UK forum members, BREXIT?

[dannyf]

Let the UK become the 51st state!

I would caution the UK folks about it. With all the bad things about the EU, at least there is article 50 where the UK folks can leave if they decide so.

The US is a hotel California. Last time someone tried to leave, you all know what happened. Do the UK folks still want to join?

Seriously, the founding fathers pretty much everything right, except a mechanism for the member states to leave. The US needs an article 50 amendment to its constitution. Unfortunately, that wouldn't happen until things get really really bad.

[nctnico]

For the EU to say the UK needs to leave immediately is foolish.

No it is not. As long as the UK has not started the actual process of leaving there is doubt that the UK will actually leave the EU with all the consequences on the financial markets as a result. Also the longer starting the process of leaving the EU is postponed the more the Brittish government shows it cannot make a (any) decission at all.

And to be honest: it would not surprise me if the UK is not going to leave the EU after all! The people have voted to leave so turn in the papers to the EU the next day. Why the wait?

[steverino]

And to be honest: it would not surprise me if the UK is not going to leave the EU after all! The people have voted to leave so turn in the papers to the EU the next day. Why the wait?

Buyer's remorse.

[3db]

@Simon
quote :
So you want me to close this thread because it's not going the way you want...... Now that I have laid down the relity to you you start on something else and attack me ignoring your original statements. If you have had enough then GO AWAY!

Nice response from a moderator   
The thread is going NOWHERE !!
I've said already that I accept whatever happens.

[3db]

Can this thread calm down before I lock it! sounds like the referendum campaign all over again - Bollocks

Awesome   

[vk6zgo]

I'm sure I've seen a few references to "leaving Europe" which would be difficult as, the last time I looked, we are still part of the continental plate .


[/quote]
That's why The CEO of JCB said leaving the EU would be good for JCB, it will take a lot of excavators to widen the channel and dig the UK free of the continental plate.
[/quote]

If you could do that,you could also tow the whole shebang south, & anchor it off West Oz!
Better weather,except for those South Westerly squalls.
Of course, "G7PSK" would have to become "VK--something",but that wouldn't be too bad!

[GEuser]

IMF CEO Christine Lagarde  the other day on TV actually accused the UK of being anti-intellectual , that was at the end of one of it's talks saying generally that they have done the modeling and studies and have found out that the UK will pay dearly if they leave and it would be madness if they did , their own studies (the IMF) have found out this , so just at the end it said the anti-intellectual comment .

One would have thought to be anti-intellectual against someone or something one would have to be a (the target) intellectual in the 1st place , says the orange fake tan or not hypocrite , they are so far up their own arseholes that they do not see the Shit!  imo of course .

I also notice another comment in the posts defending that junker dude about the language use , imo ,, the language used by those types is not a misrepresentation of the English translation used from their native language , i have seen it heard it enough times lately also assuming a translation error but now have decided that there "is" no error in translation (which can happen btw) and they mean what they mean , quite pompas gits imo and very very superior .

I really dislike analyzing those types , normally i do not analyze at all unless something catches my attention , borderline insanity springs to mind there ... with a method .

[MK14]

As regards the recent EU videos/news/etc and criticisms of the UK.

I think they are INCREASING the risk, that other countries may also end up deciding to leave. They seem to be trying to play HARDBALL.

But I think it may well backfire, and come crashing down around them.

They seem to be serving THEMSELVES (politicians), rather than the VOTING PUBLIC. They seem to think they are some kind of ELITE or something.

I haven't liked what I have seen of the EU recently, it has been a somewhat big turn off.

In many/most countries, about every 4 or 5 years (or whatever), there are General elections. Which potentially change the entire government, and the changes take place (approximately) overnight. This is usually a fairly smooth transition.

We are trying to leave the EU, because they have LOST the vote. They are now acting as if we have declared WAR against the EU (organisation and its countries), rather than just a simple VOTE, which they have lost.

Instead of blaming THEMSELVES and deciding how to improve and solve the issues which the voting public DON'T like. They are just blaming the voters and saying "*horrible*" UK, for deciding to leave us.

tl;dr
Terrible, terrible attitude problems.

[Brumby]

As I understand it, until Article 50 is activated, the UK is not under any legal obligation to exit the EU.  From the BREXIT vote, however, the government is under a political obligation to do so.

These are two very different obligations with very different repercussions if they are are not followed through.

While there are certainly a number of matters that could be raised once Article 50 is in play, since that point hasn't been reached, I would like to examine the current situation - which is a political one.


With Cameron's resignation announcement, it would seem obvious that the Article 50 clock isn't going to be starting any time soon - and with the air of political uncertainty, I would like to canvas opinion on this idea....

Could there be a political battle where the whole question of 'Exit' or 'Remain' gets thrown out to the masses again - perhaps in a different format to the referendum - such as a general election - where the subject becomes a campaign topic?

I'm open to any thoughts where the current political obligation could get washed away before commitment to the legal obligation.

[jancumps]

The stability of the political parties is such at the moment that new elections will add to the complexity, I think.

[rstofer]

As I understand it, until Article 50 is activated, the UK is not under any legal obligation to exit the EU.  From the BREXIT vote, however, the government is under a political obligation to do so.

These are two very different obligations with very different repercussions if they are are not followed through.
<snip>
I'm open to any thoughts where the current political obligation could get washed away before commitment to the legal obligation.

There was a referendum and the results are in.  To now say, no, we're not going to do it is to say that the election was a fraud, that the opinions of the voters are irrelevant and government knows best.  Were that the case, why vote at all?  Let government pick the leaders and everybody else can follow along.  It would save so much time if there were no elections.  Government knows best...

More important is that the underlying cause of the disenchantment with the EU won't go away.  There will still be open borders, policy will still be dictated in Brussels and the continent still won't care much about the UK because the UK didn't adopt the Euro.  Nothing changes...

The government can either follow through or admit that the UK really isn't a democracy where majority rule matters.

That it might take a couple of months to get the ducks in a row before filing paperwork isn't an unreasonable delay.  What difference does it make how long it takes to file, the status quo exists until the UK is formally out of the EU and that is at least 24 months after a 2 month or so delay.  Not a big deal!

[Brumby]

There was a referendum and the results are in.  To now say, no, we're not going to do it is to say that the election was a fraud, that the opinions of the voters are irrelevant and government knows best.

While your point is understood, the fact is that the referendum does not carry the same legal obligation that an election does.  To "overturn" the result would be political dynamite - but there is no legal offence.

As for why it was called - my guess is that Cameron was so sure of his view, that he was happy for the referendum to prove him right.  That was a big OOPS!

  Were that the case, why vote at all?  Let government pick the leaders and everybody else can follow along.  It would save so much time if there were no elections.  Government knows best...

This could be taken as an argument that the elected officials should make the decision and that the referendum was only to gauge the 'feeling' of the constituency.  Running a country is not something that you can take every decision before the public - not because they aren't entitled to fair decisions, but because it's not always practical and the greater majority do not necessarily have the information or experience to make the right call.  The risk is the ultimate 'design by committee' where even the number of times the salt shaker is shaken gets debated.

More important is that the underlying cause of the disenchantment with the EU won't go away.  There will still be open borders, policy will still be dictated in Brussels and the continent still won't care much about the UK because the UK didn't adopt the Euro.  Nothing changes...

That's true.

The government can either follow through or admit that the UK really isn't a democracy where majority rule matters.

Herein begs the question - does the weight of the Referendum (which seeks an opinion) exceed the power of the elected officials that were specifically put in power to run the country?

Sure, to go against public opinion is a political minefield, but it's not as if the majority in the referendum was THAT overwhelming.

That it might take a couple of months to get the ducks in a row before filing paperwork isn't an unreasonable delay.  What difference does it make how long it takes to file, the status quo exists until the UK is formally out of the EU and that is at least 24 months after a 2 month or so delay.  Not a big deal!

I tend to agree - however, the important event is not when the exit is complete, but when Article 50 is activated.

Until then, there is uncertainty in every quarter.

[Brumby]

Taken from a different angle, but this is an example of what I was wondering...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/uk-voted-for-brexit-but-is-there-a-way-back

[G7PSK]

This thread is becoming more and more cartoonish.

The German word for it is "Galgenhumor", gallows humour (?) don't know if that is making any sense in English 

We understand the term we invented gallows humour and hold the copyright and patents, but I expect Apple to make a claim.

[Kjelt]

I think the UK has larger internal political problems than the EU at the moment, they need to solve that first.

[dannyf]

"I think the UK has larger internal political problems than the EU at the moment, they need to solve that first"

I would agree.

With the referendum, it is hard for any UK government not to declare article 50.

What Cameron is trying to do is 1. Maximize uks interest by giving it an option - stretching out the declaration as long as possible, and 2. Not get blamed for the unknown fallout from an article 50 declaration.

He is doing the right and smart thing.

[nctnico]

The stability of the political parties is such at the moment that new elections will add to the complexity, I think.

So basically the people get to vote again for exit and leave but this time through new elections? I wonder how that works for all the other important economic issues at hand. Did the UK twist it's own arm behind it's back?

[MK14]

The stability of the political parties is such at the moment that new elections will add to the complexity, I think.

So basically the people get to vote again for exit and leave but this time through new elections? I wonder how that works for all the other important economic issues at hand. Did the UK twist it's own arm behind it's back?

If it goes as far as becoming a general election (called early), then in theory (N.B. I'm NO expert in politics and could be wrong) one of the parties (e.g. the main opposition, usually Labour) could offer a second referendum or something. To avoid losing votes, most/all parties could then be forced to do likewise, to avoid losing votes, since about 48% of voters are probably upset by the result.

But I'm speculating, since I'm no expert on politics, and this situation (Brexit), is a fairly new concept, so there is not much past history of similar things here (UK), to go by.

[rch]

The stability of the political parties is such at the moment that new elections will add to the complexity, I think.

So basically the people get to vote again for exit and leave but this time through new elections? I wonder how that works for all the other important economic issues at hand. Did the UK twist it's own arm behind it's back?

If it goes as far as becoming a general election (called early), then in theory (N.B. I'm NO expert in politics and could be wrong) one of the parties (e.g. the main opposition, usually Labour) could offer a second referendum or something. To avoid losing votes, most/all parties could then be forced to do likewise, to avoid losing votes, since about 48% of voters are probably upset by the result.

But I'm speculating, since I'm no expert on politics, and this situation (Brexit), is a fairly new concept, so there is not much past history of similar things here (UK), to go by.

Superficially it sounds as though it could work.  The big danger is that in appeasing the remain voters the established parties may induce the outraged leave voters to defect to the fascists.  This would be UKIP in the first instance, but they are merely a front for the more organised fascists.

[grumpydoc]

I see BoJo is not standing - perhaps he decided it was too much of a poisoned chalice after all.

Theresa May might be the best candidate to win cross party support. I'm not keen on her record as Home Sec in terms of snooping regulation but she would be in a better position to try to negotiate with the EU. As she fought (some argue luke-warmly) for the Remain campaign but is known to be fairly Euroskeptic she should appeal to both sides of the argument and, most importantly, could negotiate some form of free movement without reneging on any personal promises.

[StuUK]

I see BoJo is not standing - perhaps he decided it was too much of a poisoned chalice after all.

Theresa May might be the best candidate to win cross party support. I'm not keen on her record as Home Sec in terms of snooping regulation but she would be in a better position to try to negotiate with the EU. As she fought (some argue luke-warmly) for the Remain campaign but is known to be fairly Euroskeptic she should appeal to both sides of the argument and, most importantly, could negotiate some form of free movement without reneging on any personal promises.

Better than "I'm not fit to be prime minister' Gove but ugh!

[grumpydoc]

I see BoJo is not standing - perhaps he decided it was too much of a poisoned chalice after all.

Theresa May might be the best candidate to win cross party support. I'm not keen on her record as Home Sec in terms of snooping regulation but she would be in a better position to try to negotiate with the EU. As she fought (some argue luke-warmly) for the Remain campaign but is known to be fairly Euroskeptic she should appeal to both sides of the argument and, most importantly, could negotiate some form of free movement without reneging on any personal promises.

Better than "I'm not fit to be prime minister' Gove but ugh!

Why does modern politics always seem to boil down to least worst option? :sigh:

[Kjelt]

I see BoJo is not standing

He has more self knowledge then Trump 
Probably he felt the climate amongst his peers and saw it was hopeless.

[Tepe]

We are trying to leave the EU, because they have LOST the vote. They are now acting as if we have declared WAR against the EU (organisation and its countries), rather than just a simple VOTE, which they have lost.

Assuming that by "they" you mean the EU: The EU didn't lose the vote as the EU did not hold a referendum.

Instead of blaming THEMSELVES and deciding how to improve and solve the issues which the voting public DON'T like.

Something like 13% of the EU's population is British (give or take). Why should the EU adapt to you? What are you offering in return?

[grumpydoc]

Superficially it sounds as though it could work.  The big danger is that in appeasing the remain voters the established parties may induce the outraged leave voters to defect to the fascists.  This would be UKIP in the first instance, but they are merely a front for the more organised fascists.

We have embarked upon a dangerous path - and one that I must admit I did not exactly see coming.

I thought, like a lot of people who voted Remain, and like the Remain campaign itself, that this was about whether we stayed in the EU. But it wasn't - even where I could see the Leave campaign talking about immigration, and the NHS I looked at the arguments and rejected them because they were wrong, mendacious even. I knew that immigration was an issue but the evidence is that it is generally good for an economy.

But a substantial slice of the population clearly did not see it that way and believed the Leave campaign - once again we learth that in politics truth is often a casualty.

But that means about 37.5% of our population will vote for someone who runs on a platform of stopping immigration (or, worse, promises repatriation). If the Tories and Labour don't sort themselves out and negotiate a deal which at least looks as though it will significantly reduce immigration then UKIP could easily win a lot of seats at a General Election.

The price of saving ourselves from fascism might well be the inability to negotiate tariff-free access to the single market.

I am slowly beginning to realise just what a dangerous, indeed Faustian, game David Cameron played.