Author Topic: Brexit ?  (Read 9706 times)

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #15 on: June 26, 2016, 01:30:24 AM
After the lackluster deal he got from negotiations Cameron was really stupid putting every egg he had in the referendum basket and stating that an out vote meant 100% out. His campaign was pretty badly run too, starting with that stupid early 'information' leaflet - read propaganda. Hopefully he will take the Chancellor with him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/36618439

UK's EU commissioner Lord Hill is also going.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629646

It seems that the Press was too focused on the internecine Tory mud slinging match to even bother with Labour, SDP or SNP. Then Labour had problems with stupid in fighting over Corbyn rather than doing the job they should have been doing.

Then there is a poll to have a second referendum, I think that the requirements, being excessive and retrospective, are too much but if the EU offered a better deal then perhaps another vote. Would need to be a genuine better deal though and be for all member countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629324

So now the question becomes who is going to be next for a referendum?

  • Offline matt5cott

  • Posts: 3,198
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • I had a wheelbarrow, the wheel fell off.
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #16 on: June 26, 2016, 11:15:20 AM

Hard banter :lol:

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #17 on: June 26, 2016, 11:39:59 AM
Hard banter :lol:

From someone with very little to actually say.

A major problem with the EU is our government refuses to use the rules properly, there are massive, profitable, corporations owned by the German and French governments. We sold off our power, The EU governments own a lot of it. Same with the water utilities.

Looks like the Labour right are trying to get Corbyn out - this is REALLY STUPID. As long as Corbyn stands firm there is no chance of him being removed and all this does is damage the Labour party. Hilary Benn being sacked last night was expected, as are the resignations today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36632956

<edit>

Now we have a potential England/Northern Ireland/Wales out - Scotland in. There might even be a Scottish attempt to block leaving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244
Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 11:49:54 AM by Serious #187;

  • Offline matt5cott

  • Posts: 3,198
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • I had a wheelbarrow, the wheel fell off.
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #18 on: June 26, 2016, 12:26:23 PM
Yep the Blairites want him out, Chilcot to be delayed until 2092? :lol:

edit - http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/26/corbyn-fans-should-be-ecstatic-about-this-attempted-coup-the-blairites-are-committing-political-suicide/ Blairite war mongers dropping like flies.

It's certainly an interesting turn of events, but many will not respect Corbyn for his switch to pro EU in line with the party mandate, he's been anti EU for ages.

There's also been an interesting left wing case for brexit, which didn't get much airtime, expectable I guess as Galloway was a key figurehead.
Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 13:29:54 PM by matt5cott #187;

  • Offline bear

  • Rutabaga
  • Posts: 6,323
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #19 on: June 27, 2016, 09:28:35 AM
From my american friends brittish nephew:

    Why the Article 50 notification is important

     
    25th June 2016
     “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
     “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
     “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
     “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
    – The Adventure of Silver Blaze
    *
    On Thursday 23rd June 2016 there was a historic referendum vote. A clear and decisive majority – though not a large majority – voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.
    And the following day, Friday 24th June 2016, something perhaps just as significant did not happen.  The UK did not send to the EU the notification under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union which would have commenced the withdrawal process.
    The Article 50 process is the only practical means by which the UK can leave the EU. There are other theoretical means – which would mean effectively the UK unilaterally renouncing its treaty obligations – but as the UK wants to be taken seriously in future treaty making, such approaches would lose credibility.
    And so unless and until the Article 50 process is commenced and completed, the UK will stay as a member of the EU.
    In short: no Article 50, no Brexit.
    It is worth taking a moment to read Article 50, as the detail of its provisions will shape what (if anything) happens next:
    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
    2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
    3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
    4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
    A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
    5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
    You will see from Article 50(1) that it is for the Member State to make the notification.  Nobody else can: not the European Parliament, not the European Council or its President, not the European Commission, and not any other Member States.
    So unless the Article 50(1) notification is made by a Member State, the provisions of Article 50 do not get triggered to begin with.
    And it is entirely a matter for the Member State to choose whether to make the notification and, if so, when.
    There is an interesting question as to what “its own constitutional requirements” means in the case of the UK, which does not have a codified constitution: it is the sort of thing about which a thousand constitutional law essays could be written, and no doubt will be.
    In my view, it could mean the Prime Minister simply making the notification as an exercise of the prerogative, following the referendum result.  Or it could mean a prior parliamentary vote.  But in either case, it is a matter for the UK.
    If it is a notification which can be made by a Prime Minister once the referendum vote result was known, then it was a notification which could have been sent yesterday.
    That such a speedy notification would be made was certainly the impression David Cameron sought to give when the referendum was announced back in February:
    Then there is the legality. I want to spell out this point very carefully. If the British people vote to leave there is only one way to bring that about – and that is to trigger Article 50 of the Treaties and begin the process of exit.
    And the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.
    Let me be absolutely clear how this works. It triggers a 2-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit.
    At the end of this period, if no agreement is in place then exit is automatic unless every 1 of the 27 other EU member states agrees to a delay.
    If you read this carefully, you will spot that it is quite deftly worded: Cameron was not committing himself to making the notification.  It was instead something which would be “rightly expected”.  He did not promise to meet that “expectation”.
    But in his (resignation) statement yesterday, Cameron said something different about Article 50:
    A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new Prime Minister, and I think it is right that this new Prime Minister takes the decision about when to trigger Article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU.
    So Cameron has gone from it being “rightly” expected that the notification be made by him straight away, to it being “right” that the decision be made later by somebody else at the time of their choosing.
    The fact is that the longer the Article 50 notification is put off, the greater the chance it will never be made at all.  This is because the longer the delay, the more likely it will be that events will intervene or excuses will be contrived.
    There will be those who will say: of course, the notification under Article 50 cannot take place straight away – don’t you realise it is part of a process? The UK should negotiate as much as possible before the notification is made and the two year deadline is triggered.
    They may have a point, but pretty soon they will perhaps become self-conscious of explaining away why the notification has not been made quite just yet.  It may dawn on such people that the notification may never be made at all.
    And so long as the Article 50 notification is not made, the UK continues to be a full member of the EU as it was before the referendum took place; indeed, as if the referendum never took place at all.
    The Article 50 notification also has another side to it: unless and until it is made, there is no obligation on the European Union to negotiate with a Member State about to leave.
    As I set out yesterday at the Financial Times, this means there is a stand-off:
    Nothing can force the UK to press the notification button, and nothing can force the EU to negotiate until it is pressed. It is entirely a matter for a Member State to decide whether to make the notification and, if so, when. In turn, there is no obligation on the EU to enter into negotiations until the notification is made. There is therefore a stalemate. If this were game of chess, a draw would now be offered.
    Stalemates can last a long time.  And unless there is political will to resolve it, this stalemate will not resolve itself.
    There is no indication that UK politicians – including those like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove who are possible successors to Cameron – are in any hurry to make the Article 50 notification.
    Article 50 notification will never be made, and that the possibility that it may one day be made will become another routine feature of UK politics – a sort of embedded threat which comes and goes out of focus.  The notification will be made one day, politicians and pundits will say, but not yet.
    And whilst it is not made, then other ways of solving the problem created by the referendum result may present themselves: another referendum, perhaps, so that UK voters can give the “correct” result, or a general election where EU membership is a manifesto issue, or some other thing.
    This will not please Leave campaigners, and rightly so. It means the result of the referendum will be effectively ignored.  But that was always possible, as it was set up deliberately as a non-binding referendum (unlike the Alternative Vote referendum, which was designed to have binding effect if there was a “yes” vote, which there wasn’t).
    “Of course, they will respect the popular vote. They would dare not ignore it!” is the cry.
    People saying this have a good point, but they should also remember a ship which never did get called Boaty McBoatface.
    *
    In my view, if the Article 50 notification was not sent yesterday – the very day after the Leave result – there is a strong chance it will never be sent.
    If this view is wrong, it remains the case that those with a sincere interest in the issue of UK’s membership – whether Remainers or Leavers – should keep their eyes on the Article 50 notification, regardless of noise and bluster and excuses.
    As long as the notification is not sent, the UK remains part of the EU.
    And there is currently no reason or evidence to believe that, regardless of the referendum result, the notification will be sent at all.

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #20 on: June 29, 2016, 02:49:02 AM
Yep the Blairites want him out,

Not just the Blairires, the Europhiles know damn well he avoided doing anything positive regarding EU membership. That combination meant he lost the vote, not that it means anything much.

Bear, there are several things that have to happen before Article 50 is put in motion, the first of which is a new Conservative leader. I'm fairly sure that a vote would be needed in parliament to start it off too, which isn't likely to pass. Even if it does there are a huge number of other problems, like the Scottish/Northern Irish.

Then there is the negotiations, is 2 years really enough time? The EU might change in that time, perhaps enough to require a second referendum. The one thing that we can be sure of is that the EU countries would rather Britain stayed in and their industries don't want to lose access to the British market. That means that if at all possible there is going to be a deal made. Exactly what form of deal I can't say.

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #21 on: July 02, 2016, 13:28:54 PM
I go with knighties thoughts, but I really do not like EU because trade beats environment most of the time and it is big money that has the control and benefits the most,  brexit would probably be bad for the UK because it has gone to long time and we live in it.

You say that, but about 50% of my scientific employment was EU-funded environmental work. Similarly my wife's place of work is currently in a depressive-meltdown, as it's an environmental/ecological scientific charitable trust,. Nearly all their work is funded by the government, but only because EU environmental legislation made it a requirement for the government to monitor environmental impacts and issues etc. Now many people are left wondering when they'll be without a job, as if the govt doesn't need to spend money monitoring bird populations, then they won't. Similarly there are people who worked on all the legislation and protective measures for protected sites, which if we leave the EU will have no legal protection.

It'd be nice to think that if/when we leave the govt will decide to adopt the EU rules on things like the environment. And they might. But at the same time, there'd be nothing stopping them at a later date deciding to change the rules to suit the needs of construction etc. At least having the EU there would make it more difficult.

Safe to say me, my wife and pretty much all the people in our circles of friends and colleagues all voted remain :(

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #22 on: July 02, 2016, 17:35:12 PM
As with everything else the EU is a two edged sword, they may back environmental sometimes, but not always. In many cases the environment has lost out to corporations.

Much is transported all the way across the EU, including workers who could be sourced locally. That is not environmentally friendly. Governments do things for their own benefit, they don't take in the wider implications.

The other side of this is we are not out yet. That depends on what some rock headed politicians do.

  • Offline zpyder

  • Posts: 6,946
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #23 on: July 06, 2016, 07:13:05 AM

Much is transported all the way across the EU, including workers who could be sourced locally. That is not environmentally friendly. Governments do things for their own benefit, they don't take in the wider implications.

Yes, but I'd like to see us try and grow enough produce in the UK to support our population, short of going to WW2 levels of turning all the gardens into allotments.

Also, where I live (thetford) is more than 50% migrant workers. They either work on the many industrial estates or on the farms. I highly doubt that if they were to go the remaining "British" population would want to do their jobs for the money they are being paid. I find it highly ironic that the chances are Thetford resoundingly voted "out" without considering that the migrants they want gone, are the people who basically keep the town alive. Even the normal "UK" businesses like B&Q would shrivel up here, as most of their customers are from the EU.

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #24 on: July 06, 2016, 11:37:46 AM
This kind of event has happened before, although on a smaller scale. There will always be winners and losers from change. The thing is to have enough flexibility to survive it.

Old niches will vanish and new opportunities will appear. Britain is in a better position than most other EU countries and the rest of the EU as a whole. What we pay into and take out of the EU is tiny compared to our GDP. The question now is will the natural Conservative instinct of 'business and personal monetary profit first and to hell with everything else' take over?

The reality is that, despite a few EU politicians with big mouths shouting for the UK to instigate article 50 now they would better off financially if we don't. When we joined the EU a high proportion of our exports went to EU countries, that has fallen and at present the EU as a whole exports more to the UK. Holding off might increase the possibility of other countries having similar referendums, but, us leaving and being successful outside would encourage them far more. Nigel Farage was right on at least one point, the EU leadership is in denial.

The EU has changed slowly and people have not been given the chance to express their opinion on it for a long time. In many cases not at all. The populations of the EU are force fed that change regardless of what they want or their best interests.

The strange thing is that Cameron and a whole shipload of other politicians have spouted, and keep on spouting that 'out is out'. Reality is out only starts when the British government decides to initiate article 50. Until then we are most definitely in. There is no requirement for that to ever happen, the referendum merely has advisory status and is not legally binding. Legally there would have to be a parliamentary vote just to be able to legally start article 50 into action.

Actual negotiations could be strung out for a hundred years, or indefinitely if the politicians wanted.

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #25 on: July 11, 2016, 17:26:45 PM
I think this is getting ridiculous...

Along with all the calls for a vote in Parliament before starting article 50 there is a suggestion that leaving might need another referendum?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36749304

While you could repeal The European Union Act 2011 to do so you would have to get a vote in Parliament again, and in the Lords too. The problem isn't getting a vote, it's winning it.

There have also been suggestions of a vote of no confidence in the government by pro EU MPs. that would kick in a new general election with the Conservatives  having a slim majority.

OK, I think that puts it past ridiculous and into ludicrous. :tinhat: :panic: :panic:

Re: Brexit ?
Reply #26 on: July 12, 2016, 06:59:50 AM
we are a democracy.
People have voted.
To not pull out of Europe now, puts the whole thing in jeopardy, as well as making us the laughing stock of europe.

  • Offline bear

  • Rutabaga
  • Posts: 6,323
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #27 on: July 12, 2016, 10:31:13 AM
Simple majority is a weak majority though, especially then it comes to such big and difficult decision.

Re: Brexit ?
Reply #28 on: July 12, 2016, 13:28:12 PM
yep, got no choice but to pull out now, unless they can get some superficial concessions from europe and then make on that we're getting a much better deal (which we won't)

from the start the referendum should have needed a decent majority to go ahead, not a few percent

  • Offline Serious

  • Posts: 14,467
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
Re: Brexit ?
Reply #29 on: July 13, 2016, 15:38:38 PM
It might have been better but Cameron was betting the UK yet again. This may have been a vote on UK membership of the EU but it was really an attempt at silencing the Conservative eurosceptics. Putting more than 50% would have been seen as biasing the referendum.

It's easy to say a catchy phrase like 'we're better off in Europe' but is it true? We pay for membership and the other EU countries export more to us than we do to them.

Then there are EU politicians blustering that 'Britiain shouldn't profit from leaving EU' - France being a notable exception. That could mean no deal, we could go back to WTO export regulations, Europe will suffer more than us. That isn't worry about UK leaving, it's about everyone else who can benefit following us.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tusk-says-eu-mustnt-let-britain-profit-brexit-091725831--business.html

It now seems that Italian banks are sitting on huge amounts of bad debt, which they are being told to get rid of. Greece, Italy, Iceland, Portugal, Ireland, Cyprus and Belgium all have in excess of 100% GDP debt. Spain and France have about 93%. UK is on 91%.
Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 15:40:46 PM by Serious #187;

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.