Merged Now What?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It was never "any old petition." Petitions on the likes of Change and 38Degrees are essentially worthless. Petitions on Parliament's own website cannot be so easily ignored.

Oh they can though. Because they don't actually compel anyone to do anything other than acknowledge that they happened. Hell even the actual referendum didn't actually compel the government to do anything legally.

Was listening to some **** of a Tory MP parroting some of the Leave lies; "half of our laws come from the EU with no say for us", "all this money that will come back from Europe", "of course we'll have the right to travel, live, work and study in Europe, we'll control their access to the UK", "net migration in the tens of thousands"* and wondering who that colossal tool was.

Turns out that it was my local MP (and colossal tool) David Davies - who interestingly claimed to be a small businessman, my understanding was that he was "encouraged" to leave the family firm because he wasn't up to running it.


* - in the event that freedom of movement is lost then it's likely that there will be a period (possibly brief) when net migration drops significantly as the most mobile EU workers leave the UK and large numbers of UK citizens return to the UK

Is colossal tool a euphemism for a massive count?

Sorry, but: 1) I'm American. and 2) there are perfectly valid issues of economic and national sovereignty that need discussing that are in no way "racist" that from what I have read motivated many "Leave" voters.

The really sad thing is that those same voters have been nose-led by the REAL forces behind leave: Big Business interests who wanted to be shut of worker rights and wage standards imposed by the EU.

Well 1) Probably means that you are disconnected from what was being said on the ground in this campaign and 2) may well be true but I bet you that most of the Leave voters couldn't actually explain to you what they were beyond 'We don't want the Germans telling us what to do' and doesn't change the fact that the majority of the campaign was run on the grounds of immigration.

I think the sentiment of the petition is valid, whatever the way the result had gone. If it have been 51.9% for Reamin, I doubt the Brexiters would have caved in and shut up, do you?

I don't think the sentiment of the petition even is particularly valid but the fact that it's being used as a tool to try to change the rules AFTER the result means it's completely and utterly invalid now.

I'm sure the Brexiters wouldn't have shut up but I doubt they would have argued that it was close enough so let's exit anyway. I've been through all of this exact stuff 2 years ago and its amazing the similarities. People are emotionally invested in a decision and are looking for a way out but in time things will have to focus on what are the next legitimate steps that can actually be taken rather than howling for things that aren't going to happen.

Even in Scotland where I think people have a legitimate reason to claim they didn't even vote for the damn thing I think people are soon going to come to the realisation that we will be exiting the EU.

 

[LondonJohn]

IMO Boris' vision of Brexit is very different to Nigel Farage's.

Even within the Conservative Party Brexiters there seems to be quite a spectrum of views. My local MP David Davies seems to be more towards the UKIP end of that spectrum.

As an aside, there's a (apparently true) story about a newspaper (can't remember which one) that confused the two Tory MPs David Davis and David Davies, and mis-captioned a photo of Davies as "David Davis". Someone noticed the mis-attribution, and contacted the paper to say that there should be an "e" in this particular David's surname. The next edition went out with the photo captioned "David Daves"

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

At least in the case of a Remain win, the post vote picture was reasonably clear. My problem is that I have no idea what the UK Brexit plan is aiming for - much less what they'll actually be able to negotiate.

If it turns out that we're "doing a Norway" then I'll be mildly annoyed about all the money, time and stress associated with such a minimal change but otherwise not unduly upset. Sure we'll lose our ability to influence and vote on EU legislation but at least we won't be out in the cold.

OTOH if we're going full nuclear, shut the borders, send the ***** home then that's a different matter.

It's disconcerting that Brexeters had no idea what they were actually voting for.

In this is another reason why a referendum is never going to actually to be all that satisfactory. I don't believe for a second that 'doing a Norway' is what people had in mind when they voted leave, or maybe it was but a lot of people didn't actually know what doing a Norway meant (people seemed convinced that Norway got access to the market without paying into the EU, having to follow EU law or allow movement of people).

The Indyref had some similar issues but not quite as extreme.

The referendum should have spelled out what the 'out' option on the table actually was and until that existed there really shouldn't have been one held. That the Government and opposition united failed to beat a campaign that didn't even know what it was in favour of speaks volumes for their ineptitude.

 

[Francesca R]

Well since it wasn't really possible to spell out the out option, the ballot papers should have said "Remain" and "Great flying leap into the dark unknown"

 

[LondonJohn]

In this is another reason why a referendum is never going to actually to be all that satisfactory. I don't believe for a second that 'doing a Norway' is what people had in mind when they voted leave, or maybe it was but a lot of people didn't actually know what doing a Norway meant (people seemed convinced that Norway got access to the market without paying into the EU, having to follow EU law or allow movement of people).

The Indyref had some similar issues but not quite as extreme.

The referendum should have spelled out what the 'out' option on the table actually was and until that existed there really shouldn't have been one held. That the Government and opposition united failed to beat a campaign that didn't even know what it was in favour of speaks volumes for their ineptitude.

Well perhaps, but unfortunately a platform with mantras such as "take back control", "make the UK proud and tall again in the World", "stop this uncontrolled immigration" and "don't trust the main political party policies because they're part of the problem anyhow, and are already too beholden to Brussels" can appeal very persuasively to enormous numbers of uneducated and semi-educated people - especially English people in C2DE groups. And - paradoxically - the very fact that all the main political parties (except UKIP, obviously) had an official policy of "Remain" probably served to hurt the "Remain" vote, as the "Leave" camp could credibly present themselves as "standing up to the political establishment and elite" (even with Johnson and Gove spearheading their campaign!).

 

[LondonJohn]

Well since it wasn't really possible to spell out the out option, the ballot papers should have said "Remain" and "Great flying leap into the dark unknown"

I've actually heard Bregretters saying that part of the reason they thought "Leave" would be fine was that the 1960s - before the UK joined the EEC/EU - was a fun decade of growing prosperity, so that was pretty much what life would be like in the UK post-Brexit. Which further serves to illustrate just how ill-informed and ignorant some (many) of the "Leave" voters were/are.

 

[Tolls]

I don't think the sentiment of the petition even is particularly valid but the fact that it's being used as a tool to try to change the rules AFTER the result means it's completely and utterly invalid now.

Mrs Tolls wants this to succeed, and considers me a grumpy sod for pointing out exactly what you are saying. The referendum was clear (though see below). It was in or out. That people got confused by that can't be placed at the feet of the wording of the referendum itself, which was pretty clear. The only people to blame are either themselves for not understanding what it meant, or the people pushing Leave...who they will have to (probably) wait some 4 years to punish at the polls, by which time I expect they'll have forgotten.

The referendum should have spelled out what the 'out' option on the table actually was and until that existed there really shouldn't have been one held. That the Government and opposition united failed to beat a campaign that didn't even know what it was in favour of speaks volumes for their ineptitude.

But this was precisely why they could do what they did. Because there was no overall vision for Leave it could be all things to all people. Not that Remain didn't have a fairly lacklustre campaign, but they were up against magic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well since it wasn't really possible to spell out the out option, the ballot papers should have said "Remain" and "Great flying leap into the dark unknown"

Well then David Cameron shouldn't have gone to the people with a choice that he couldn't actually define and then let any old Tom Dick or Harry sell the people a pig in a poke.

In Scotland the SNP spelled out what they wanted quite clearly whether you agreed with it or whether it could even be achieved. They wanted to keep the pound, the Queen, etc.

It was beyond the wit of man for Leave to have defined that they would seek a Norway option if that was the plan or a complete withdrawal if that was the plan.

That there wasn't one was a complete abdication of responsibility from DC and his only 'excuse' is that he didn't for a second think they'd actually win.

Well perhaps, but unfortunately a platform with mantras such as "take back control", "make the UK proud and tall again in the World", "stop this uncontrolled immigration" and "don't trust the main political party policies because they're part of the problem anyhow, and are already too beholden to Brussels" can appeal very persuasively to enormous numbers of uneducated and semi-educated people - especially English people in C2DE groups. And - paradoxically - the very fact that all the main political parties (except UKIP, obviously) had an official policy of "Remain" probably served to hurt the "Remain" vote, as the "Leave" camp could credibly present themselves as "standing up to the political establishment and elite" (even with Johnson and Gove spearheading their campaign!).

If DC was a bit sharper he could have had a multi-option referendum with Stay, Norway Option, Complete Withdrawal as the options and split the Leave vote. He's played rather fast and loose with the future of the country to solve an internal party issue that wasn't even that huge a problem.

Mrs Tolls wants this to succeed, and considers me a grumpy sod for pointing out exactly what you are saying. The referendum was clear (though see below). It was in or out. That people got confused by that can't be placed at the feet of the wording of the referendum itself, which was pretty clear. The only people to blame are either themselves for not understanding what it meant, or the people pushing Leave...who they will have to (probably) wait some 4 years to punish at the polls, by which time I expect they'll have forgotten.

But this was precisely why they could do what they did. Because there was no overall vision for Leave it could be all things to all people. Not that Remain didn't have a fairly lacklustre campaign, but they were up against magic.

Exactly. But it was DC not the leave campaign that chose the battleground so it was a bit daft of him to position his armies in the low ground, holding sausages instead of swords.

 

[Francesca R]

Well then David Cameron shouldn't have gone to the people with a choice that he couldn't actually define and then let any old Tom Dick or Harry sell the people a pig in a poke.

In Scotland the SNP spelled out what they wanted quite clearly whether you agreed with it or whether it could even be achieved. They wanted to keep the pound, the Queen, etc.

Well yes I agree, I have argued that Cameron did not need to call the referendum and it was a large error to do so (although I was on one of my semi regular forum breaks the six months before last week so I was not arguing that here in the 4 month period after it was actually called.)

Never said that the SNP was mistaken to call the IndyRef in 2014.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'd contend (as I did upthread or on the other earlier thread) that a significant proportion of Brexiters had a, shall we say, less than full understanding of the issues and the implications of voting to leave. I have no doubt that at least a significant minority of "Leave" voters were well-informed and took a reasoned decision (albeit, in my opinion, the wrong one).

And I also have no doubt that a sizeable proportion (maybe even a majority) of "Remain" voters had a less than full understanding of the issues and implications. But IMO 1) this proportion of the total "Remain" constituency was less than the proportion of under-informed in the "Leave" constituency, and 2) the implications were obviously vastly more profound in a "Leave" outcome than in a "Remain" outcome (and the "Remain" issues were easier to conceptualise and understand, since they were the prevailing situation).

So I conclude that it was, in the end, the under-informed element of the "Leave" voters who swung this referendum into an overall "Leave" majority. And that's unfortunate, to say the least - especially as evidence continues to mount that significant numbers of Brexiters now say they didn't realise what leaving really meant and implied, and/or that they didn't really think "Leave" would ever win anyhow, and/or that they now regret voting "Leave".

I tend to agree.

People are emotionally invested in a decision and are looking for a way out but in time things will have to focus on what are the next legitimate steps that can actually be taken rather than howling for things that aren't going to happen.

Given the other quoted comment, I see no reason to bully on bravely or accept anything at all as inevitable. IMO Brexit is a horrible mistake, but perhaps this result will do two things: wake the EU up to a profound need to reform, and the UK will be more comfortable in future having had a rethink and deciding to ultimately remain in an improving EU.

How to remain? There is the possibility during negotiations of allowing that one was mistaken. This can be done over time in a piecemeal fashion that lets the public come to the same conclusion, i.e., that getting a deal would require almost the same conditions as before, so "let's retain a vote and voice of our own and remain." I can see a government/party campaigning for a Parliamentary vote that would be binding, using some face-saving measure regarding some advance over past EU conditions in some form, and then the UK informing the EU it intends to stay, before two years' time.

The UK needs a statesman to arise, not these demagogues. In spite of my early snarky remarks immediately following the vote, I am increasingly of the mind that such a man or woman will indeed be found, and the UK will again occupy the leadership role the rest of the world had come to trust it with. Steady as she goes, my hearties, Britain will be the right kind of Great again. It's in your historical DNA, so chin up and stop the whingeing.

If I were British, I'd be sniffing around W. Sussex to Oxfordshire for someone with the pluck of an Alfred and the vision/snake oil of a Winston. Or just follow Alfred the Great's advice:

What I set out to do was to virtuously and justly administer the authority given to me,
and to do it with wisdom, for without wisdom, nothing is worthwhile.

It's always been my desire to live honorably, and to leave my descendants my memory in good works.
For each man, according to the measure of his intelligence, must speak what he can speak, and do what he can do.
​

 

[asydhouse]

They voted to leave the EU. That much is clear. I don't like the result but that's the result we got.



So another vote for no default. 3-0 now. Then some more assertion about how it really is one with no supporting evidence.



Yes imagine. Who decides who is on the hook for how much of the debt? Not the gf. She doesn't get to say, hey that loan I took out in my name you need to pay half of it. And if she does the bf can say 'why? I'm not going to' and the only person the loan company will ever pursue for the debt is the gf. If the bf applies for a mortgage they aren't going say 'hey but you didn't keep paying off your gf's loan after you split up so your credit rating is bad'

That's why it's important to consider what the FACTS are and not how you might like the world to be or what you think should happen or how you might like it to play out in your fantasy where the bf gets his comeuppance. The courts and the law are the relevant things.

Now if someone, anyone, wants to explain how the Scotland default scenario plays out through the law I'm all ears. Because the ONLY way it happens is if rUK agree to it or if some third party determines its 'fair'.



Were we having a sensible conversation? Sorry I couldn't hear it over some woman repeatedly shouting 'default'. You might have to speak up a bit.



The petition is not even ridiculous its worse than that. The idea that a nonsense e-petition supported by even a few million signatures trumps a formal referendum where 75% of the electorate voted is stupid and undemocratic. Why have the referendum at all? Just have a poll on Twitter.

You don't like the result. I know. But it is the result. I don't like it either. I think the people who voted that way are idiots or worse. But we had this after the Indyref too. The result is in. It's not going to change. It shouldn't change.

Changing the rules after the vote would be ridiculous and anti-democratic. If you want Britain to be in the EU then you need to start campaigning to rejoin at the first opportunity after the next election.

"I regard this petition on the government's own website as an automatic second referendum" is one of the stupidest things I have seen to date on this site and there's plenty competition for that accolade.

Gee thanks. I happen to think anyone who just rolls over and accepts this result, given the reasons I said above, is an idiot. You are complacent, and wrong.

The referendum is not an example of healthy democracy, and it should be called out as such.

 

[LondonJohn]

Germany, France and Italy have just announced that they will not accept any informal unwinding of the UK's position in the EU - they will insist that Art50 is invoked before any negotiations at all will commence.

This could get interesting.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well yes I agree, I have argued that Cameron did not need to call the referendum and it was a large error to do so (although I was on one of my semi regular forum breaks the six months before last week so I was not arguing that here in the 4 month period after it was actually called.)

Never said that the SNP was mistaken to call the IndyRef in 2014.

No, I know. I was just comparing the two situations. It was not within the power of the SNP to say 'we will definitely keep the £' but they were still able to say 'that's our option'. It was not within the power of Leave to guarantee that the EU would agree to whatever they proposed but that doesn't stop them outlining what they wanted to achieve.

I thought your response was getting at the fact that Leave couldn't spell out their plan because they couldn't be sure the EU would buy it. Apologies if that wasn't your meaning.

Gee thanks. I happen to think anyone who just rolls over and accepts this result, given the reasons I said above, is an idiot. You are complacent, and wrong.

The referendum is not an example of healthy democracy, and it should be called out as such.

So what's the opposite to rolling over and accepting a referendum result? Denying it because it didn't give you the result you want? Not one remain voice that I heard said the vote was anything other than legitimate until Friday morning.

But your point which I responded to was utter nonsense. Even if it was 5m voting on the petition or 10m or 20m it still wouldn't be another referendum. That happened last week. We got a result. We got a ****** result that was driven by lies and stupidity. I'm 2/2 in that regard now.

Trying to retrospectively change the result isn't healthy democracy either.

The real irony is I'm willing to bet there's more than a few signing that petition now who didn't even bother voting on Thursday.

 

[Craig B]

Germany, France and Italy have just announced that they will not accept any informal unwinding of the UK's position in the EU - they will insist that Art50 is invoked before any negotiations at all will commence.

This could get interesting.

Yes it may well do. The BBC news report is here.

ETA More bizarre news. Gibraltar in talks with Scotland to stay in the EU! If Scotland becomes independent, will Gib join her? Sounds like fun. Unfortunately (or perhaps very fortunately) there's not much else of the Empire left for Scotland to adopt.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Germany, France and Italy have just announced that they will not accept any informal unwinding of the UK's position in the EU - they will insist that Art50 is invoked before any negotiations at all will commence.

This could get interesting.

Is that the governments or the EU representatives. I don't believe that there won't be discussions between governments regardless of Art50. Of course, they also have to stick to an official line with regards protocol and procedure.

It certainly could become an interesting game of chicken if they stick to their guns though.

 

[Francesca R]

If anyone is caught talking about it will they get sent to the back of the room and have to stay in over lunchtime?

 

[ceptimus]

Germany, France and Italy have just announced that they will not accept any informal unwinding of the UK's position in the EU - they will insist that Art50 is invoked before any negotiations at all will commence.

This could get interesting.

I think that's fair enough. The delay in invoking A50 should not be so that we can have informal negotiations prior - rather it is to allow for the election of a new PM and to give both sides time to decide what their opening negotiating position will be.

 

[Jules Galen]

The UK Doesn't have the Guts to leave the EU!

The UK knows that without the EU they are nothing but an inconsequential island - a has-been empire chocked full of Delusions of Grandeur. For this reason, the UK will never leave the EU.

I'm getting so tired of the leaving talk...this Brexit. Well, I say Screw 'em and tell then to booger off. The EU would be just fine without the UK: in fact, it would be even better off.

Hey Brits...ARTICLE 50 Awaits....DO IT! Or STFU and quit your Whining!!!

 

[catsmate]

For big, largely irreversible decisions, I agree. I've often thought that a "Supermajority or Best-of-Three" strategy would work.

1. Have an election. If either option gets a supermajority, then that's the only election. If no Supermajority, have a second election a year or two later.

2. If the second election chooses the same option as the first, then go with it, even if both elections were close. If it gets different results, have a third election a year or two later.

3. Assuming it has gone on this long, the winner of the third election gets selected.

The idea is to make sure that the decision made reflects the settled opinion of the electorate, not the short term emotional response to a single election campaign.

This would be different than selecting for political office. After all, electing candidate "a" does not mean that candidate "b" would need to jump through a decade's worth of bureaucracy just to run for office again. However, leaving the EU would certainly commit the UK to a long re-application process should the UK ever decide that leaving was the wrong thing to do.

And in the meantime, uncertainty, worry and doubt.

Pah!
Experts!
We don't need no stinkin' experts!

I've noticed.

 

[Francesca R]

"We do not negotiate with Brexits that haven't pulled a fifty"