do next, however, raises an inevitable question about that greatness.

What an unseemly mess! - and all of UK's devising; it should be ashamed of itself. Perhaps it is, but that's not going to help anyone now.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Worse than all of that crap, we got beaten by Iceland.

Now, that is proper devastation.

Thak

[ahinton]

Worse than all of that crap, we got beaten by Iceland.

Now, that is proper devastation.

Thak

Thak for reminding us.

There has indeed been stack of cr*p surrounding the referendum and its outcome and it's only been added to this morning by the Farage braying as he has done to his European colleagues, displaying his customarily tiresome bully-boy tactics and sounding more like an English pub bore than ever.

Actually, although I don't follow football at all, I responded this morning to a German friend's question as to whether the England team lost because it got itself distracted ay all that's going on by mentioning that some radio commentators have this morning compared the referendum débâcle to the football match issue and noted that England managed to make its own exit without a referendum, without arguments, acrimony and misleading and with only the handful of people in the team effecting it rather than millions of people, adding that it looks as though the football community might have rather better ideas about how to get England to exit something than does the UK government!

At least now the UK's the laughing-stock of Europe not only for giving the impression of having lost as an EU member state but also at football to Iceland which hopes one day to become a member state!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I think Hinty should give his fingers a rest.

I know Faragy should give his entire self a rest (and the rest of us a rest from him).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Stop having a go at Nigel. He has been campaigning to leave the EU for years and deserves some credit for helping us to separate ourselves from these burdensome idiots.

As I said to one of my left wing twat friends yesterday. If you want a real racist in politics, look no further than Diane Abbot.

Thal

[ahinton]

Stop having a go at Nigel. He has been campaigning to leave the EU for years and deserves some credit for helping us to separate ourselves from these burdensome idiots.

I am not - and indeed do not need to - "have a go" at Mr Farage; he's far too good at doing that for himself. He's not the only person who's sought to campaign for UK to leave EU, but I doubt that many who did so over that time would have predicted - or even wanted - the departure of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar as corollary result of a referendum on it; moreover, given that this referendum was run beuase Mr Cameron feared (without good reason) the rise of and defections to UKIP rather than because he wanted the UK electorate to gie serious thought to UK's continued EU membership and then have an opportunity to vote on it, the entire exercise reveals itself to be utterly shambolic is deserves to be universally discredited.

Changing all relevant UK laws will itself require many years of work; who will pay for that and everything else that has to be done if Brexit pertains?

Best,

Alistair

[visitor]

i was thinking, for all the arguing the 'losing side' is making w/ a wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth like their world will end.

England has been around A LONG TIME, way before the EU, hundreds of years they and they built one of the greatest empires in the not too distant past. Heck even more than 300 years ago, there was still something like 800 years of history.

I hardly think the short amount of time they were w/ the EU was critical, it seems like was little more than a 'blip' in her long and evolving history and story.  

I think the speculative nature of a lot of the arguing i've read on elsewhere on the interwebs seems to conveniently ignore the fact that England can be fine and strong, and thrive (not just survive) quite fine on her own. there's a track record there, an it sort of sells the British a bit short of their potential too see a "need'' to be a part of some larger union.

again i'm not part of the discussion as i don't live there, didn't vote, etc. but from a purely observational standpoint the evidence is overwhelming in supporting the argument that England has done a pretty fine job and gotten through worse (MUCH WORSE....) in the past on her own, or  am I missing something?