EU Referendum

[FairwayDodger]

We won't need to veto anything the EU does because they won't have any power to impose their beurocratic nonsense on us.

Much of my work is driven by legislative and regulatory change. We've implemented lots of stuff for eu regulations and there is a load of other stuff in the pipeline. It's so early (and the country is leaderless) that nobody knows what the future holds but the current assumption is that we will still need to support the upcoming changes but also any Eu regulatory change in the future if we want to continue trading with them.

Ok that's just one company's early working assumption (and we are steadfastly apolitical wrt the referendum) but it does make one wonder what the point of leaving is.

 

[MarkE]

It might not fly but it's certainly not a non-starter or the meetings wouldn't be taking place. I have no doubt that in a few years Scotland will be in the Eu whether England is or not.

You may well be right, time will tell. But going about it this way is the non starter. Scotland has never been a member of the eu, (neither has NI, wales or England) so talk of remaining makes no sense.
The only way for Scotland to be in the eu is to wait for the UK to exit, hold a referendum, then apply to join as a new independant country.

 

[FairwayDodger]

You may well be right, time will tell. But going about it this way is the non starter. Scotland has never been a member of the eu, (neither has NI, wales or England) so talk of remaining makes no sense.
The only way for Scotland to be in the eu is to wait for the UK to exit, hold a referendum, then apply to join as a new independant country.

That's your opinion, which may prove correct, but I disagree. Scotland and the eu have started talking about the mechanism by which Scotland remains a member post-brexit and if they get a deal Scottish independence is a certainty. Quite possibly before rUK completes the brexit.

I write this as an avowed SNP hater and "no" voter.

 

[MarkE]

That's your opinion, which may prove correct, but I disagree. Scotland and the eu have started talking about the mechanism by which Scotland remains a member post-brexit and if they get a deal Scottish independence is a certainty. Quite possibly before rUK completes the brexit.

I write this as an avowed SNP hater and "no" voter.

Possibly. But Scotland would still have the problem of all member states agreeing to a deal and as mentioned earlier, Spain would block anything that encourages the breakup of those member states.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Possibly. But Scotland would still have the problem of all member states agreeing to a deal and as mentioned earlier, Spain would block anything that encourages the breakup of those member states.

Maybe but the breakup of the U.K. is now inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Maybe but the breakup of the U.K. is now inevitable.

And it's very sad to even think that - then N Ireland will follow leaving Wales and England together but no doubt they will split leaving England on their own - I'm sure that will please some but not all. Might as well lose the "United" part because we certainly aren't at the moment

 

[vkurup]

I must admit I don't watch the news all the time, but from what I've seen of it and on here, all the mud slinging is one way traffic (unless you mean the racist incidents which are totally unacceptable).
If a leave result was guaranteed to break up the country up and more importantly lead to economic misery, they wouldn't have won. People are stupid, but the general public 'en masse' isn't.
We won't need to veto anything the EU does because they won't have any power to impose their beurocratic nonsense on us.
Yes, it might turn out to be a terrible decision to leave, but it also might be the making of us. I'm excited rather than terrified of what the future holds.

The brilliant post from a Guardian commentator.. in case folks havent read it..

====

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

 

[Crazyface]

It might not fly but it's certainly not a non-starter or the meetings wouldn't be taking place. I have no doubt that in a few years Scotland will be in the Eu whether England is or not.

Please for the love of God tell me why Scotland are happy to accept rules made by Brussels but not London? Anyone think it is money? Well there you go then. that's why England voted out, BECAUSE WE DON'T GET ANY and have been left out of all the hand outs by the EU. So we have said NO MORE !!! Trade with the EU? I wouldn't buy a thing from them again. I'd source from the rest of the world. PS you can shove your German / French / Italian (all rubbish) cars. Japan has showed us how to make them and we're pretty damn good at it now. We can grow all our food too. We've plenty of land.

 

[Region3]

The brilliant post from a Guardian commentator.. in case folks havent read it..

====

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

At the risk of sounding childish...

LOL

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Here is a thought (which has likely already been discussed and shot down)

Do any of the leave voters object to our current taxation system? In it, the wealthy (also known as those that are doing well), pay quite a lot into the system (HMRC), that they don't get mucch say over.

In return the people of the country who aren't doing so well get benefits from the government, that (to an extent) they can do what they want with.

As a country, we've alreaddy said we do pretty well, much better than some others. So why do we object to contributing a bit (and lets be honest in the grand scheme of things it's tiny), it return for intangible benefits such a trading power, trade agreements, funding, etce etc. Of course the countries that aren't doing well don't contribute, neither do the lowest earners in the UK, we wouldn't expect them to!!

(Warning, overly simplistic)

 

[Crazyface]

All he was missing was his begging bowl

LOL

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But is preventing many young people from having the opportunity to vote going to engage them further in the future? This is a political issue many young people are vaguely interested in. It is not a case of righting some wrong as some are feeling victimised, as what is done is done, But at least ask the questions if they should vote in the future to possibly get them more engaged in the political process.

And as for 36% being used as a low figure, the current government who is (allegedly) running the UK was voted in by 24.3% of all registered voters. And only 10.6% of registered voters in Scotland voted for them. Which makes 36% seem not too bad after all.

...and Scotland wanted 16 and 17yrs olds to have a vote - as they did for the future of their country in the Indyref. OK - limit voting to 18 and over for GEs as 16 and 17yr olds can vote out the incumbents next timre around when they will be 21/22. But for decisions that cannot (theoretically) be reversed such as the future of the country - then a 16 or 17 yr will have a strong personal interest and stake in the result - and will know just as much as the rest of us - and will vote just as logically as the rest of us,

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Please for the love of God tell me why Scotland are happy to accept rules made by Brussels but not London? Anyone think it is money? Well there you go then. that's why England voted out, BECAUSE WE DON'T GET ANY and have been left out of all the hand outs by the EU. So we have said NO MORE !!! Trade with the EU? I wouldn't buy a thing from them again. I'd source from the rest of the world. PS you can shove your German / French / Italian (all rubbish) cars. Japan has showed us how to make them and we're pretty damn good at it now. We can grow all our food too. We've plenty of land.

Umm England does get EU money

Why on earth would you cut yourself off from the biggest single trade market in the world - thousands of businesses around the UK rely on that trade from the EU

And you need more than land to grow food.

And those Japanese car factories you are taking about - guess where they export most of the cars too - that's right - the EU. If we don't trade cars with the EU then those manufacturers will just up and leave to the EU

You can't cut your nose off to spite your face - that's just suicide for the future

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Much of my work is driven by legislative and regulatory change. We've implemented lots of stuff for eu regulations and there is a load of other stuff in the pipeline. It's so early (and the country is leaderless) that nobody knows what the future holds but the current assumption is that we will still need to support the upcoming changes but also any Eu regulatory change in the future if we want to continue trading with them.

Ok that's just one company's early working assumption (and we are steadfastly apolitical wrt the referendum) but it does make one wonder what the point of leaving is.

Without being able to influence or shape them in any way towards any UK specific circumstances - we will have to adopt what we are told to adopt if we want to continue trading with them

 

[SocketRocket]

The brilliant post from a Guardian commentator.. in case folks havent read it..

====

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

I'm shaking in my boots. A guardian Lovey has made an editorial decrying the Leave vote, it's got to be Brexit Armageddon then. Shall I dig our a Daily Mail or Guardian Editorial that completely disagrees with that one .

The Referendum is only advisory, ya de da de da, that cookie is well and truly crumbled and swept under the carpet. Keep kidding yourself and grasping for straws, the UK will leave the EU now and that is one certainty you can bet your shirt on.

 

[User62651]

At the risk of sounding childish...

LOL

Not sure which side you're on and if you mean LOL at Boris' predicament or LOL this whole Guardian piece is nonsense but the part about Cameron passing the article 50 buck is definitely true, no-one foresaw Cameron resigning immediately, clear Boris and co have no plan for Brexit as they didn't believe it would happen. By making next PM sign off article 50 Cameron has outmanouvred Johnson even in referendum defeat and it will be really interesting to see how Johnson tries to work his way round all this. Chancellor Osborne is playing the long game, only mid 40s and knows he's best out of this mess for 5 years before he tries for PM, wise decision from him not to run for PM yesterday.

 

[MarkE]

Maybe but the breakup of the U.K. is now inevitable.

All depends on Scotland. I hope it never happens. Have to see how it all pans out. Could take many years for Scotland to be in a position to join the eu. You know how fickle voters are and there could well be a change in opinion of the Scottish electorate in the mean time.

 

[SocketRocket]

Without being able to influence or shape them in any way towards any UK specific circumstances - we will have to adopt what we are told to adopt if we want to continue trading with them

And does that apply the the USA, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa and so on and so forth. As an independent country we can trade with the EU any way we wish to trade with them, Ok we would need to meet certain quality and environmental standards but remember trade is a two way arrangement and in that respect we hold a very powerful ace in our hands.

 

[SocketRocket]

Umm England does get EU money

Why on earth would you cut yourself off from the biggest single trade market in the world - thousands of businesses around the UK rely on that trade from the EU

And you need more than land to grow food.

And those Japanese car factories you are taking about - guess where they export most of the cars too - that's right - the EU. If we don't trade cars with the EU then those manufacturers will just up and leave to the EU

You can't cut your nose off to spite your face - that's just suicide for the future

Ummmm! The EU doesn't have any money, it only uses the money taxpayers give them, The money England gets is some of it's money being given back, I thought you would understand that.

You talk as if on a certain day two years hence all trade with EU countries will stop, do you really believe that will happen? 'Cut yourselves off" what do you mean by that, it's a ludicrous thing to say.

The worst case scenario would be that we reverted to WTO rules whereby tariffs of around 4% could be used by the EU but if we also applied them then who would be worse off by this, I would suggest the one who sells the most.

 

[Deleted member 18121]

I understand the theory behind those wishing 16-17 year olds had got a vote....you think the numbers may have swayed the vote in your favour (in my opinion). Realistically though who knows how they would have voted.

I'm university educated, live in an affluent area of kent, work for a bank in London......all the qualities of someone who should have voted to remain. I didn't. I voted leave.

When I was 16/17 years old I was more interested in Linda Lusardi, Cindy Crawford and how many hours I was going to spend playing Sonic or Mario or Resident evil. At that age do I think I was even remotely qualified to vote on the destiny of our country or our membership of the EU......nope. How many 16-17 years do I think are qualified now.....not very many.