Merged Now What?

[GnaGnaMan]

This is in line with the actions of Germany, France and Italy when they ruled out any talks until UK invokes A50. They basically told the UK to cement their fate first and then we'll talk about making it less foreboding. If they wanted UK out they would immediately start informal talks to make the transition smoother and easier for the UK.

I'm not seeing it. If they wanted the UK to stay they would delay to calm things down. Then they would offer only the most ruinous terms and give the UK a chance to back down.

What they are demanding now is that the UK make the decision irreversible without giving it any time to back-pedal. That makes no sense if they didn't wan the UK out ASAP.

Of course, they don't actually want the UK out, as they said prior to the referendum. What they now want is certainty and taking away the UK's ability to play games.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not seeing it. If they wanted the UK to stay they would delay to calm things down. Then they would offer only the most ruinous terms and give the UK a chance to back down.

The EU would have no power to do this because nothing has happened with any legal binding. If Parliament chose to ignore the referendum, for example, after the EU waited for the UK to calm down then that would be the end of it, at least in terms of rights and obligations to the EU. The UK would not have to renegotiate any terms.

 

[kevsta]

I'm not seeing it. If they wanted the UK to stay they would delay to calm things down. Then they would offer only the most ruinous terms and give the UK a chance to back down.

What they are demanding now is that the UK make the decision irreversible without giving it any time to back-pedal. That makes no sense if they didn't wan the UK out ASAP.

bluff and talking hardball.

Of course, they don't actually want the UK out, as they said prior to the referendum. What they now want is certainty and taking away the UK's ability to play games.

Exactly, no they don't, and while they will all talk big in public, there will be frantic brainstorming in private and a far more pragmatic approach taken, (ala Merkel) over time.

never forget:

when it gets serious, you HAVE to LIE..

and so paying attention primarily to what they say is always bit naive, rather pay attention to what they DO.

this is the most anti-democratic of establishments, who give not a flying **** about the Plebs opinions yesterday we had Schulz admitting:

If anyone needs another confirmation that the European Union is fundamentally the most anti-democratic entity currently in existence, then the following statement by European Parliament Martin Schultz should put all confusion to rest.

Schulz: "The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate".

and at the same time revealing the next stage of the grand plan

It appears The Brits may have dodged more than a bullet in their decision to leave The EU.

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are reportedly due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an "ultimatum."

As The Express reports, the shockingly predictable final solution to Europe's Brexit-driven existential crisis is an apparently long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one giant superstate.

The radical proposals mean EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels. According to the Daily Express, the nine-page report has "outraged" some EU leaders.

I do not expect article 50 to ever get invoked.

 

[Craig B]

I'm happy for us to give them Norfolk Island if they want it.

Here's something I didn't know about Australian referendums. From the Guardian.

In Australia, for example, a referendum proposal must pass in each of the six states (this would defeat Brexit, which failed in Scotland and Northern Ireland).​

The sovereign will of the people is measured differently in different countries.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There you go........we're financially better off out of the single market, n'est-ce pas?

Is that a joke? Hard to tell but you're not that stupid. Are you?

What I am not understanding is why the EU want a quick move to article 50? Since the process will take at least 2 years, there will be continued uncertainty for 2 years. If they want some certainty the they could agree some draft negotiations agree the shape of things and leave article 50 negotiations to the details. It strikes me there is an element of cutting off one's nose to spite your face. EU refusing to talk is creating more uncertainty. Talk about punishing UK will only make markets more nervous. An adult and calming and reassuring approach would be to say that we will enter negotiations to achieve the best outcome for everyone and start discussing the process and structure so formal negotiations can proceed rapidly and smoothly. Otherwise the beginning of the article 50 negotiations will be negotiating about the negotiations.

The EU seem to want the UK to commit to what it has said it will do rather than fanny about. Poop or get off the pot. Quite understandable really.

If the Exit becomes a Norway option its possible it would be wrapped up in time to spoil Christmas. If it becomes a complete exit with no agreement on trade (and apparently a trade deal may have to be negotiate separately anyway) then the same.

Only if they are negotiating a special case for the UK would we worry about the 2 years I think and if that's going to take 2 years of uncertainty and doubt then better start that now than wait a year and make it 3 years of FUD.

All this talk about "will of the people" and whatnot is nonsense. The margin of victory was paper thin, and it was known within 24 hours of the polls closing that a good deal of this "will of the people" was based on a pack of lies. It's doubtful they could win another referendum if it was held. So much about "will of the people".

Same stuff we heard after Indyref by people who didn't like the result but nonetheless the result stands

That's not quite what he said. He said he would remain for a brief time to "steady the ship" and gave no precise timeline for his resignation. October is the Tory Conference, and he says he wants a new leader in place by then. In other words, he may only be in power as long as it takes for a leadership contest to be held.

I heard a senior Tory (was it IDS? I forget) saying the other day that the leadership contest should only really START at the conference and no appointment until later.

Okay, no-one in the UK was probably an overstatement. No one in the spitting distance of a position of Prime minister is probably rather accurate however.

McHrozni

I'm sure they could find someone to take the fall. It depends what strategy they decide to adopt (proper Brexit or Brexit in name only) as to which way they go I think. You voted for this financial disaster so we were forced to implement it is a different message and needs a different leader to we negotiated the right deal for the UK even though it doesn't satisfy what you voted for.

 

[angrysoba]

Here's something I didn't know about Australian referendums. From the Guardian.

In Australia, for example, a referendum proposal must pass in each of the six states (this would defeat Brexit, which failed in Scotland and Northern Ireland).​

The sovereign will of the people is measured differently in different countries.

The Australian system might perpetually doom a Scottish independence referendum as well.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not seeing it. If they wanted the UK to stay they would delay to calm things down. Then they would offer only the most ruinous terms and give the UK a chance to back down.

It's a variation of the theme. They essentially presented the UK with an ruinous decision - to invoke article 50 without having any assurances it won't be even more disastrous than imagined.

Of course, they don't actually want the UK out, as they said prior to the referendum. What they now want is certainty and taking away the UK's ability to play games.

That's true, the strategy the EU employed does limit the playing field for the British politicians. A sound strategy if there ever was one.

McHrozni

 

[angrysoba]

Things aren't going fast enough for Juncker:

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker has urged UK to "clarify its position" on Brexit as soon as possible.
He told the European parliament that Britain and the UK remained friends but it needed to state its position to avoid uncertainty.
PM David Cameron is to meet European Union leaders for the first time since the UK voted to leave later on Tuesday.
He is stepping down to allow his successor to conduct exit negotiations.

"Britain and the UK remained friends"?


Typo?

 

[kevsta]

so the "Stay-Anyway" team have maybe given up on petitions and re-referendums and are looking forward to ignoring / overturning the vote anyway..

The Guardian this morning https://www.theguardian.com/comment...vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

Monday 27 June 2016 12.22 BST
How to stop Brexit: get your MP to vote it down

It’s not over yet. A law that passed last year to set up the EU referendum said nothing about the result being binding or having any legal force. “Sovereignty” – a much misunderstood word in the campaign – resides in Britain with the “Queen in parliament”, that is with MPs alone who can make or break laws and peers who can block them.

Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay.

 

[angrysoba]

I heard a senior Tory (was it IDS? I forget) saying the other day that the leadership contest should only really START at the conference and no appointment until later.

Economist podcast, maybe?

Possibly, but I don't know if this was his opinion or if it was Tory policy. I was going by Cameron's resignation speech.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The Australian system might perpetually doom a Scottish independence referendum as well.

The actual proposal pre-Brexit ref was that the UK should only exit the EU if all four nations gave a majority decision. This was dismissed out of hand by DC who might well wish he had listened to people cleverer than him.

If Scotland decided all of it's 'states' needed to vote in favour of independence then we'd first have to draw some lines and decide what states we were talking about. It certainly wouldn't be 'every constituency' nor even 'every local council' and the regions are pretty much gone. There really isn't any equivalent to make the rule sensible at that level.

 

[kevsta]

Things aren't going fast enough for Juncker:

"Britain and the UK remained friends"?

Typo?

this person is a publicly admitted liar. It boggles my mind that alleged "Skeptics" just take their words at face value anyway.

 

[angrysoba]

so the "Stay-Anyway" team have maybe given up on petitions and re-referendums and are looking forward to ignoring / overturning the vote anyway..

The Guardian this morning https://www.theguardian.com/comment...vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

Hey! The leavers wanted a return to sovereignty. As with much else they may be shocked when they get what they demand because what they demand may not be what they want.

 

[McHrozni]

Same stuff we heard after Indyref by people who didn't like the result but nonetheless the result stands

It stands yes. For now anyway.

I'm sure they could find someone to take the fall. It depends what strategy they decide to adopt (proper Brexit or Brexit in name only) as to which way they go I think. You voted for this financial disaster so we were forced to implement it is a different message and needs a different leader to we negotiated the right deal for the UK even though it doesn't satisfy what you voted for.

The very need for the reality to be massaged to the voting public, because it will be a whole lot worse than the supporters expect it to be is strongly indicative of just how legitimate the results really are (not very). The British politics needs some soul-searching, it needs to regroup and it needs to get its' feces together.
A new election would likely be the least bad decision to take. If a pro-Brexit party wins the day it has a clear mandate to invoke article 50, come hell or high water. If a think again platform wins the day, it has a clear mandate to ignore the referendum (or at least organize a new one). I'm sure we can count on British media to make sure this question is front and center in the election campaign.

It's basically a do-over, but if one believes the will of the British people is indeed to quit the EU, the pro-Brexit side should win anyway. It's a legitimate request, seeing as the victory was indeed narrow and that it immediately became painfully obvious the winning side utilized unusually high levels of deception, levels rare even for the likes of Latin America, whereas the defeating side was obviously right with their warnings. Results obtained by deception can not be easily said to be legitimate, and a 52-48 split that was obtained by deception is also less than convincing. As I've said before, decisions like these really need a bar higher than 50% plus one vote, regardless of participation, and this referendum just barely cleared that bar.

Note: if the bar was 60% to vote leave, Boris Johnson would be basking in glory right now. He would have managed to extort the EU to give an even better deal for the UK, he would likely win the Prime Minister seat and obtain even more support, all without being proven a liar and facing the pesky catastrophe of article 50 and what naturally follows from it. With the results as they were there is no victor, only losers.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

The Australian system might perpetually doom a Scottish independence referendum as well.

That will not be a UK referendum. The previous two weren't, and rightly so.

 

[lionking]

Here's something I didn't know about Australian referendums. From the Guardian.

In Australia, for example, a referendum proposal must pass in each of the six states (this would defeat Brexit, which failed in Scotland and Northern Ireland).​

The sovereign will of the people is measured differently in different countries.

This is simply not true. The Guardian has slipped dismally.

It involves a majority of votes in a majority of states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia
To pass a referendum, the bill must ordinarily achieve a double majority: a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states (i.e., 4 out of 6 states). In circumstances where a state is affected by a referendum then a majority of voters in that state must also agree to the change. This is often referred to as a "triple majority".

Crappy reporting.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Economist podcast, maybe?

Possibly, but I don't know if this was his opinion or if it was Tory policy. I was going by Cameron's resignation speech.

No it was on TV and it was definitely his opinion but he seemed to say that the 'normal' (its not really a normal situation) way it would be done would be to present say 5 or 6 candidates to the conference, to whittle it down to 2 that the MPs could then vote on.

I'm not really up on internal Tory processes but if the strategy now is 'buy as much time as we can' then it would certainly make sense to spin this out.

 

[Craig B]

This is simply not true. The Guardian has slipped dismally.

It involves a majority of votes in a majority of states:



Crappy reporting.

Thanks for that correction. What the Guardian reported looked a bit odd.

 

[lionking]

Thanks for that correction. What the Guardian reported looked a bit odd.

I just realised that Geoffrey Robertson wrote that article. A god amongst jurists (although I have become increasingly disillusioned with him). How could he get something like this so wrong? Unless he was deliberately trying to deceive, which is possible. I knew this as a school kid.

Please, if the constitution of Australia has somehow been amended (which, ironically, would require a referendum), someone let me know. I'm seriously shocked about a howler from someone of his stature.

 

[lionking]

Mind you (and again slightly off topic) the majority of votes in the majority of states rule has seen only 9 of 44 referendums passed.