... How this will impact on the expats from all the European countries living elsewhere in Europe is anyone's guess...
The vote has to be seen in the context of a very right-wing press...
Every civilized country has both wings represented in the press, and most press is left-wing anyway. So not sure it makes sense to blame just one side.
. . .in the context of a very right-wing press. . .
Every civilized country has both wings represented in the press, and most press is left-wing anyway. So not sure it makes sense to blame just one side.
... http://news.sky.com/story/1717150/germany-warns-of-brexit-domino-effect
Which Merkel started.
The vote has to be seen in the context of a very right-wing press, that wouldn't know truth if it smacked them in the mouth with a lump-hammer.
Not over here I'm afraid Slobodan, yer man Rupe sees to that and as for the Irish press it is so blatantly pro establishment that it has lost any idea of what left or right actually means in politics.
Blaming the press seems awfully patronizing to the people, don't you think? As in: people are sheep that doesn't get it, hence the need to be lead by the elite (the establishment - which just happens to be oh, so PC). And yet, people ultiamtely do get it, so much better than the establishment, elite, pundits and pollsters.
Hmm.
The Sun: lowbrow, right-wing, pro-Brexit.
The Times: establishment, not particularly right- or left-wing, pro-Remain.
The Mirror: highly left-wing, pro-Remain.
The Express: highly right-wing, pro-Brexit (I think).
The Guardian: liberal left, achingly politically correct, pro-Remain.
The Independent: The Guardian, in spades.
The Financial Times: business paper, right-wing, pro-Remain, small circulation.
The Telegraph: right-wing, pro-Brexit.
The Star: breasts.
There are Sundays as well, but they tend to mirror their weekday equivalents.
I don't see much of a right-wing bias, really.
The result was a surprise but the effects will be muted, in the medium term. Trade is based on pragmatism, as is intelligence-sharing. We'll muddle through.
Jeremy
Jeremy, your list omitted the Daily Mail, probably the most poisonous of the anti-European papers.
...From The Economist...
I don't know the british politics but Mr Cameron really seems to be a grosteque political figure (cynical and stupid).
I see it rather differently: I see him as a realist who managed to drag the UK out of the socialist decline that had already consumed the Thatcher gains. (Blair was perhaps not as bad as he was eventually painted, at least he was able to steer a more moderate form of leftism.) The lukewarmth of the Liberals has never been worth much - Cameron rescued us from that unholy alliance at the last election. His ultimate error was in trusting the intelligence of the football crowds, the tabloid fodder and even his own party members.
But in the end, the Tories reverted to the thing they can't avoid because it's in the DNA: fratricide. Just as they did for Maggie and almost every other top gun they ever had. I never voted for any other party than the Tories, and today, if I had to vote again, it would probably be for the Scots Nats if only because their agenda is perfectly clear. A possible disaster, but what's the difference?
I regret the fact that our youth has been denied a wonderful panorama of life choices just to forward the aims of a greedy bunch of egomaniacs in London. May they rot in hell and somebody entirely else gets elected next time round.
I have to admit, the "myths" list is amusing.
As an American, I find the listings of newspapers amusing, especially the last "...The Star: Breasts" . Murdoch-owned, I presume? Or did the UK start the page 6 (or whatever number) and export it to Down Under? The Guardian is really quite left for an American, I read it online.
I would not be pleased by Brexit were I a U.K. or E.U. scientist.
I have to admit, the "myths" list is amusing.
As an American, I find the listings of newspapers amusing, especially the last "...The Star: Breasts" . Murdoch-owned, I presume? Or did the UK start the page 6 (or whatever number) and export it to Down Under? The Guardian is really quite left for an American, I read it online.
I would not be pleased by Brexit were I a U.K. or E.U. scientist.
Rob, the shenanigans of the British political establishment over the years is not some vast plot focused entirely on robbing you of your pension.
That's cherry-picking, i.e., taking into account only things that are debunked. Where is the list of those that couldn't be debunked, which actually gave credence to the false ones in the first place?
Looking at this from the US as well I see a very divided nation...
England and Wales versus Scotland and Northern Island (and Gibraltar), young versus old, London versus the rest of England, etc.
I really feel for the 18-24 year olds of which more than 70% voted to remain in the EU...
The fact that the result got applauded by Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen should also give some food for thought...
Looking at this from the US as well I see a very divided nation...I think that's an inherent attribute of many elections where there's only 2 choices. Looking from Europe I would say the same thing about many US presidential elections over the past decades. And I don't think the next one will be any different.
Two things: Euromyths are by definition, not true & so subject to being debunked; things that are true, aren't Euromyths and so can't be debunked. Those myths should be properly labelled for what they really are - lies, made up by certain newspapers (yes Daily Hatemail & The Scum aka The Sun, I'm looking at you), to mislead their readers. As for those things that have come from the EU that are true, like health & safety regs, workers' rights, food standard regs, environmental protection regs etc., none of them are particularly problematic, and haven't caused much by way of upset.
I think that's an inherent attribute of many elections where there's only 2 choices. Looking from Europe I would say the same thing about many US presidential elections over the past decades. And I don't think the next one will be any different.
All that said, I still can't quite believe that they obeyed the wishes of a cynical, professional 'buffoon' who is anything but, and the wannabe 'English gentleman' who clearly isn't and never could be.
Two things: Euromyths are by definition, not true & so subject to being debunked; things that are true, aren't Euromyths and so can't be debunked...
I think that's an inherent attribute of many elections where there's only 2 choices. Looking from Europe I would say the same thing about many US presidential elections over the past decades. And I don't think the next one will be any different.
I think that's an inherent attribute of many elections where there's only 2 choices. Looking from Europe I would say the same thing about many US presidential elections over the past decades. And I don't think the next one will be any different.
As someone pointed out elsewhere the older generation were the ones that were keen to enough to vote for entry into the EU when they were young and idealistic.
Well the next one is between a candidate 55% of the population has an unfavorable opinion of and another candidate 70% of the population has an unfavorable opinion of...
Brexit - a lesson in (un)reliability of polls and pundits.
People react differently (more PC) when expressing their opinion publicly or being polled. Then they vote in privacy.
I believe saying that they confirmed EU membership is more accurate, the UK had already applied and it was already a member when the referendum in the seventies took place.
Jeremy, your list omitted the Daily Mail, probably the most poisonous of the anti-European papers.
True, it was a vote on the renegotiated terms of a much smaller EEC.
.. this is the best incentive for free high level education for all...
Well the next one is between a candidate 55% of the population has an unfavorable opinion of and another candidate 70% of the population has an unfavorable opinion of...
Not renegotiated, but negotiated. And the key point is the then name of the organisation: the European Economic Community. We joined a trade organisation, not one committed to "ever closer union". The EU is not the EEC that we voted for in 1972.
Jeremy
Speaking about the press... There is an Internet meme that supposedly shows tomorrow's edition of The Guardian: ;)
I was only a wee lad at the time so turned to that bastion of proper and correct reporting, the Daily Telegraph
In his second stint as Prime Minister, leading a Government divided over the European issue, Harold Wilson held an In/Out referendum on the supposedly “renegotiated” terms of Britain’s membership of the 'Common Market’. When polling day came, the result was a two-to-one win for the 'Keep Britain in Europe’ campaign. The rest, as they say, is history.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11652504/Seven-lessons-from-Britains-1975-EEC-referendum.html
You might recognise one of the ladies campaigning for a yes vote, her enthusiasm was much less marked in later years.
Prophetic (http://newsthump.com/2016/06/20/majority-of-lemmings-in-favour-of-jumping-off-cliff/)
Prophetic (http://newsthump.com/2016/06/20/majority-of-lemmings-in-favour-of-jumping-off-cliff/)
Fair enough, but my main point stands: the vote was about whether to be a member of the EEC.
Thatcher lost her enthusiasm when the EEC morphed into the EU, when a free trade organisation became a union; and the UK has voted to leave the EU for largely similar reasons.
Jeremy
Fair enough, but my main point stands: the vote was about whether to be a member of the EEC.
Thatcher lost her enthusiasm when the EEC morphed into the EU, when a free trade organisation became a union; and the UK has voted to leave the EU for largely similar reasons.
Jeremy
That's the big one, debated time and again as to whether it's a true representaion of the facts or not.
Some say it was always the guideline and others say it was something that morphed into something else later on. I think the bottom line demonstrates that not enough of us, myself included, really know what's going down when these decisions are being made. How could we know? There are thousands of documents to be read - who has ever done that, and even were we able so to do, how many have the legal training to understand ramifications or even imagine them? It's why we pay politicians to do it for us on a daily basis.
I have made big enough mistakes myself in situations where I imagned I had all the facts; why depend on poor old Joe Public to make even bigger ones? That's why I think a referendum is always bad news: it depends on ignorance of the facts, little information and no political skills to arrive at hugely important decisions.
Now we have to pick up the pieces and answer to our chldren and grandchildren, and tell them why we fucked up their ability to travel, without asking anybody's permission, wherever in Europe they wanted to go, stop, and hang out their shingle should they think fit. Wonderful Boris, I owe you.
Rob
P.S. Just realised: in all of this, poor old Farage doesn't even raise an eyebrow anymore. Did his bit, served his purpose and now disappears back to where he came from. You were used, buddy, used.
I'm sure that the autopsies and recriminations will continue for years to come. However, the one lesson that hopefully is not lost amid all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth (both present and yet to come) is; that, the quality of outcomes depends upon the quality of inputs. From what I have seen and read it seems that the British people were fed (and swallowed) a diet of threats and promises, by both sides, which were mostly hyperbole and/or very substantial distortions of fact. In an ideal world, effective democracy relies on a well informed body politic and, those seeking or holding office within it are held to the highest standards of honesty and integrity by an independent fourth estate. Reality is, of course, very different. Politicians and the media increasingly serve interests other than their constituents or democracy. In short, they lie, a lot! And, since we know that they lie, a lot, isn't it our responsibility to: challenge their utterances, ask questions, be skeptical, think critically, look for alternative explanations and answers. And, if we were to do those things - what chance a President Trump?
These are early days, and UK exit is anything but a done deal. There are already rumblings about several potential legal challenges to the result and very vocal grumblings of discontent.
To paraphrase Jolyon Maugham QC
(https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/24/when-i-say-no-i-mean-maybe/)
The referendum result has created a democratic imperative for the UK to depart but it hasn't created a legal one - yet. This would follow not from the referendum result but from a British decision to trigger the exit procedure in Article 50 - at which point 'exit' would be irreversible.
A refreshed democratic mandate either by way of a general election or a second referendum, this time for Remain though, would undo the democratic imperative of the first.
Were we to have an early General Election fought by one party on an explicit Remain platform and were that party to prevail it would amount to a ‘refreshed democratic mandate’. The electorate would have spoken such that the result of the Referendum would be superseded.
**
The Irish Times reports that their passport office in London has been swamped with Brits applying for Irish passports. (No, not a joke...) and a petition on YouGov to trigger a second EU referendum has already garnered over 850,000 signatures - (any petition with over 100,000 signatures has to be considered for a debate in Parliament - in the last six minutes alone it's gone up by over 10,000 votes - by lunchtime today it should be in excess of 1,000,000) not easy to see how this cannot , at the very least, be debated in Parliament - and there is, or was, a very definite 'Remain' majority amongst MPs ...
Profile of the vote attached ...
Why? What makes you think that a high level education results in a single opinion, let alone a PC one? A lot of highly educated people were for the exit, and a lot highly educated people are for Trump. That's just another example of the typical condescension that whoever disagrees with me must be stupid, uneducated, racist, and bigot.
That's just another example of the losing side stamping their foot and saying how awfully unfair it all was.
There are certainly hundreds of thousands of educated people in favor of Brexit for reasonnable reasons, but my prerogative is that there are millions of less educated ones who have been sadly impacted by populist proposals playing on people's fears.
Those are the same people who have had little exposure to the cosmopolitan and vivid Europe I know where cultural differences generate opportunities.
Cheers,
Bernard
Profile of the vote attached ...
No, it 's a YouGov voting profile - which incidentally sems to very accurately reflect who voted for what.
The millennials screwed by the baby boomers...
How?
No offense but the graph is pretty clear, isn't it? Millennials want to live in a world that is slightly larger than little Britain, and slightly larger than the EU as well for that matter...
I would feel robbed of part of my future as well...
Profile of the vote attached ...That's a very interesting piece of information. I knew there was a significant difference between the `old' (who remember a pre-EU Britain) and `young' (who mostly don't) vote but I'd no idea it was as dramatic as the figures indicate. With luck, some good may still come of this. At least some of the previously hard line Eurocentric's seem to be questioning whether they have tried to go too far, too fast. If there is good will, a willingness to listen to each others concerns and to compromise on both sides maybe, just maybe, there is a way through this.
But then again they might want to live in a world over which they have some say, its this stuff called democracy of which the EU suffers something of a major deficit.
But then again they might want to live in a world over which they have some say, its this stuff called democracy of which the EU suffers something of a major deficit.
Profile of the vote attached ...
A bit more details on how it was divided based on many attributes: Source BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028)
The petition I referred to earlier is now well over 1,150,000 and counting - very hard to see how this won't be debated in Parliament.
<
EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum. - We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.
>
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
Unlike British democracy, eh.... A majority government elected on 37% of the popular vote, a second chamber including the hereditary nobility and religious office holders, and a head of state determined by a mixture of DNA and not being the wrong religion.
There was an electorate; each member of that electorate had one vote; and the result is determined by the majority.
Whether we should ever have been asked the question, given that we live in a representative democracy, is another matter. Many of us rather resented it.
On your second point the only thing to realize is that the representative parliament voted to hold the referendum. Whether they did that as true believers or a cop-out so they didn't have to take their own responsibility is anybodies guess (and probably not the same for all members of parliament).
So as a lawyer, is de jure not relevant? The 37% is in fact the percentage of those who actually voted, and we only rejected a poor alternative to our defective electoral system.
The fact is, British democracy is at least as defective as the EU's.
It's funny how the remain side have almost as one latched on to calling the those who voted leave stupid and uneducated.
The EU won't even exist then, Bill. A wheel just came off and it's headed over the cliff.
So it will be debated. So what?
As the numbers show they clearly weren't too concerned about that...
The EU won't even exist then, Bill. A wheel just came off and it's headed over the cliff.
Unlike British democracy, eh.... A majority government elected on 37% of the popular vote, a second chamber including the hereditary nobility and religious office holders, and a head of state determined by a mixture of DNA and not being the wrong religion.
Are you saying that just because British democracy, In fact most democracies, are flawed that we should give up on the idea altogether? What would have in its place?
I would appreciate if you didn't put these words in my mouth please, I said less educated, which has nothing to do with stupid and only a little to do with uneducated.
Honnestly, although we will mostly all be impacted negatively by this vote (in fact I may benefit from it personnally but that's beside the point), those living outside Britain will be a lot les than the Brits, whatever they voted for.
Cheers,
Bernard
A bit more details on how it was divided based on many attributes: Source BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028)
It's all interesting information and tells you some stories and maybe where and how the results were achieved. But the bottom line remains the same, the majority voted out and that's what probably will happen. I only hope the the negotiators are not going to play games, if they want out it's out and no dragging of feet to "declare" article 50 later (as Boris was suggesting). That's just plain bad, especially for all the people who didn't have a vote in what's happening now.
Simply trying to rip Britain out of Europe in the quickest and messiest manner possible to teach other countries a lesson is perhaps the most stupid thing of all to do, but that is what certain politicians would seem to want.
I'm all for Europe as a fraternity, but not as a remote and undemocratic empire.
What did you expect? The EU wants to make the period of uncertainty for the financial markets as short as possible in its own interest but also in the interest of the whole world.
It is not the EU's fault that the Leave camp has no clue what happens next...
Unanimity Voting is pretty inefficient but I would hardly call it undemocratic...
Rob, when Yugoslavia disintegrated, my father, living in Serbia, was receiving his pension from a Croatian (an archenemy, if you will) company. After an initial hickup, while the war was going on, the pension resumed, with all retroactive debt paid. If two Balkan(ized) countries can achieve that, you should be ok.
On another note, I was getting free medical care just by a virtue of renting an apartment in Barcelona, so you should be good for that too.
Are you saying that just because British democracy, in fact most democracies, are flawed that we should give up on the idea altogether? What would you have in its place?t
t
No, just ridiculing your point about the deficiencies in Eu democracy.
I keep my fingers crossed, Slobodan, and reading some of the comments on LuLa makes me think staying on here is a better alternative, whatever it costs, to returning to the land of gloom and envy, especially the latter, which has been the root cause of Britain's descent from a great industrial power to a service industry.
The first thing I heard Farage declare on tv when the result came in was to the effect that it was a great, wonderful blow against the banks! Caught in the moment of euphoria, as with in vino, veritas! Now the true intentions and philosophies are clear. Not extreme right at all: quite the opposite, in fact. How cleverly hidden that one was, but it worked.
So now we know: don't waste time looking under the bed for those brightly coloured ones; just check out the wannabes. Explains quite a lot about the reticent Socialist 'leader' and his surprising loss of voice when it mattered. Wasn't lost at all.
There's the old saying that those who seek public office should be banned from holding public office.
Name me any country in the world that is a real democracy?
All have their drawbacks, and EU is not the worst.
I hope Brexit will be a truth "electoshock" for the EU!
And the creation of a "6 country hard core" will help to take good decisions for a real social Europe.
Have a Nice Day.
Thierry
Why? What makes you think that a high level education results in a single opinion, let alone a PC one? A lot of highly educated people were for the exit, and a lot highly educated people are for Trump. That's just another example of the typical condescension that whoever disagrees with me must be stupid, uneducated, racist, and bigot.Really? I've been looking for one and haven't found that person yet (maybe you want to volunteer?). Hank Paulson, a life long Republican and Secretary of the Treasury under Bush II, has an op-ed in tomorrow's Washington Post announcing he is voting for Hilary Clinton and urging other Republicans to do the same!! http://tinyurl.com/zytbmbn
Too many people and too many places have been left behind by globalisation and the free movement of people. It gets to a point where they feel so disadvantaged that they have nothing left to lose and so the result of the referendum should not be a surprise. It will be welcome if it comes to be seen as signalling the end of the age of elites which began when the Iron Curtain came down at the end of the 1980s. The elites were always undemocratic, very greedy and in Europe obsessed with crazy social engineering. They were also incompetent as the 2007/2008 crash showed. This could never last, imho.
Far too early to say how all this will pan out. But if the EU starts to blow up from a combination of popular pressure for reform and permanent, deflationary austerity across a vaste swathe of Europe in order to "protect" the euro currency, then "Brexit" may be seen as a canny bit of damage limitation before the real explosions occur. The euro cannot succeed unless nation states are more or less dissolved, but there will simply never be a democratic mandate for the dissolution of one's own nation state. Result = foobar. Probably best to get clear of the blast radius.
No you were not.
But anyway, two questions.
1. What powers does the EU parliament (the bit you vote for) actually hold?
2. Can you ever recall voting for Jean Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, which is where the real power lies?
Agreed, the EU is heading for a major crisis and probable oblivion if it does not mend its ways. Brexit is a wake up call, one which they cannot ignore and there are signs that senior figures are taking it on board, I have already mentioned Merkel and Valls in this context.
However, it must also be noted that the EU is a useful stick for national governments to beat their electorate with and they will only reluctantly give up the chance to blame their own favoured but unpopular policies on European directives, directives which do not always say what national governments tell us they do. This is yet another reason why there will be no simple solution to the situation, national politicians have too much at stake themselves to readily agree to major reform, especially when they were looking for forward to a cushy job in Brussels.
So what ?
You're jesting no doubt , but if you're not then I suggest reading the link I posted above to the article by Jolyon Maugham QC.
And, incidentally, if you really think that "As an example of contempt for democracy, it's hard to beat" I'd suggest that you haven't looked too hard!
Given the dissatisfaction with Corbyn, the split within the Tories, disaffected Scots, Irish unrest and a polarised electorate you can't preclude any number of possible developments.
So what? I have indirectly voted for the government that agreed to him and which gives him instructions. I haven't ever voted for a bureaucrat in the UK government.
In the 25 years I have lived in my UK constituency, a safe seat, my vote has never mattered. Every time I've voted for the EU parliament, my vote has counted equally to anyone else's.
Just face it, Brexit is just a protest vote against immigration and the fear of it. Claiming it's about democracy is ridiculous and dishonest.
No, I'm not jesting. It will be debated, but the idea that parliament would dare retrospectively to change the rules under which the referendum was conducted is patently absurd. The author of the petition clearly fails to understand it.
I've read Maugham QC's article. He's a tax barrister. I've no reason to assume that his knowledge of constitutional law is any better than mine, or anyone else's. The article is speculation, not an Advice or an Opinion: it sets out things which might happen. Yes, they might. Yes, the EU might suddenly realise that humiliating Cameron when he attempted to renegotiate some terms of our membership was a phenomenally bad idea. Yes, the referendum was advisory, not mandatory. Yes, Article 50 has not yet been invoked (and, contrary to what Juncker et al have been saying, we are perfectly free to invoke it at a time entirely of our choosing).
But we are where we are, which is that a consultative process has yielded a clear outcome and it is expected that Parliament will accede to the expressed wishes of the people it chose to consult.
I've looked hard enough. It shows utter contempt for the electorate who voted in a referendum with defined rules to suggest that as you don't like the outcome, you must change the rules.
I'd never preclude any development, save for that petition producing a retrospective change in the law.
Jeremy
The time has come for compromise and real reform of the EU, both Merkel and Manuel Valls have hinted that it might be necessary for they too are looking at a great deal of dissent in their own countries.
Yes. Wouldn't it be ironic if this vote turned out to be the catalyst for such reform? We shall see…
-Dave-
I think that EU was a dream after the war, diluted by the years and the new generations. Now, time as passed, money is the core and humans absolutely didn't progressed. If there is something after Homo Sapiens we are extremely far from it...
Europe is complicated in the sense of you need to know almost 23 different languages and almost the same amount of cultures to "almost" (again) get the picture. This in not impossible but one need several life to achieve that. In my book Europe should be split into 4 independent sectors with active borders :
* France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Scotland, Great Britain, Portugal and Iceland for the West Europe.
* Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia for the North Europe.
* Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Belarus, Slovakia and Hungary for the Central Europe.
* Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova + all the patch front Italy for the southern Europe.
I would dump half of Ukraine to Mother Russia, all what is East of the Dniepr.
We make our own business in our respective corners and help each other if there is some sort of conflicts and voilà.
Europe is old, his bureaucratie is very heavy and Europe is not fair.
The West sector is Atlantist. We need US and US need us. US would then open the door more easy to the "westerners" with a real economic synergy.
In every sector students should be obliged without any choice to move into other country for a period of 4 years. The splitting should be equal between country. After 25 to 30 years we should start to see some change and homogeneity.
All of this is cool but the world is a real mess and humans are islands of individualism when they taste capitalism or other religions. Just look at this forum and others... Their is no grey zone; it is black or white.
Humanity is worshipping the golden calf and will be punished in accordance.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Worshiping_the_golden_calf.jpg)
What's the reaction to Brexit in France BTW?
The french reaction to Brexit is vicious. Strangely there is the same problem in France and it might go the same way. But France isn't GB. We are not as strong as English ppl because, after all, England is an Island and islanders are more determinated and prone to face problems with good laughter and a beer. I have some Romanian friends and poeple of the east call France "the big whore". Imho they are spot on. France isn't a country since Napoleon I think.
Deep inside I'm a Scots. I use to go and know an island very well, the Isle of Arran, west of Irvin. My dream is to finish my days over there, in the art of photography, with a jar of marmitte, some farmer cheddar, some smoked salmon, the rain and the midges. I do not really care about all this mess I give up long time ago and I'm only 37.
Edit: And some Whisky and some open girls.
You want to make Arran the next Big Whore?
Rob C
Name me any country in the world that is a real democracy?Probably most are, but you have to actually vote.
Nationalism will destroy the EU. Each people want self-government and their own borders. They should have created a trade pact only. Maybe that's what it will wind up being.
... I've no reason to assume that his knowledge of constitutional law is any better than mine, or anyone else's ...
Lol because of you I have tea all over my keyboard !
Arran is for me like Avalon. Should be preserved of all kind of thing. Since I work girls all day long I might bring some. The kitchen of the Castle is pretty big and there is a lot of deer trophy to dust off.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/39/84/f4/3984f4a4f3e56fc46c6f7cf40a13901e.jpg)
Nowhere have I suggested that the law will be changed retrospectively We both agree on that. What is seemingly questioned at this moment is the legality of the referendum and the exit process (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/138.pdf).
You mistakenly assume that the petition was started after the Brexit vote. It wasn't , it was started well before. The momentum picked up after the vote. When I first heard of it yesterday morning, it had barely half a million signatures - this morning, close to 3,000,000. Far from 'giving a clear outcome', the referendum has highlighted how unwise it is to decide the future of a people based on such a thin majority.
Bottom line is the referendum was advisory, not legally binding - it has only created a democratic imperative, one that could easily be superseded. It will now be up to Parliament to decide how best to go forward with Brexit.
When Nigel Farage first spoke to Sky news once the polls had closed, he described the then predicted slim margin of defeat as a small obstacle and declared 'the fight will go on..' At no point ever did he, or any other Leave campaigner, indicate a willingness to accept the result as conclusive (barring a 2/3 majority).
As the saying goes 'What's good for the goose .. '
The question now is, who is going to pick up the poisoned chalice that is leadership of the Tory Party? Cameron has handed over responsibility to who ever comes next, and whoever that is, Boris Johnson, Teresa May or Michael Gove, or indeed someone else entirely, they have the blessed joy of dealing with an economy ruined by Osborne, now facing possibly recession from a very low base, and struggling to do a deal with an EU that seems in no mood to be accommodating. It is going to be one awful mess, and will quite probably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. If Cameron is going to go down in history as one of our most incompetent PMs, whoever follows him is likely to end with an even worse reputation. Political careers will be ruined. Boris knows that what is down the line is horrendous, hence his reluctance to move quickly to Brexit. Cameron knows it, and that is why he's leaving it to his successor. Boris has been royally screwed. As for Osborne, he's no doubt had his face planted in some lines of white powder, neatly laid out on his dominatrix's best assets. No one else has seen him. He's toast, and he knows it.
So, either we get led into Brexit, and it destroys whoever is leading the Tories, or there's a decision that it's all going to be far too damaging to the country and we should remain, which would also destroy whoever is leading the Tories. Frankly, it's schadenfreude time, either way.
It doesn't matter when it was started. The 2015 Act set the parameters of the referendum and defined how the result was to be determined. Any change would by definition be retrospective: the referendum has been and the result is known. It's a silly irrelevance, and would be even if it attracted the signatures of all 16.odd million people who voted remain.
There is no real, as opposed to fanciful, doubt on the legality of the referendum.
That's an astonishing assertion. Whither (or wither, indeed) democracy? How can a "democratic imperative" be "easily ... superseded" save by abandoning the concept of democracy?
So what? There is no valid concept of a ⅔ majority. It's a retrospective irrelevance. The vote has been; the die is cast. Nothing, perhaps other than a second referendum on a very much changed EU, can change it. The EU has form for demanding that referenda which don't produce the result it likes are re-run, and some countries have given way and voted on the second occasion on the way in which the lords of Brussels wanted. I don't see that happening here.
Jeremy
So political correctness, how does it figure?
Because even today it has prevented the truth being debated, either fully in Europe or even slightly in the UK. Every politician who has dared to come within breathing distance of the subject has been branded racist, thisophobe or thatophobe; in our lands of 'freedom' only the indigenous people are prevented from expressing what they may actually feel. Look at many political rallies, and you see the same thing: dissenting native voices get banned but the other sides are allowed to carry on out of fear of the government or the police being branded racist if they stop them. It's called the race card; you simply could not make it up.
How sad to think Jo Cox had to be murdered for this result; that so many thousands of soldiers of different nationalities lie in graves in the war cemeteries of France, and all for this.
Europe existed and traded before the EU. America, a non-member, trades with Britain and the rest of Europe. So Britain will have to operate like America, and Japan, and most countries in the world who aren't part of the EU. Life will go on.
If I were a Scot living in Scotland... I think I'd want a redo of that 2014 independence vote ASAP.
Millennials want to live in a world that is slightly larger than little Britain, and slightly larger than the EU as well for that matter...
There is little doubt that the EU as it is today isn't democratic enough.
I genuinely believe that the Brexit will help move that topic in the right direction.
...France isn't GB. We are not as strong as English ppl because, after all, England is an Island..
Deep inside I'm a Scots.
Political careers will be ruined.
Crikey! For a moment I was surprised at your comments, Stamper, which appeared to be very insightful, but a bit puzzling because they seemed to be out of character. ;)
Then I noticed at the end of your post: "Comments from the Guardian newspaper". ;D
+1 ;)
Cheers,
Bart
What the petition is telling you is that there is an ever increasng groundswell of popular dissent against Brexit. The shadow cabinet is in disarray, the Tories are split probably 2/3 - 1/3, Scotland has clearly indicated it's desire to remain in the EU - and your response is 'so what?'
Whether you like it or not, Brexit is anything but a done deal, and it won't be until someone invokes Article 50. It was an advisory referendum , done and dusted, has no kegal validity but has given the Government of the day a democratic imperative, still very much subject to both informal and formal negotiations.
A general election returning a party that undertakes to keep Britain part of Europe, would supersede the result of the referendum. And democracy would be none the worse for it.
Anyway time for some levity - someone mentioned that according to the House of Lords EU committee report, apparently HM Gov can't revoke EU membership without the prior approval of the Scottish Parliament - now that would be amusing !
Comments from the Guardian newspaper
If this cursed break does go ahead, rapidly followed by another internal one, then I see two local winners: Ireland and Scotland.
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
Comments from the Guardian newspaper
The Grauniad is, as ever, living in a dream world. I don't recall Cameron ever saying that he would give notice under Article 50 immediately; and I can't imagine that any politician who had campaigned for us to leave being remotely concerned about being the one to start the process, given the referendum result.
Rob, I think you are wrong on both counts (although I agree entirely with your remarks about the banks).
I don't believe Sturgeon will rush to call a second referendum on independence, for the simple reason that there's far from certainty that she'd win it, and certainty, or near-certainty, would be mandatory before she did. The economic arguments for Scottish independence have vanished with the halving of the price of oil. An independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU; it would have to go through the full application process; and part of the price for admission would be adoption of the Euro (required of all new member states). It just ain't going to happen.
I think the idea of Northern Ireland deciding to forget the religious and political differences which led to so many recent years of bombs and bloodshed and unite with the Republic is, with respect, pure fantasy, at least before Catholics outnumber Protestants.
And in 20 years' time, when Ireland is united, an independent Scotland has adopted the Euro and there is a manned land border between it and England, I'll eat my (stale) words. If I'm still alive.
Jeremy
+2
BUT: stamper, if quoting all that is declaring his suppport for staying in, then he's right. I have never been a Scot Nat, but I have to admit that they seem more attractive this weekend.
If this cursed break does go ahead, rapidly followed by another internal one, then I see two local winners: Ireland and Scotland.
Both have engineering skills, and the attractions for Belfast to swallow its religious differences and vote to join the south makes a lot of economic sense. It would be a large gulp, but in the end, both would win.
Scotland, as anyone who knows it has to admit, has a vast heritage of engineering know-how and its attractions as an alternative for Nissan et al. seem fairly obvious: they still would have a footprint/base on the closest coast to Europe. Leith to Zeebrugge is already operable for large vessels... Ireland would be marginally more expensive from that aspect, but regardless, cheaper than shipping from Japan, and yes, Scotland and Ireland would be far less prone to labour problems than France! (I think they learned their lesson on that a few years ago.) And certainly no more expensive labour-wise than England.
As for the recent attack some make on banks, and the pleasure at the new problems they now face: how dumb; the money they hold is ours; we should be happy it's being jeopardized? Ditto the bail outs of 2008: yes, they kept their jobs, those rash gents, but our savings didn't become scraps of worthless balance sheet either, preventing which the primary intention of the bail outs. Amazing how hatred can blind the eyes of those who feel left behind, less capable.
Again, that bloody great lies go unchallenged, swallowed whole, is certainly the fault of those telling them; but is the populace blameless, can it escape the responsibilty of using common sense? Is it so stupid as to believe what it reads in the tabloids? If so, then I think that democracy-without-qualification and referenda are ever less worthy or reliable ways of running an organization as big as a country.
How to improve it? No idea that would stick.
It's always both amusing and sigh-inducing to see folks ridicule the source of a line of thinking when they'd rather not deal with its content. The Brexit referendum seemingly passed the buck re. the decision to pull out of the EU from British policy makers to the public. But it did so under the assumption that Article 50 would be invoked forthwith and the "leave" process would begin with the referendum result still fresh. Cameron has scuttled that both by choosing not to flip the switch and by staying on as PM into October. Thus there will be 3+ months for the decision to settle in, and possibly begin to fester, before a new PM is chosen and takes over. Who will that be and what sort of action mandate will they have? A lot can and surely will happen during that time. I'd recommend a strong dose of humility for anyone feeling confident about how it'll play out.
-Dave-
It's always both amusing and sigh-inducing to see folks ridicule the source of a line of thinking when they'd rather not deal with its content. The Brexit referendum seemingly passed the buck re. the decision to pull out of the EU from British policy makers to the public. But it did so under the assumption that Article 50 would be invoked forthwith and the "leave" process would begin with the referendum result still fresh. Cameron has scuttled that both by choosing not to flip the switch and by staying on as PM into October. Thus there will be 3+ months for the decision to settle in, and possibly begin to fester, before a new PM is chosen and takes over. Who will that be and what sort of action mandate will they have? A lot can and surely will happen during that time. I'd recommend a strong dose of humility for anyone feeling confident about how it'll play out.
-Dave-
The Grauniad is, as ever, living in a dream world. I don't recall Cameron ever saying that he would give notice under Article 50 immediately; and I can't imagine that any politician who had campaigned for us to leave being remotely concerned about being the one to start the process, given the referendum result.
Rob, I think you are wrong on both counts (although I agree entirely with your remarks about the banks).
I don't believe Sturgeon will rush to call a second referendum on independence, for the simple reason that there's far from certainty that she'd win it, and certainty, or near-certainty, would be mandatory before she did. The economic arguments for Scottish independence have vanished with the halving of the price of oil. An independent Scotland would not be a member of the EU; it would have to go through the full application process; and part of the price for admission would be adoption of the Euro (required of all new member states). It just ain't going to happen.
I think the idea of Northern Ireland deciding to forget the religious and political differences which led to so many recent years of bombs and bloodshed and unite with the Republic is, with respect, pure fantasy, at least before Catholics outnumber Protestants.
And in 20 years' time, when Ireland is united, an independent Scotland has adopted the Euro and there is a manned land border between it and England, I'll eat my (stale) words. If I'm still alive.
Jeremy
I really would like to know how the Americans see all of this stuff.
Hi Rob,
I certainly can't speak for my countrymen, but I can speak for myself as one American.
I was happy to see the economic gathering-together in cooperation of European nations and Britain in the early days of the EU. I was unhappy to see the Euro when it came along. It was obvious to anyone with even a tiny bit of economic comprehension that a single currency for nations as different as Germany and Greece wasn't going to work and was going to result in tight jaws all around. I was even more unhappy to see the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels deciding to create a nation, or something like a nation, out of many nations with separate identities, different languages, and very different lifestyles. Looked a lot like Dr. Frankenstein putting together his monster. It was the high-handed performance of those bureaucrats that brought all this to a head, though it's probable the next Greek financial fiasco, which is sure to come, would have resulted in the same outcome.
But I'm happy to see Britain standing on its own feet again. As far as NATO is concerned, I think it's outlived its usefulness. The Brits were about the only people contributing what had been agreed upon for defense. The US has been carrying the slackers for far too long. I'm damn tired of paying for that kind of thing, even though, after 26 years in the military I understand why we continue to keep troops in Germany and Japan. That kind of overseas tour keeps the troops and the generals entertained.
As far as the EU is concerned, it's on its deathbed. All the cackling in this thread about re-doing the brexit vote is a death rattle that misses the point entirely. The vote was like a pin stuck in a balloon. The air in the EU is escaping at a rapid rate. You can re-vote all you want but the damage has been done.
The Telegraph is taking the line that the Euro politicians are going to mess Britain about just to teach the rest of the ungrateful plebs a lesson and quote Junckers, who, it must remembered, is an unelected civil servant -
Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday: “The repercussions of the British referendum could quickly put a stop to such crass rabble-rousing, as it should soon become clear that the UK was better off inside the EU.” Britain simply has to go, on bad terms, pour encourager les autres.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/the-eu-will-treat-britain-like-greece/
But as they stamp up and down puffing their little chests out they might find the great army of European unity they believe to be marching in lockstep behind them is somewhat more reluctant altogether and has yet to decide just which side they are on themselves -
Secondly, a wave of movements demanding referendums on the terms of membership, given a huge boost by Mr Cameron, is tearing across Europe – in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary. Marine Le Pen could will run rampant in French elections in the spring.
We should take nothing for granted just yet.
Hi Rob,
I certainly can't speak for my countrymen, but I can speak for myself as one American.
I was happy to see the economic gathering-together in cooperation of European nations and Britain in the early days of the EU. I was unhappy to see the Euro when it came along. It was obvious to anyone with even a tiny bit of economic comprehension that a single currency for nations as different as Germany and Greece wasn't going to work and was going to result in tight jaws all around. I was even more unhappy to see the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels deciding to create a nation, or something like a nation, out of many nations with separate identities, different languages, and very different lifestyles. Looked a lot like Dr. Frankenstein putting together his monster. It was the high-handed performance of those bureaucrats that brought all this to a head, though it's probable the next Greek financial fiasco, which is sure to come, would have resulted in the same outcome.
But I'm happy to see Britain standing on its own feet again. As far as NATO is concerned, I think it's outlived its usefulness. The Brits were about the only people contributing what had been agreed upon for defense. The US has been carrying the slackers for far too long. I'm damn tired of paying for that kind of thing, even though, after 26 years in the military I understand why we continue to keep troops in Germany and Japan. That kind of overseas tour keeps the troops and the generals entertained.
As far as the EU is concerned, it's on its deathbed. All the cackling in this thread about re-doing the brexit vote is a death rattle that misses the point entirely. The vote was like a pin stuck in a balloon. The air in the EU is escaping at a rapid rate. You can re-vote all you want but the damage has been done.
Hi Rob,
I certainly can't speak for my countrymen, but I can speak for myself as one American.
I was happy to see the economic gathering-together in cooperation of European nations and Britain in the early days of the EU. I was unhappy to see the Euro when it came along. It was obvious to anyone with even a tiny bit of economic comprehension that a single currency for nations as different as Germany and Greece wasn't going to work and was going to result in tight jaws all around. I was even more unhappy to see the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels deciding to create a nation, or something like a nation, out of many nations with separate identities, different languages, and very different lifestyles. Looked a lot like Dr. Frankenstein putting together his monster. It was the high-handed performance of those bureaucrats that brought all this to a head, though it's probable the next Greek financial fiasco, which is sure to come, would have resulted in the same outcome.
But I'm happy to see Britain standing on its own feet again. As far as NATO is concerned, I think it's outlived its usefulness. The Brits were about the only people contributing what had been agreed upon for defense. The US has been carrying the slackers for far too long. I'm damn tired of paying for that kind of thing, even though, after 26 years in the military I understand why we continue to keep troops in Germany and Japan. That kind of overseas tour keeps the troops and the generals entertained.
As far as the EU is concerned, it's on its deathbed. All the cackling in this thread about re-doing the brexit vote is a death rattle that misses the point entirely. The vote was like a pin stuck in a balloon. The air in the EU is escaping at a rapid rate. You can re-vote all you want but the damage has been done.
As an American, I could have written Russ's comments. He said exactly what I've thought and said for years. The EU should have stopped at trade agreements like NAFTA as each country still keeps its sovereignty. The EU is doomed even if Brexit is not accomplished now. Nationalism and patriotism are too powerful a force as the major entertainments of the twentieth century had proven. Not to say this must end in conflict. Just that everyone is happier flying their own flag.
... enough pro-Europe youngsters turned adults..
I thought I'd already made that clear. The referendum is not binding ...
... it's no longer as simple as the PM deciding that we'll have one. Section 2 of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, enacted as I recall at Nick Clegg's insistence, renders calling a premature general election really quite tricky. It couldn't be done with the cooperation of the Labour Party, or to be more accurate the members of the parliamentary Labour party.
That really would involve turkeys voting for an early Christmas (to quote Jim Callaghan).
That Hitler EU comparison of Boris Johnson might not have helped, just saying...
Many thanks for this sensible post. There is chronic inequality and neglect here in Britain and when you add that people are fed up with very remote politicians pushing them around, not to mention bureaucrats in the EU who hold absolutely no elected office in the UK, the result of this referendum isn't very surprising. It's simply saying that a political process without democratic consent ain't gonna work. And this from one who voted to stay in the EU, on the grounds that helping them sort themselves out was preferable to walking away.
In addition, I think folks need to realize that this is essentially unravelling a bureaucratic/legal arrangement. Trade is always pragmatic and will continue to flow through and around political obstacles. The future in not in Europe, a very narrow focus, it is now global and with a huge pull towards Asia and Asia-Pacific. A country re-positioning itself towards this new reality and away from an obsession with "Europe" alone is no bad thing.
Meanwhile, in Japan...
Derb on the Brexit -
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/rule-britannia-on-brexit-the-immigrant-and-geezer-votes-anddonald-j-trump/
"Many thanks for this sensible post. There is chronic inequality and neglect here in Britain and when you add that people are fed up with very remote politicians pushing them around, not to mention bureaucrats in the EU who hold absolutely no elected office in the UK, the result of this referendum isn't very surprising".
How rich, Britain has been imposing its will on the Commonwealth for hundreds of years. One million people died and ten million were displaced because of British actions in India during the partition.
Cheers,
I was living there at the time.
What you must offer us, now - with the benefits of sixty-nine years of hindsight - is a solution (yours) of how better to have departed a country like that which the sub-continent was, stop hundreds of millions of adherents of two basically competitive and antagonistic religions, living cheek-by-jowel in mutual hatred, from launching one of the greatest religious wars on Earth. (Think Belfast magnified beyond comprehension.)
Considering where one of those religions finds itself today, in absolute mutal hatred with it's fellows with a slightly different point of view within the same faith, I think 1947 was sorted out in the best - if only way - possible. The aftermath of what followed wasn't brilliant for the departing powers, leading to the pressures that have built up in the UK ever since.
If anything, the problem has been, as now, that Britain is not self-centred enough to fight its corners strongly enough; that's a weakness that comes with being a 'gentleman'; the street fighter just kicks your balls whilst you square up. Within the EU, nobody was kicking Germany around... and it wasn't hoofing us in the testes either, despite what some of our misinformed zenos might think.
Rob
"How rich, Britain has been imposing its will on the Commonwealth for hundreds of years. One million people died and ten million were displaced because of British actions in India during the partition".
WW2 left a huge scar on the British population. Twice as many Indians died during "The Partition". The British have made it clear that they only think of their own self interest.
Britain joining the EU had a very negative impact on Australian trade with Britain. Hey, did they care, did they even notice?
A famous anarchist quote.
“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.”
― Emma Goldman
"(Heseltine) ... says the House of Commons is broadly supportive of staying in the EU. Before it voted to leave the EU, he says there would need to be a second referendum, or an election. During the referendum it was not explained what life outside the EU would look like. Once we know the answer to those questions, the public are entitled to have another say. "
This is priceless.
In other words, they should vote again and again until the result is right.
I was going to congratulate Brits over here with their ability to decide their future for themselves (for better or worse), but I guess I should wait with that...
It is surprising the number of non Brits who are commenting on the situation?
It is surprising the number of non Brits who are commenting on the situation?
There are at least two on here who are British but not currently living there. I'm one of them.
It is surprising the number of non Brits who are commenting on the situation?
I was thinking more about the US, Russia and Australia.
I can't speak for all non Brits, of course, but for me interest (apart from general curiosity) is in whether we do have a shining example of Democracy or not. Believe it or not, this is quite practical a question: it would be nice to be able to tell a supporter of the current ruling party in Russia: "See? This is how it's done!"
What I see time and time again is not encouraging though, to say the least. Establishment's control of the public in the West is almost as tight as in Russia -- it's just so much subtler, up to the point of being unnoticed by the majority.
It is surprising the number of non Brits who are commenting on the situation?
"How rich, Britain has been imposing its will on the Commonwealth for hundreds of years. One million people died and ten million were displaced because of British actions in India during the partition".
WW2 left a huge scar on the British population. Twice as many Indians died during "The Partition". The British have made it clear that they only think of their own self interest.
Britain joining the EU had a very negative impact on Australian trade with Britain. Hey, did they care, did they even notice?
If you want to see one reason for that interest, Robert, check the Dow Jones Industrial Average for Friday and today. What's happening to the UK and EU has an impact on the world.
I can't speak for all non Brits, of course, but for me interest (apart from general curiosity) is in whether we do have a shining example of Democracy or not. Believe it or not, this is quite practical a question: it would be nice to be able to tell a supporter of the current ruling party in Russia: "See? This is how it's done!"
What I see time and time again is not encouraging though, to say the least. Establishment's control of the public in the West is almost as tight as in Russia -- it's just so much subtler, up to the point of being unnoticed by the majority.
Fascinating topic.
From April 8 Financial Times
The great Brexit kabuki — a masterclass in political theatre (http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/Brexit.FT.pdf)
Another Brexit tonight?
Fascinating topic.
From April 8 Financial Times
The great Brexit kabuki — a masterclass in political theatre (http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/Brexit.FT.pdf)
This is a follow up comment to that article, published the day after the referendum. Can't find the link, so attached below.
Derb on the Brexit -
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/rule-britannia-on-brexit-the-immigrant-and-geezer-votes-anddonald-j-trump/
There are certainly hundreds of thousands of educated people in favor of Brexit for reasonnable reasons, but my prerogative is that there are millions of less educated ones who have been sadly impacted by populist proposals playing on people's fears.
Those are the same people who have had little exposure to the cosmopolitan and vivid Europe I know where cultural differences generate opportunities.
Cheers,
Bernard
No, it 's a YouGov voting profile - which incidentally sems to very accurately reflect who voted for what.
Really? I've been looking for one and haven't found that person yet (maybe you want to volunteer?). Hank Paulson, a life long Republican and Secretary of the Treasury under Bush II, has an op-ed in tomorrow's Washington Post announcing he is voting for Hilary Clinton and urging other Republicans to do the same!! http://tinyurl.com/zytbmbn
I agree Rob C that there was a lot of spin on both sides before the vote. The same happens before a general election. But what do you suggest? Have a special class of people, unelected, to run the country for the rest of us serfs. Wasn't Britain like that at one time?
By the same token, Bernard, shouldn't we equally assume that on the remain side "there are millions of less educated ones who have been sadly impacted by populist proposals playing on people's fears"? Or are we once again assuming that it is only "my" side that has a monopoly on truth and rational decision making?
As for "the cosmopolitan and vivid Europe," we ain't talking about French bistros and Belgium chocolate, but about sleeper cells and a civilization that is anything but cosmopolitan.
But there's a huge, basic difference: in the UK, at least, you can vote various parties in and out, and that's how it's been for ages.
So the government is supposed to act on the voters' behalf, making the calls, all in the best interests of the population as a whole.
(...)
Now, back to governmental responsibility: those people are supposed to take the right actions on our behalf; putting out a major decision to referendum is crazy, and a betrayal of duty: government should make those decisions because it's there, at the bloody coalface, knows the players, and the circumstances. We, the general public, do not. All we know is the spin, half-truths and downright lies that vested interests trying to unseat government (so they can move in) feed us.
...The lack of any real choice in an elective democracy...
This is priceless.
In other words, they should vote again and again until the result is right...
... if you flunk every test in school, you and your analytical abilities are clearly sub-normal, and your value as a sentient citizen is the equivalent of your mental capacity: zero...
"I failed 3 times in college. I applied 30 times to get a job but I was always rejected. When KFC came to China for the first time, we were 24 to apply and I was the only one dismissed. I wanted to go into the police but I was the only one not accepted. I applied 10 times to Harvard University in the US and I was rejected. "
Jack Ma, Alibaba Creator and 22nd Worlds richest man according to Fortune and according to Forbes 2015 list with $29.8 billion net worth.
An overview how European press is commenting:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36641827
From Le Figaro:
"[EU] ... to rebuild itself through a new treaty that must be ratified by referendums in all member states. ... They should offer real protection against the pressures of globalisation, from "multicultural naivety, dogmatic free trade, and abstract universalism" to "uncontrolled immigration, persistent unemployment, and a squeezed middle class".
Here is a little realism from the Guardian at last, it tells of the decay and poverty struck Britain in the 80's and never went away despite the pretence that it did -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/liverpool-london-brexit-leave-eu-referendum
If you want to see one reason for that interest, Robert, check the Dow Jones Industrial Average for Friday and today. What's happening to the UK and EU has an impact on the world.
It didn't go away for some but had he visited the surrounding modern business parks etc. he might have formed a different view. Wolverhampton for example is transformed from the place I visited in the 80s and 90s. Walsall perhaps less so.
I have to disagree with such a view, Rob. For example:
It didn't go away for some but had he visited the surrounding modern business parks etc. he might have formed a different view. Wolverhampton for example is transformed from the place I visited in the 80s and 90s. Walsall perhaps less so.
By the same token, Bernard, shouldn't we equally assume that on the remain side "there are millions of less educated ones who have been sadly impacted by populist proposals playing on people's fears"? Or are we once again assuming that it is only "my" side that has a monopoly on truth and rational decision making?
Living here in a southern backwater, I see many of the people have very little and many a lot; however, they mix freely, all seem to be capable of living together without agro. Perhaps because it's just a pair of villages? I've known a local builder/developer since we came here in '81. He's second or third generation, and has built several massive, and massively expensive developments; he drops in for a beer at the same basic bars where I usually lunch. Anybody chats with him, he dresses as simply as the rest of us; he never drove expensive wheels. Perhaps it's just my ignorance, but I dont know of anywhere in the UK where I'd run into the same social ease. Maybe it's just what the basic meaning of south really is: enjoy what you have and get on with it?
For a start because 2 key arguments of the Leave side have already been confirmed in the past 3 days by those very guys as a bunch of lies (amount of money ransfered from UK to EU and the possbility to close borders to immigration) while all the negative forecast of the stay camp in case of Brexit are starting to occur already?
There may have been some "populist" proposals made by the stay camp as well, and I am sure that some people were impacted by those as well, but do we still call "populist" the mention of a real issue. I don't think we do.
Cheers,
Bernard
I don't understand the point you're making Justin. Are you suggesting that I'm making a positive spin on a bad situation? I'm not sure if you visit the West Midlands for business but there are some really dynamic companies there - for example there's a company who make the locks for filing cabinets (and have done so for at least 100 years) and they are cheaper and better than China. They can see off all competition because they have a skilled workforce in a modern factory. Travel 8 miles or less and you'll get to a god awful town centre which is as that article describes made up of people who, in my opinion, are not grasping the opportunities that are there because it's change.
Then again I have probably misunderstood your point :)
This view is hardly anything new or original and when peeled back can often be seen as a cop out for people not wanting to take responsibility for society as a whole.
Let's put it another way, you are saying that people are not taking responsibility for themselves and reskilling or being entrepreneurial or whatever. Let's move up the scale somewhat and ask if it is that easy then why are you not rushing out to reskill or start a new wonder business to improve your lot? Why is it always others who are being idle? In Ireland we call this attitude 'hurling from the ditch'.
I did reskill when I wanted to improve my lot, not that it has anything to do with it as my industry hadn't collapsed and gone away.
I'm still not sure what your point is. These guys may be wonderful workers in industries that no longer employ anyone as they all went bust or to China but how does that help them? They maybe want a job that doesn't exist any more, I'd say reskilling sounds pretty good to me. And no it's not easy I understand that. But as needs must.
We can spend all day arguing so what I suggest you do is pop down to your nearest deserted town centre, set up you stall in the high street and persuade those who are not grasping opportunities to do so. It might be handy if if you have a list of such opportunities to show them
Do let us know how you get on.
I did reskill when I wanted to improve my lot, not that it has anything to do with it as my industry hadn't collapsed and gone away.
I'm still not sure what your point is. These guys may be wonderful workers in industries that no longer employ anyone as they all went bust or to China but how does that help them? They maybe want a job that doesn't exist any more, I'd say reskilling sounds pretty good to me. And no it's not easy I understand that. But as needs must.
I'm not sure what I have done for such a potentially offensive reply - but I apologise for whatever it is I did.
Mike
There often isn't point, just dogma.
Albert Watson has but one working eye - from birth - but boy, has he been able to see with it!
;-)
Rob
if the British people had trouble understanding what was going on then how do outsiders understand?
Well, I fail to see what's so surprising about outsiders being able to see what's up with the UK.
As to me: in 2004, I sold my company to a UK one, and then became head of their 90-strong branch office in Moscow, and a shareholder. Been to UK many times, and do happen to know a thing or two about how business is done over there.
Had read a lot on UK history; Churchill's The Second World War and Asimov's The Shaping of England come to mind... As to the latter: how many Brits do realize that the foundation of their future greatness had been laid out at the time of their greatest weakness if not misery? I bet at UK schools they focus on Waterloo and similar cr@p.
I'd say sometimes it takes an outsider's look to see what's really going on...
You probably won't know about the underlying problem about racism? Ukip ran a campaign that was accused of racism. A lot of people were influenced by it and voted to leave because they thought it would stop immigrants coming in. Your many visits to the UK might now be at an end? This will be difficult for outsiders to fathom...racism in the UK.
Well, I fail to see what's so surprising about outsiders being able to see what's up with the UK.
As to me: in 2004, I sold my company to a UK one, and then became head of their 90-strong branch office in Moscow, and a shareholder. Been to UK many times, and do happen to know a thing or two about how business is done over there.
Had read a lot on UK history; Churchill's The Second World War and Asimov's The Shaping of England come to mind... As to the latter: how many Brits do realize that the foundation of their future greatness had been laid out at the time of their greatest weakness if not misery? I bet at UK schools they focus on Waterloo and similar cr@p.
I'd say sometimes it takes an outsider's look to see what's really going on...
...You probably won't know about the underlying problem about racism? Ukip ran a campaign that was accused of racism... Your many visits to the UK might now be at an end? ...
I am sure that after a few months, things will revert to business as usual. In the meantime, rating agencies will downgrade the UK's debt (done already), as if all of a sudden it is no longer one of the largest and strongest market place in the world. Almost like when a new camera is introduced, the older camera becomes crap:)
Mr. Cameron played and lost, all for the sake of appeasing the hard line in his party, and for winning the 2015 elections. What is new?
On this side of the channel, the EU commission is demanding that the UK exits quickly, behaving like a child to whom a toy was stolen... they are also discussing whether or not sanctions should be applied to Portugal for a slight deviation of deficit (3.2% vs. 3%). As if there are no more important issues at the moment, like the election results in Spain, where Mr. Rajoy won (again...), PSOE is still second, and the Podemos hippies are still having fun.
I wish the EU commission would have been this active when a dictator from a right wing party won the elections in Hungary...
Yesterday the great English football team lost from Iceland...
Iceland was simply better.
Dear Lord!
Why would his (or mine) visits to the UK end??? Being against unchecked or illegal immigration doesn't translate into being against tourism, for business or pleasure.
The world existed before the EU, some of us traveled, lived, worked, married, etc. in 30+ countries on three continents, and all that with a red passport, requiring visas everywhere.
The left is so devoid of fresh ideas that the only tool left in its toolbox is the accusation of racism and bigotry. When racism is your only argument, you already lost (the argument).
Dear Lord!
Why would his (or mine) visits to the UK end??? Being against unchecked or illegal immigration doesn't translate into being against tourism, for business or pleasure.
The world existed before the EU, some of us traveled, lived, worked, married, etc. in 30+ countries on three continents, and all that with a red passport, requiring visas everywhere.
The left is so devoid of fresh ideas that the only tool left in its toolbox is the accusation of racism and bigotry. When racism is your only argument, you already lost (the argument).
It's no use Slobodan. The left needs "safe space" and "trigger warnings" to survive.
Left or right politics - Spain's greater argument seems to be based around corruption, of which all of them have shining accusations if not proof - yet. Even Royalty isn't immune. Whichever party in power, the only hope is that none will allow dogma to destroy what already exists. That's oh so easy to do, as we currently discuss.
Rob
... while all the negative forecast of the stay camp in case of Brexit are starting to occur already?
... do we still call "populist" the mention of a real issue. I don't think we do.
From CNN:
It's not often that one decision can cripple your own economy, damage global investor confidence, imperil one of the most successful alliances in modern history, foster the rise of ultra-nationalists, precipitate the possible breakup of your own country, deeply divide your own party and cause a great schism between voters of every ideological stripe, but this is one of them...
Once again, racism, bigotry, populism are simply labels one side slaps on another in absence of better arguments.
"However, it would be a mistake to jump to conclusions."
A view from Switzerland:
You mean the market drop? One-day drop? Today, the markets are recovering. Does that vindicate the Leave side? Or simply illustrates that markets tend to go up or down on any given day, and that overreactions tend to correct itself over time?
Norway and Switzerland comply with EU regulations, have to allow free movement of people from within the EU...
The pound went from $1.32 to $1.33 today... It came from $1.50...
Norway and Switzerland comply with EU regulations, have to allow free movement of people from within the EU and even contribute to the EU.Our people voted to not be EU members. Then our politicians decided that we should be under strict EU control without having a saying in the directions of the EU, without asking the people.
The same would apply to the UK. Merkel has made it crystal clear that there will be no cherry picking...
And as with Communism and some religions, it flourishes only amidst poverty and ignorance. Ain't no accident: it's just mind meds...I'd say that the new fangled populist right thrives just as well (perhaps better) than the left among the poor and the ignorant.
That would be a !2% drop originally. Hardly a record drop in the last ten years:
Here is a little realism from the Guardian at last, it tells of the decay and poverty struck Britain in the 80's and never went away despite the pretence that it did -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/liverpool-london-brexit-leave-eu-referendum
I suggest only young, rich and highly educated should be allowed to vote.
Does that include bankers? ;)
"realism"? The Grauniad wouldn't know realism if it tripped over it. It has a fixed mindset, the same mindset that led it to urge its readers to write to Americans in one state telling them not to vote for Bush (and increasing his majority in that state, I believe).
And the knee-jerk invocation of Thatcher in the last paragraph is exactly what I'd expect. All that that paper's readers have to see in an article is a mention of her to inspire a reassuring sense that evil still prevails and everything bad that has been described above can happily be attributed to her.
Or Blair, of course.
Jeremy
I suggest only young, rich and highly educated should be allowed to vote.
As for "populist"... Immigration is a real issue. Does mentioning it counts as "populist"?
... Anyway, whatever evidence I'll provide won't change your point of view...
Oh, no!
We are both highly educated individuals, shouldn't we have the same point of view? ;)
Such individuals are able to negotiate.
;-)
Rob
Are you suggesting that anyone from the 28 EU countries can immigrate to Switzerland?
It rose by some 8 cents against the dollar in the four days before the referendum, as traders speculated that Remain was going to win. It had been trading at $1.40 to $1.42 for several months. Yes, it's fallen, but not as much as the BBC would have you believe. Similarly, as I think I've observed before, the FTSE-100 finished last week about 2% up on the Monday opening level.
There was the customary initial hysteria. CNN's penetrating insight is a ludicrous comment on a single day.
Jeremy
No, but claiming you can put an end to it does.
Anyway, whatever evidence I'll provide won't change your point of view, so I'll stop here on this one.
Cheers,
Bernard
I suggest only young, rich and highly educated should be allowed to vote.The newspapers had an anecdote where a senior stock broker "gave" his vote to his 20 yo daughter. The reasoning being that she was the one that had to live with the consequences.
... she was the one that had to live with the consequences...
"On 21 June 1999, the European Union and Switzerland signed the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP). The AFMP and its additional Protocol lift restrictions on EU citizens wishing to live or work in Switzerland....
... Anyway, whatever evidence I'll provide won't change your point of view, so I'll stop here on this one.
On a more serious note, why? We are not here to necessarily change each other's views, but to exchange them. That might broaden each other's horizon, even if ever so slightly.
Fair enough. I appreciate the factual support for your earlier claim.
However, there is a catch:
"...a residence permit will only be issued if you have a valid employment contract..."
In other words, it seems more geared toward professional positions in high demand (or moving within the same company), than a genuine immigration.
On a related note, immigration issues (in the UK) are less contentious concerning EU citizens, it's all the others.
... The result of our referendum doesn't bear this out.
From BBC News yesterday:
German MEP Christian Ehler, a member of Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Party, says there is "no other way" for the UK to start negotiations other than by triggering Article 50. There will be "no back door" and no informal negotiations, he tells The World at One. He suggests that the UK cannot be "Switzerland with nukes and a global perspective", adding: "We are going to expel Switzerland at the beginning of the next year from all of the European programmes" because the Swiss people rejected freedom of movement in a recent referendum. "Why should we treat anyone else differently than we treat Switzerland?"
-- even if the only true positive will be giving people what they said they wanted (no-one can deny this one, can't they?)
They most certainly can and do.
With the petition for a second referendum now standing at well over 4,000,000 signatures, it will need to be debated (just not yet). The likelihood is that the Parliamentary committee will defer it until a later date.
In the meantime all this matters little as the UK heads towards crisis mode, with the country split, the opposition in disarray and negotiations for exit having hit the buffers even before the first exchange. But the bottom line, is that Britain is a Parliamentary democracy - and in the final analysis Parliament will decide.
Add to this the growing unease being publicly aired by several QC's - Geoffrey Robertson, Charles Flint and Jolyon Maugham (to name but three), and the matter under review by consitutional lawyers, I suspect that it's now only a question of time until a legal challenge is mounted.
For anyone interested in a more detailed analysis of the issues involved, I'd suggest reading this blog post:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/
What's that expression ... A dog's dinner ?
I admire your ability to ignore reality...
I'm trying to understand how leaving the EU will hurt trade to the EU for the British. Will there be additional import duties for British goods sold to EU countries? What happens to EU goods sold to Britain? Would Britain insist on a quid pro quo for their goods for EU goods sold to them? What will EU companies who now sell to Britain insist upon from the EU so they can continue to sell to Britain?
What happens similarly with goods traded with non-EU countries before and after leaving the EU?
It's why I raised the question. I'd be worried if I owned a French winery or a German Mercedes Benz plant. I wouldn't want the British in retaliation to slap an extra import duty so less Brits would buy my product. GB would insist their products not be slapped with duties sold to the EU. So the EU must be worrying a lot too; Brexit is not just a problem for GB. There's going to be a lot of pressure from EU companies who like Sterlings to not punish the Brits. Of course, this all would raise the argument that the EU might not be necessary. This is going to be very interesting as the EU unravels.This is an interesting topic.
This is an interesting topic.
As a small country (Norway), we have an asymmetric relationship to the EU (or the US or Russia). If they choose to hit our Fish with import taxes, that will hurt. If we choose to stop purchasing French Wine, that will barely make a dent in the French Wine exports.
However, the relationship between UK and the EU is more symmetric. Say on the order of 10:1. So mutually locking each other trade would probably hurt EU as well. Perhaps sufficient to make companies and voters inside the EU unhappy. So should they be strict against the UK to warn future defectors, or should they be pragmatic to avoid hurting their economy?
I tend to see the EU as a possible counterweight/alternative/stabilizer to China (economically), Russia (military) and the US (both). Even though membership (especially for small countries) means loss of national power, belonging to the right club can come in handy when the big bullies wants more than their fair/legal share of the cake. There is also the question that while the EEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area) may consist of individually small countries (Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, Switzerland*)), the collective power would be greater if the UK was also in that club of non-clubbers. This group of countries would represent a larger domestic market, within Europe that would be hard to ignore for the EU looking to improve economy. Perhaps they would be pragmatic about enhancing free trade without expecting to have full political control.
-h
Seems the Scots Nats have had the first slap in the face because the EU is reluctant to engage in talks regarding Scot Nat objectives, saying it's an internal matter for the UK.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14585378.Nicola_Sturgeon_presses_on_despite_being_snubbed_by_Brussels_leadership/?ref=ebln
But, in the end, it's history: Hadrian built a wall to keep out Rangers and Celtic and now, a couple of thousand years later, the same teams are trying to lock themselves back in, in order to break out, in order to stay locked in somewhere else.
It would be difficut to write that as an acceptable screenplay.
Rob
It's why I raised the question. I'd be worried if I owned a French winery or a German Mercedes Benz plant. I wouldn't want the British in retaliation to slap an extra import duty so less Brits would buy my product. GB would insist their products not be slapped with duties sold to the EU. So the EU must be worrying a lot too; Brexit is not just a problem for GB. There's going to be a lot of pressure from EU companies who like Sterlings to not punish the Brits. Of course, this all would raise the argument that the EU might not be necessary. This is going to be very interesting as the EU unravels.
This is an interesting topic.
As a small country (Norway), we have an asymmetric relationship to the EU (or the US or Russia). If they choose to hit our Fish with import taxes, that will hurt. If we choose to stop purchasing French Wine, that will barely make a dent in the French Wine exports.
However, the relationship between UK and the EU is more symmetric. Say on the order of 10:1. So mutually locking each other trade would probably hurt EU as well. Perhaps sufficient to make companies and voters inside the EU unhappy. So should they be strict against the UK to warn future defectors, or should they be pragmatic to avoid hurting their economy?
I tend to see the EU as a possible counterweight/alternative/stabilizer to China (economically), Russia (military) and the US (both). Even though membership (especially for small countries) means loss of national power, belonging to the right club can come in handy when the big bullies wants more than their fair/legal share of the cake. There is also the question that while the EEA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area) may consist of individually small countries (Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, Switzerland*)), the collective power would be greater if the UK was also in that club of non-clubbers. This group of countries would represent a larger domestic market, within Europe that would be hard to ignore for the EU looking to improve economy. Perhaps they would be pragmatic about enhancing free trade without expecting to have full political control.
-h
Quite so, and it has been mentioned on here before that whatever the agenda of the politicians it is the commercial interests that will prevail. I believe 14% of the German workforce is involved in the car industry, Germany is not going to kiss goodbye to a market as important as the UK. In fact there are cynics who would suggest that the whole EU is shaped around providing a market for German made goods.
The final nail in the coffin of the EU will happen during the next recession when each country will try to protect what's left of their economy. The uproar heard during the Greece crisis was child's play. Nationalism from all quarters will be heard and the British with their compatriots the Scots and Irish will be glad they got out first.
The final nail in the coffin of the EU will happen during the next recession when each country will try to protect what's left of their economy. The uproar heard during the Greece crisis was child's play. Nationalism from all quarters will be heard and the British with their compatriots the Scots and Irish will be glad they got out first.
The underling racism will be hard for a outsider to fathom because they don't live in the UK and blaming both left and right is misleading. This is the problem when somebody who lives elsewhere - especially economic migrants - and doesn't live in a country relies on press from the country they now live in.
Nevertheless, the idea that Parliament would ignore the result of the referendum it called, while certainly possible, strikes me as utterly absurd.
... the mechanism by which notice to leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is triggered. There's a very good argument that such notice impliedly repeals earlier legislation, including the 1972 Act ...
My point Rob was that where is all the money going to come from to bail countries out? Germans and other citizens won't put up with it. Nationalism will kick in if just for economic reasons.
But, in the end, it's history: Hadrian built a wall to keep out Rangers and Celtic and now, a couple of thousand years later, the same teams are trying to lock themselves back in, in order to break out, in order to stay locked in somewhere else.
Indeed it was.
I would like the Hadrian wall to be rebuilt !
Are you suggesting that anyone from the 28 EU countries can immigrate to Switzerland?I don't know what the regs are but Switzerland has a significant immigrant population (22.8% in 2011 which is the most recent statistic I've seen). I've been watching the Euro football (soccer) championships and the Swiss team has fair number of players whose parents were not born in Switzerland.
It's more a question of repair and to some it has never disappeared.
I want it repaired as the original ! Should be a major achievement and a super tourist heaven.
My point Rob was that where is all the money going to come from to bail countries out? Germans and other citizens won't put up with it. Nationalism will kick in if just for economic reasons.
I want it repaired as the original ! Should be a major achievement and a super tourist heaven.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the money lent out doesn't really exist in the first place. I feel it's quite likely that the entire thing is a mirror of the banking scams pre-2008, where one set of dealers and insurers gave credits to the next set of dealers and subsequent insurers up the pyramid until one defaulted (the sub-primes) and the whole friggin' game was over. But in reality, those bank notes that exist always exist unless they are physically destroyed, so only money that is actually a fantasy gets 'lost', which I think is the same money being lent across southern Europe.
Hence gold and van Gogh.
You are factually incorrect. The petition wasn't started by the Remain campaign, but rather by a supporter of the Leave side, well before the Referendum. It's significance isn't as part of the current political process, but more an indicator of an ever rising groundswell of dissent - and something Parliament is taking note of.
No-one suggested that Parliament 'ignore' the nation's wishes.
The referendum was purely advisory - it has no legal status. Consequently, Parliament should and will review the result of the referendum in the context of the nation's wider interests - at the appropriate time. And that is what Cameron, I believe, is doing.
Voting Leave in an advisory referendum because one wishes our Parliament to be Sovereign yet protesting when only Parliament can “decide” to leave the EU strikes me, to phrase it diplomatically, as being somewhat contradictory.
I have read differing opinions on this. There is little, if anything, that can be 'implied'.
Why on Earth do you think people "rely on press from the country they now live in"? Why do you think I do not read The Guardian, for instance?
It's 21th century, stamper; time to adjust some assumptions.
Fair enough. I appreciate the factual support for your earlier claim.
However, there is a catch:
"...a residence permit will only be issued if you have a valid employment contract..."
In other words, it seems more geared toward professional positions in high demand (or moving within the same company), than a genuine immigration.
On a related note, immigration issues (in the UK) are less contentious concerning EU citizens, it's all the others. Especially with Merkel imposing refugee quotas on member states (which Swiss are spared from).
The EU is a bully. The US is a bully. Russia (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-warns-sweden-it-will-face-military-action-if-it-joins-nato-10331397.html) and China certainly are bullies. The question is what bully should you keep close in order to keep the other bullies away.
Isn't the EU being just such a bully itself?
My point Rob was that where is all the money going to come from to bail countries out? Germans and other citizens won't put up with it. Nationalism will kick in if just for economic reasons.So what happens in the US if one state cannot pay their bills? Do the other states try to throw them out?
On the contrary: the concept of implication is deeply embedded into many areas of English law.
Why on Earth do you think people "rely on press from the country they now live in"? Why do you think I do not read The Guardian, for instance?
It's 21th century, stamper; time to adjust some assumptions.
The EU is a bully. The US is a bully. Russia (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-warns-sweden-it-will-face-military-action-if-it-joins-nato-10331397.html) and China certainly are bullies. The question is what bully should you keep close in order to keep the other bullies away.
Reminds me of prison movies where the hero is thrown (innocent) into prison and have to decide what gang of bullies to join in order to not be harassed by them all.
-h
Looking at some of your posts I don't think you have got by the headlines? ;)
That strikes me as being somewhat defeatist and condones bullying. If you are going to accept the use of aggression to further ones interests then why not let us have WW III right now so we can sort it all out for another 60 years?Acknowledging that bullying exists is far from condoning it. If there was no bullying, why would we need NATO to defend ourselves or WTO to regulate free trade or the UN? We could all just go about our happy lives with no army.
Thank God I'm Australian, living on 5 acres, surrounded by wallabies and colourful parrots. Life is beautiful! ;D
Thank God I'm Australian, living on 5 acres, surrounded by wallabies and colourful parrots. Life is beautiful! ;D
Thank God I'm Australian, living on 5 acres, surrounded by wallabies and colourful parrots. Life is beautiful! ;D
What really gets me about the Brexit thing is the look it gives us at voters. I have read widely about this referendum and three things stick in my mind:
1) One interviewed "leave" voter was quoted as saying that she voted to leave without actually looking into the issues.
2) Another interviewed "leave" voter was quoted as saying that he supported staying in the EU but voted to leave because he didn't think his vote would make a difference.
Sigh. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst for of government except for all the others.
... low level and low class politicians deciding important issues like these...
... 1) One interviewed "leave" voter was quoted as saying that she voted to leave without actually looking into the issues...
I would say it was the people of the U.K. who decided this particular important issue.
What really gets me about the Brexit thing is the look it gives us at voters. I have read widely about this referendum and three things stick in my mind:
1) One interviewed "leave" voter was quoted as saying that she voted to leave without actually looking into the issues.
2) Another interviewed "leave" voter was quoted as saying that he supported staying in the EU but voted to leave because he didn't think his vote would make a difference.
Sigh. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst for of government except for all the others.
Boris just chickened out, so much for taking responsibility for your own actions ???
So?
Or is the above indignation just another way of saying that only highly educated should be allowed to vote?
Come to think of it, if we allow only highly educated to vote, there would be no need to vote at all, as we all know that, once you are highly educated, you'd reach the same conclusion as the next highly educated guy.
or it was a calculated decision to let somebody else take the poinsoned chalice...
Now that's raising the bar too high.
There should be an at least basic literacy level, and people without the land's native language should not be permitted to decide its future.
I'm not sure how Britain handles these specific voting rights, but in Spain, foreign residents can vote in local elections but not in general elections. IMO, even that's a granting too far. If you wish to vote, then you should elect to obtain nationality, at which point the election results you crave will at least have an impact on your own foreseeable, permanent future.
Rob
My comment was solely in regard to Article 50. Briefly stated, there is a very strong argument that the Prime Minister cannot invoke Article 50 without express Parliamentary approval.
The second is the mechanism by which notice to leave under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is triggered. There's a very good argument that such notice impliedly repeals earlier legislation, including the 1972 Act, and that that is something which only Parliament, and not the Executive alone, can do. FWIW, I think it's probably right. Nevertheless, the idea that Parliament would ignore the result of the referendum it called, while certainly possible, strikes me as utterly absurd.
Haven't checked out Boris's latest turn, too busy doing important things like lunching in cheap bars and helping to keep LuLa viable, after which I shall take a further journey into inner space as I unseal the marine varnish and launch another (possibly brief) attack on the ever-waiting shutters outside the french windows. They taunt me every year, a bit like that Forth Road Bridge. I don't, of course, feel any sense of responsibility whatsoever towards the Bridge, but I do for the shutters. True love-hate.
I'm looking forward to hearing about Kiwi bikers helping out UK diplomats!
Rob C
So?Highly educated people are better at argueing why they have the same silly opinions as the less educated ones.
Or is the above indignation just another way of saying that only highly educated should be allowed to vote?
Come to think of it, if we allow only highly educated to vote, there would be no need to vote at all, as we all know that, once you are highly educated, you'd reach the same conclusion as the next highly educated guy.
Highly educated people are better at argueing why they have the same silly opinions as the less educated ones.
I was watching France24's debate this evening, and it was, obviously, about Brexit.
One participant was a shrill Londoner lady living in NY NY, who wouldn't allow her main opposition speaker the silence within which to say his piece. (She is an ex-Conservative official of some sort.) She simply didn't understand why he might be miffed to see his journalistic career in Paris coming to an end. Somehow, the appropriate action for him, she said, was that he become French. That he is English and intends to remain English didn't register; the confusion in her mind that you have to be one or the other was really surprising - or maybe not. Perhaps the richer southern England ladies see a different form of life to the rest of us. The funnist thing was to hear her incessantly say 'the people have spoken' as if she were in some workers' meeting or another. I don't think she'd recognize - and certainly wouldn't understand what they were saying - if she ever did come face to face with one of the 'people'. Jeez, I could hardly understand her!
The guy brought up the matter of old British people living in Portugal, and her response was the same. I wonder if she imagines that all pensioners also enjoy private means, dip into some family vault as and when... you know, jolly back and forth from one home to the next as the seasons dictate. Ah, winter: must be Antibes.
Nobody on the show confused retirees with colonizers; at least even she, Ms. Shrill, wasn't that thick. Neither did she draw a parallel between people having a right to vote (which neither the Brit journo working in Paris had, nor did I) with the notion of taxation and representation, which would obviously imply that were you unfortunate enough to find yourself employed long-term, paying no tax, then you should automatically be denied your suffrage until you got your act together again and started paying into the system. On the other hand, perhaps not such a bad idea after all! But of course, she didn't have it.
Boris just chickened out, so much for taking responsibility for your own actions ???
‘A time not to fight against the tide of history but to take that tide at the flood and sail on to fortune.’
a speech by Brutus in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar:
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Until you think about rabies and bird 'flu. I won't mention brown snakes and killer spiders, of course.
Have a good day! Watch where you tread, and look under the toilet seat!
;-)
Rob
And you thought the British were handling this badly??Well the UK knew all of this before they started the referendum, they went in with their eyes open.
No negotiations until you're out (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222) (I'm not sure if this works outside the UK)
Apparently we must invoke Article 50, leave and then negotiate trade terms. You could not make it up.
This is in part what seems to be wrong with the EU and once again riles the British people, well at least one.
Mike
Well the UK knew all of this before they started the referendum, they went in with their eyes open.
You can't change the rules after the play has begun, this needs to happen before you start.
I didn't realise that was the case. To be honest given that this is the first time the procedure has been seriously considered did anyone know this? It's not the renegotiation, it's the saying first complete the leave and then negotiate. Where does that leave all the German cars we buy? I have probably misunderstood :)I'm not 100% sure but I guess this procedure is part of article 50 which was negotiated and agreed by all member states (incl. the UK). I also guess it's up to the UK to determine the import duties on imported cars from the remaining EU countries. This will probably be set by how much EU will charge on imports from the UK.
Rather, with their ears ringing with lies.Well, the public went in like that but the politicians should have known. Agree this thread is a bit pointless, it seems it will happen whether we like it or not. Hope it all works out OK for you.
I think I have had enough of this thread - no reference to you, pegelli - just that the pointlessness of it all eventually comes home. It's done: the lemmings took us with them; the tail beat the dog to death and the toilets pressured back.
Rob
I'm not 100% sure but I guess this procedure is part of article 50 which was negotiated and agreed by all member states (incl. the UK). I also guess it's up to the UK to determine the import duties on imported cars from the remaining EU countries. This will probably be set by how much EU will charge on imports from the UK.
Freedom and sovereignty costs. The British decided.
Muck raking from America.
Maybe the USA will Trump Britain ???
Maybe the USA will Trump Britain ???
Cheer,
Bart
Sounds like a plan. You would get the Queen...
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-877980Brilliant! ;D
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-877980
Even days after the vote, the losers cannot contain their scorn for the result, nor repress their anger at the low-rent, anti-immigrant, xenophobic Little Englanders whose views prevailed. The Leave side won, evidently, because the slow-witted and retrogressive elements of the population out-campaigned and outsmarted their demonstratively superior antagonists.
Rationalizing a loss is, of course, not a new phenomenon. But building a rationalization on the idea that the crowd you lost to cannot, as the phrase has it, walk and chew gum at the same time, is a novel excursion. If you lost to a pack of fools and social Neanderthals, and if you lost with your side having all respectable opinion, the organs of academia, the press and business interests on your side, then it should prompt some serious and not-too-flattering introspection. In a nutshell, if the Leave side was so stupid and out of touch with everything in the modern age, how on earth did Remain, with all that intelligence and authority, lose the vote?
Well the UK knew all of this before they started the referendum, they went in with their eyes open.
You can't change the rules after the play has begun, this needs to happen before you start.
Oh, no! Not the queen... that doesn't bode well...given her recent message to Americans, revoking our independence:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-877980
;)
Apparently we must invoke Article 50, leave and then negotiate trade terms. You could not make it up.
This is in part what seems to be wrong with the EU and once again riles the British people, well at least one.
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.Thanks Jeremy, agree this makes more sense. And (see bold) even the two years isn't cast in stone (which I think is good).
The important point is that nothing in Article 50 provides that negotiations must wait until we leave: quite the contrary. Cecilia Maelstrom is nothing more than yet another unelected EU official talking nonsense.
Jeremy
...How can they not see that it is fairly easy to get people to want to Leave even thoughit'sit might be the wrong decision.
Thanks Jeremy, agree this makes more sense. And (see bold) even the two years isn't cast in stone (which I think is good).
Looks as if Czechoslovakia may be the next wheel to come off..
Oh, I do not know, Russ. I doubt that Czechoslovakia would dare. If they do, it might lead to such an internal strife that it might ultimately lead to a break up of their own country. How would they call the separate parts then, Czechia and Slovakia? Nah.Well, in 1993 after the Velvet Divorce (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia) they called themselves Czech Republic and Slovakia.
they called themselves Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Czechia and SlovakiaYup, I only looked at the EU website how they called their member states, which is what I wrote. Probably not fully accurate (as more stuff that's coming from the EU)
You're probably right, Slobodan. You know that part of the world a lot better than I do. But they're talking about it.
You got me, Slobodan. It's the Czech leader who's talking about a Czexit. Don't know who'll be next, but I know there'll be others before very long.
And you thought the British were handling this badly??
No negotiations until you're out (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222) (I'm not sure if this works outside the UK)
Apparently we must invoke Article 50, leave and then negotiate trade terms. You could not make it up.
This is in part what seems to be wrong with the EU and once again riles the British people, well at least one.
Mike
Not keen on the EU then Justin :)
I think you do identify what many people find frustrating about the EU which could be so good if it worked properly. I'd still rather be in and fight than out but we'll make it work whatever comes along.
I don't blame the UK for wanting to be rid of the wretched circus.
Hi Justin,
In exchange for what?
Remember that the people were lied to by your own politicians about the facts (costs of staying inflated, benefits of leaving exaggerated, and plain lies), and they even didn't have a plan how to proceed.
No, populism has won, the UK has lost.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Justin,
In exchange for what?
Remember that the people were lied to by your own politicians about the facts (costs of staying inflated, benefits of leaving exaggerated, and plain lies), and they even didn't have a plan how to proceed.
No, populism has won, the UK has lost.
Cheers,
Bart
Both sides lied their backsides off, why it is considered that it was just the leave campaign that were economical with the truth is beyond me. We were told for instance that the pound would evaporate into thin air and their would be carnage on the stock market,
No, populism has won, the UK has lost.
Nearly three quarters (73%) of 18 to 24 year-olds voted to remain, falling to under two thirds (62%) among 25-34s , whereas over 60% of those aged over 65 voted to leave.
A majority (57%) of those with a university degree voted to remain, as did 64% of those with a higher degree and more than four in five (81%) of those still in full time education. Among those whose formal education ended at secondary school or earlier, a large majority voted to leave.
The AB social group (broadly speaking, professionals and managers) were the only social group among whom a majority voted to remain (57%). whilst nearly two thirds of C2DEs ** (64%) voted to leave the EU.
** (Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, casual or lowest grade workers, unemployed, pensioners, and others who depend on the welfare state for their income)
Never mind buyer’s remorse, you should feel totally f***ing ashamed to have been for so long part of a giant propaganda machine which has helped the country make a potentially self-destructive decision that future generations will have to live with when you and I are long gone.
Murdoch has been a complete poison in our national life and you have helped so much. And because you are well sorted it will not hit you nearly as hard as those you and yours have persuaded to make the decision they did.
But hey it’s all a bit of fun, eh?
F*** off.
That's not a lie - that's a prediction. Different.
Hi Bart,
Not yet.
And it won't have done until Parliament so decides.
ITM, it's instructive to see how the UK voted rather than just focus on the narrow margin of those blindly in favour of 'Leave'.
Of those polled lately, 7% already feeling buyer's remorse and over 66% believe that Article 50 should not be triggered before a general election is held.
There are many already feeling 'Buyer's Remorse', including Kelvin McKenzie, one-time editor of the Sun - a stout Leave campaigner who has now publicly done a 'volte-face'. Here's the much publicised email he received from Alastair Campbell, thanking him for his efforts.
Weren't they all predictions?
The important point is that nothing in Article 50 provides that negotiations must wait until we leave: quite the contrary.
20 minutes that may open your eyes and give cause for reflection.
https://youtu.be/0dosmKwrAbI
...the people were lied to by your own politicians about the facts...
The 350 million per day could be described as a flat out lie...
...one of the most dishonest political campaigns the UK has ever seen.
Mike,
It could be described as the flat out truth.
When asked what you earn, is the value you provide in your response gross or net?
Mike,That's BS! They never said they "earned" 350 million, they said they would give 350 million to the IHS.
It could be described as the flat out truth.
When asked what you earn, is the value you provide in your response gross or net?
Professor Michael Dougan, on misrepresentation and outright deception of the Leave campaign, in what he calls 'one of the most dishonest political campaigns the UK has ever seen.
20 minutes that may open your eyes and give cause for reflection.
https://youtu.be/0dosmKwrAbI
I wonder what is considered the most dishonest political campaign?
Bart,
In what way(s) does this differ from other referenda?
... Incompetent at best....
What, all those "highly educated" people? ;)
.. the 'fact' that Turkey was joining the EU was a flat out lie...
I heard that argument as well and it is a sensible response.
At best they were misleading... It was basically a lie.
That's BS!... they said they would give 350 million to the [N]HS.
...Politicians usually do not lie, but they just do not tell the whole truth.
How so? Ever since 1989, "eventual membership as the goal" has been frequently reaffirmed by the EU. The latest phase of the negotiations has just been opened on June 30th.
Which part in the above image is a lie?The part that says "We send the EU 350 million pound a week"
That is not stated above.
The part that says "We send the EU 350 million pound a week"
... So this is an outright lie.
Ok, so which number is the truth then? 349? 299?
Ok, so which number is the truth then? 349? 299?I don't know, but reading this reference (http://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/) I'd say Bart's estimate of 150 Million is still on the high side.
Something in the order of 150...
The part that says "We send the EU 350 million pound a week"
...income can sometimes be talked about "gross" (if you want to impress other people)...
I'm not talking about the bus...
What, all those "highly educated" people? ;)
... the 60% of the over 65's who voted to leave v the 65-ish% of those under 35 who wish to remain...
Pieter,
If the value was expressed gross then it is the outright truth.
See what confusion that can arise when we assume?No confusion possible, the leave campaign promised the spend the 350 M pounds they "send" to the EU on the NHS as demonstrated by the poster I showed on the previous page. Maybe you were confused by only looking at the bus and not at other materials the campaign distributed on the subject. But it's a promise they made and can't keep, mostly because the money isn't there in the first place.
Even if so, does it matter? Most members of the public are not natural-born accountants, and simply read such big numbers as "hundreds of millions" or even simpler "a lot." And that is all that matters to them.Yes it matters to me, because it was used to exaggerate and deceive the public. I'm sure a lot of people are worried about the money spent on the EU (myself included) but you disqualify yourself from the argument by overstating it by a factor of more then 2.
...the discount that Mrs Thatcher negotiated never gets sent to the EU...
No confusion possible, the leave campaign promised the spend the 350 M pounds they "send" to the EU on the NHS as demonstrated by the poster I showed...
Pieter,No Rob, the gross amount is what they send (so 350 minus reduction that is not sent). The net amount is what's left after you subtract what the UK gets back. Even Farage admitted to that and called it a mistake of the leave campaign (his synonym for a lie) ;).
The net amount sent to the EU is the gross amount less deductions. Hence, if the value was expressed gross then it is the outright truth.
Do you mean to say that you accepted at face value the content of a poster on the so-called 'battle bus' of a political campaign group?
By what date did the leave campaign commit to spend the money?
No Rob, the gross amount is what they send (so 350 minus reduction that is not sent). The net amount is what's left after you subtract what the UK gets back. Even Farage admitted to that and called it a mistake of the leave campaign (his synonym for a lie) ;).
And I never believed the poster or the campaign bus, I'm just pointing out they did promise to shift 350 Million pounds to the NHS (which you claimed they didn't) and which now proved to be a hollow promise. Maybe not a lie, but certainly a willful deception.
No... the gross amount is what they send (so 350 minus reduction that is not sent). The net amount is what's left after you subtract what the UK gets back.
I think some people are unduly obsessed with the literal.I agree that 52% of the voters want the UK government to spend that money and not the EU, and that's fine. Even if this 52% want that based on lies and deception is fine by me. We will only find out in a few years if it was a good or bad decision for the Brits (I think it will be bad, but only time will tell). But let's call a lie what it is : a lie. That's indeed literal but fully unobsessed ;)
Whether the number is this or that, absolutely correct or not, is less important (at least to the Leave voters) than the fact that the UK is contributing more to the EU than getting back. Whether whatever the number is is 100% re-routed to NHS, or 50%, or whatever, is also less important than the principle that voters want the UK, not Brussels, to determine where that money should go.
I think some people are unduly obsessed with the literal.
Whether the number is this or that, absolutely correct or not, is less important (at least to the Leave voters) than the fact that the UK is contributing more to the EU than getting back.
Whether whatever the number is is 100% re-routed to NHS, or 50%, or whatever, is also less important than the principle that voters want the UK, not Brussels, to determine where that money should go.
But they were getting back more than they contributed from 2007 - 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union#EU-27_contributions_.282007.E2.80.9313.29)...
The alternative? Well there are plenty of countries outside of the EU wanting to do business with Britain but first of all the EU has got to climb down from its high horse and accept that they need to sort their act out, German industry won't be happy with the difficulties imposed in reaching one of their important markets and the relative silence of Ms Merkel is telling, she is letting the dogs of the commission do the barking while waiting to see what form the fall out takes. Expect change on that front over the summer as the god's of Brussels get their heads around what is happening. It is far from a black or white, in or out situation that many would pretend.Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants? Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.
There is something very, very strange with that table. According to it, countries with a positive net contribution (i.e., paying more to the EU than getting back from it - if I am interpreting it correctly) are some of the poorest members: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Greece (!), Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain.
Chances are, and more logical, the minus sing indicates countries that are actually contributing more than they are getting back: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Sweden, U.K.
I agree that 52% of the voters want the UK government to spend that money and not the EU...
Pieter,I think we're saying the same, but thanks for the additional clarification. I can't imagine many leave voters still wanting that money to go to and spent by the EU.
All that can be concluded is that 52% of the electorate that voted wish to leave the EU.
Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants? Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.
Apparently in Apr4il we exported 4.4 billion dollars worth of goods to teh US which sounds like a lot to me and perhaps unlikely Exports (https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Statistics/OverseasTradeStatistics/Pages/OTS.aspx) but that site seems credible.Yes, I do see Range Rovers and Jaguars where I live but these are vastly outnumbered by BMWs, Mercedes, Audis, and VWs. I do see more of them than Porches. In terms of imported housewares and appliances I don't know if Britain even makes that kind of stuff. I see lots of Bosch, Miele, and other German brands, though they are way outsold by Whirlpool. Did not know we bought oil from Britain and I presume that is Scottish oil that will be lost to England if the Scots leave the UK. The pharmaceuticals number appears way to high and I'll have to look into that one (I'm retired from the pharma industry).
What we export seems to be all kinds of shit (http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-kingdoms-top-exports/)
So what we export must include lots of stuff you don't get to see, but surely Jaguars, Range Rovers and Land Rovers are two a penny in the US?
I wonder what German stuff is more prominent? Always seems to me German engineering is best at self promotion and the creation of the idea that they are superb engineers. Really VW?
Mike
Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants?...
Accent? In high regard here ;)
... I tend to see the EU as a possible counterweight/alternative/stabilizer to China (economically), Russia (military) and the US (both)...
......and the exchange rate of the GBP versus the Euro (http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=GBP&to=EUR&amount=1) and versus the USD (http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=GBP&to=USD&amount=1) has dropped, making everything that is a form of loan, and imported goods, more expensive (especially troublesome because the UK already has a trade deficit, more imports than exports).
Contrary ?
Euro in itself poses a threat to the dollar's dominance as the world's single currency. First central banks around the world started diversifying their reserves by acquiring Euro, in addition to dollars. Then some countries started floating the idea to denominate their oil sales in Euros. Some would argue that as soon as Saddam Hussein publicized that idea, and Russia and Venezuela initially responded favorably, it was the end of him.Interesting idea. I guess we will know more when the guys in charge become old and start talking to the staff at the retirement home. As they obviously lied to their people and allies, and plausible understanding of "why" is still lacking, I guess the question is still open.
For those who like to indulge in conspiracy theories, the following wouldn't be totally improbable: if E.U. is seen as a serious competitor to the U.S., it surely must have crossed the minds of Americans that it makes sense to slow down that advance. The first attempt to destabilize Europe was to support Islamic states within its borders (Bosnia and Kosovo). Having a war in the middle of Europe was also designed to scare potential investors and re-establish the U.S. as the only true safe haven, the last bastion. Then someone must have realized that the regime-change policy, adopted by several administrations, Democratic and Republican alike, and the subsequent destabilization of many states in the Middle East and North Africa, resulted in an unprecedented surge of already existing refugee attempts to reach Europe. They couldn't find a better way to destabilize Europe. Apparently, it's been working.I see myself as a cynic, but I have a hard time believing that theory. Creating bad conditions in Europe (economically, politically, safety) would probably to (a significant degree) cross the pond. Wearing the tin-foil-hat, one might argue that having "bad" conditions in the US makes it easier for the politicians to justify having more power, but without a shred of evidence or plausible mechanisms (let alone the utter lack of faith in humanity needed to make such claims), it seems unfruitful.
Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants? Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.
Does Britain manufacture anything that the US wants? Seriously, I see lots of German manufactured products here in the US but precious little from Britain.http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
Yes, contrary. Why do you persist in apparently disagreeing with something I've written and then repeating exactly what I wrote, in your own paraphrase. It's awfully tiresome.
The important point is that nothing in Article 50 provides that negotiations must wait until we leave: quite the contrary.
Interesting idea. I guess we will know more when the guys in charge become old and start talking to the staff at the retirement home. As they obviously lied to their people and allies, and plausible understanding of "why" is still lacking, I guess the question is still open...
The important point is that nothing in Article 50 provides that negotiations must wait until we leave: quite the contrary. Cecilia Maelstrom is nothing more than yet another unelected EU official talking nonsense.
There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said. "The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."
Manoli, I believe you are confusing "serving notice under article 50" with "GB leaving the EU"
I think what Jeremy is saying that there is no problem to start negotiations of trade deals before leaving (which is maximum 2 years after providing notice under article 50).
But there is indeed nothing in article 50 that would legally force the EU start negotiations before serving the notice.
The triggering of Art50, is the act by which the UK leaves the EU.With all due respect I think this is not the way it works. The way I read article 50 is that the UK leaves the EU after it has concluded an exit agreement or two years after they serve the notice under article 50 (triggering as you call it), whichever comes first. So after the UK serves this notice they're still a member of the EU for a maximum of 2 years, so serving the notice is not the actual exit of the UK from the EU.
Quite right. I should have said:I fully agree Manoli. But there is no legal reason (after the notification is given) to not have parallel negotiations on the exit agreement and the future trade agreement(s). There might be practical or tactical reasons to first do the exit agreement but that's a different matter. I think that's what Jeremy was trying to say (and I agree with).
The triggering of Art50 is the formal act by which the UK notifies its intention to leave the EU.
It's irreversible (at least in theory).
And what did Cecilia and virtually every EU head of state say?
"First there has to be notification, .."
And the reasons for that should be blindingly obvious to one and all.
There might be practical or tactical reasons to first do the exit agreement but that's a different matter.
There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is," she said. "The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."
So you have to start talks on the future trade deals, otherwise you can't conclude an exit agreement which takes into account the future relationship.
Manoli, I believe you are confusing "serving notice under article 50" with "GB leaving the EU"
I think what Jeremy is saying that there is no problem to start negotiations of trade deals before leaving (which is maximum 2 years after providing notice under article 50).
But there is indeed nothing in article 50 that would legally force the EU start negotiations before serving the notice.
Pieter,
Confusion doesn't enter into it. I know not of what Jeremy meant, only of what he wrote and the context in which it was written.
This is what, according to the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36678222), Maelstrom said:
"First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is"
The triggering of Art50 is the formal act by which the UK leaves the EU.
Because when you write:
the expression 'quite the contrary' implies that there IS an obligation to start negotiations prior to receiving notification under Art 50. There is no such obligation.
Jeremy,
I've got no argument with you, we've conversed, via Lula, often enough and you've always come over as reasoned, amiable and courteous. Hopefully we can continue in the same vein, without the patronising tone ?
Manoli
Exactly. Article 50 expressly provides for negotiations after notice has been given; there is nothing that provides for or discourages negotiation before notice has been given; and the notion, put forward by the idiot commissioner, that negotiation can start only after we have left is absurd.
Jeremy
Of course we can, but you must respond to what I write, not to what you imagine I've written. You have made that mistake several times in this thread, which is why my patience was eventually exhausted.
I don't know if English is your first language: what we are discussing here is interpretation of text, which requires precision.
... and the notion, put forward by the idiot commissioner, that negotiation can start only after we have left is absurd.
On the second point, and most of your post #469, you do yourself no credit.
You persist in selectively misquoting what the BBC actually reported Maelstrom as saying. For what reason, I know not, if not to add yet more spin and further your own narrow agenda?
Furthermore, why do you persist, more than twelve hours after I've posted an unequivocal clarification (posts #464 and #467) in mis-quoting me and trying to muddy waters if not for the very same reason?
I've published the whole quote (twice) and a link to the BBC article. You've published none. Do so.
Indeed, but as can be seen from the above, I'd suggest you practise what you preach. Substitute your exasperation with some reciprocal precision and you'll feel a lot better.
Manoli
Pegelli,Manoli, there's no need to be upset or use strong language. I'm not trying to argue with you. For me it's having a sensible discussion that will hopefully further the understanding of the issue.
Where in the BBC quote does the word 'agreement' appear ? It doesn't.
Quote me one EU head of state that has used exit 'agreement' in this context ? You can't because they haven't.
Read the quote again:
The reason that 'notification', in this case, is synonymous with 'exit' is because the act of notification is non-reversible. It becomes a 'fait-accompli' from which there is no turning back.
This is the very reason that Brexit-eers are so eager to invoke Art50, (and bypass due parliamentary process) - it becomes a done deal. Done. Finished.
Nevertheless, there are legal challenges pending and the outcome is unknown. If you want to understand the issue better, listen to Jo Maugham QC in the clip I've linked to above, explaining some of these issues. But please, in the meantime, can we finish with this fabricated nonsense and not further any more spin and blatant falsehoods.
Edit:
This is another nonsense. The exit and trade negotiations are separate and entirely distinct. See post#405.
... but I grow tired of repeating myself
"The referendum - which of course we take note of and respect - has no legal effect. First there has to be notification, which the next prime minister will do, I hope swiftly. And then that process can start."
Manoli, there's no need to be upset or use strong language. I'm not trying to argue with you. For me it's having a sensible discussion that will hopefully further the understanding of the issue.
First you exit, then you negotiate your new relationshipI also interpret from the interview that Ms Malmstrom defines as "exit" the end of the ~2 year process and not the notification, but the interview is not 100% clear about that
Pegelli, I didn't intend any offenceApology accepted, but then in the future pls. refrain from asking quotes for items I never said and don't call stuff I said nonsense, while in actual fact I think you misread what I wrote.
Oh, and incidentally, last time I looked, Milan was only one hour ahead of the UK, not three. Nevertheless, London born and bred Brit, rarely if ever further East than Athens and so far never further West than NYC. Hell, I've even been to Manchester, once.
Quote the relevant part and you won't need to!
The first part of your emboldened quote are not Maelstrom's words but part of the BBC report.
Rolls Royce aircraft engines and McVitie's biscuits are in high demand, too.I believe GE sells more jet engines in the US than RR. RR of course has (had???) the captive Airbus market. Maybe the EU gets mad at England and Airbus switch to GE engines. Good for me as a GE shareholder!!!! ;D
Scotch whisky especially malts. To be absolutely accurate they come from Scotland but because Scotland is still part of Britain - unfortunately - it answers your point. :)I prefer a good US small volume bourbon to Scotch any day of the week. England better hope that Scotland don't go independent as they lose all the export money brought in by those wonderful distillers.
For me it's having a sensible discussion that will hopefully further the understanding of the issue.
" .. leading constitutional lawyers revealed that the French government legal service has informed the French government that the UK would be entitled to rescind a notice to withdraw even though it had invoked article 50".
According to a Voxmeter poll published by Ritzau on Monday, 69 percent of Danes now back EU membership, up from 59.8 percent in a poll held prior to the U.K. vote. The poll also found that the proportion of respondents wanting a U.K.-style referendum had fallen to 32 percent from 40.7 percent.
“This poll confirms that nobody wants to put themselves in the kind of mess the British have created for themselves …
There is surely but one fact that we can all agree on: That the solution to the Brexit Problem will be served up here on the LuLa Forum. ;)
There is surely but one fact that we can all agree on: That the solution to the Brexit Problem will be served up here on the LuLa Forum. ;)
... the solution to the Brexit Problem will be served up here on the LuLa Forum. ;)
And why not? We are supremely qualified. We have at least two experts with a first-hand experience of witnessing their state entities disintegrate (Yugoslavia and USSR) ;)as well as a chorus of arm-chair pundits each willing to believe six impossible things before breakfast. ;)
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.(From Through the Looking Glass, L. Carroll)
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
... So, are two women leaders going to sit down and sort it out over a nice cuppa or will it be left to the menfolk to start another war?
Only Falklands could tell ;)
I trust you're not suggesting Boris wears a wig!!!!!!!!!!!
I trust you're not suggesting Boris wears a wig!!!!!!!!!!!
... Lucky bastard to still have blonde hair at his age!
A receding hairline and budget cuts won't stop French President Francois Hollande from keeping his well-paid hairdresser by his side. People are reacting with shock, anger and humor since a government spokesperson confirmed the existence of an official presidential hairdresser who makes 9,895 euros ($10,994) per month and travels everywhere with Hollande. On an annual basis, the taxpayer-funded salary works out to nearly $132,000 a year. That's roughly five times the salary of a typical French hairdresser.
What's lucky about that? I have lots of blond hair. It used to be brown when I was younger.
I always felt that Thatcher was more of a man than most in her cabinet...
I have lots of blond hair.
But those who met her seem to suggest she quite feminine and not above using womanly wiles to persuade.
Personally, I think she was just a force of nature and her gender was irrelevant. Sure and confident in her beliefs even if you didn't agree with them. Pity she went potty at the end.
What she'd make of Corbyn I don't know but in her pomp she could destroy the current lot and not break sweat.
Mike
Yes, but even if her health hadn't let her down in the end, her party did for her perfectly well. As with the lot of the breed, so evident these past few weeks, they are pretty much all driven by gigantic ego and self-centred desire. Party choice, it seems, is practically irrelevant -all it does is provide platform and power base. They suck - from one extreme right through to the other. I have never felt so disillusioned with politicians - and voters - as I do right now.
Rob C
...those who met her seem to suggest she [was] quite feminine and not above using womanly wiles to persuade.
What's lucky about that? I have lots of blond hair. It used to be brown when I was younger.
Grays of Westminster have just announced that as of 1st August, all prices of new Nikon stuff, including back-orders, will be going up due to the fall in the pound. Thanks, lads!
Rob C
If only the great British public had known!
I'm not absolutely sure what the fuss is about anyway, 12 days ago it stood at 129.7 yen to the pound, yesterday it had climbed back to 141 yen to the pound and shows no sign of dropping again.
I always prefer to look at it on an annual basis, which would take account of seasonal effects, and not be affected as much the anticipations around the referendum.
This (http://www.x-rates.com/graph/?from=GBP&to=JPY&amount=1) indeed does not look like a cheap excuses. When dealer stocks need to be replenished, they indeed require a lot more UK pounds o do so.
Cheers,
Bart
Switching to Canon wouldn't have made a difference. ;)
Cheers,
Bart
Nothing bought into the country will get cheaper unless it's from some society even worse off than we have elected to become. Devaluation of currencies helps some, but kills others. The second-last time I heard the bullshit that a devaluation in the value of your national currency changes nothing, it came from the lips of one Harold Wilson, telling the populace that the pound in their pocket was still worth a pound! You couldn't make it up - today - but in those days, people were very poorly travelled and even more inclined to believe everything they were told. Hmmm... maybe nothing has really changed that much after all.
I looked at some second-hand Riva Aquariva prices yesterday: $ 610,000 for an open motorboat, 33 ft long. A Fleming trawler-style boat at around 65 ft was listed for $ 3.5 million. It's a big, expensive world out there, that just got a lot more expensive if your income comes in British pounds. Both these boat types live here in the local yacht club. They appear quite modest; I've cruised in longer. Nice being a guest: you say ta to the owners, invite them round to dinner, tip the skipper's wife and walk away as, of course, do the owners. That's what crew do; they crew.
All I am concerned about now is living within my pension and what's left of the proceeds of those bloody long and hard years of clicking cameras. For pounds, all tax-paid.
Maybe I should have fathered more children instead.
Rob
I've mentioned the arrogance of the unelected EU commission several times and especially its president, Jean Claude Juncker who had the hissiest of fits when the UK voted to leave and wanted to punish them for being so disobedient to the great European project. It seems that I was not alone in my thoughts -
One man, in fact, has made me more certain than anything else that we have made a difficult, painful, but correct decision. That man is Jean-Claude Juncker.
If ever there was a symbol of the arrogance of the European Union, and its utter contempt for its citizens, it is this man.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-i-voted-referendum-jean-claude-juncker-europe-angela-merkel-bitter-arrogant-response-a7107336.html
Good article, and a point of view that is surprising to find in the Independent.
Juncker also threatened to exclude Austria from various parts of the EU if its people had the temerity to elect a president (from a far-right party) that he disliked. The man's arrogance is astonishing, particularly when one considers the tiny and irrelevant country from which he originates and the interesting allegations of financial irregularity which float around his conduct there.
Jeremy
Think FIFA; think men in powerful positions with little supervision.
As things go from one place to another:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14637873.Recession_looms__warn_City_analysts__after__quot_dramatic_deterioration_quot__in_UK_economy_since_Brexit_vote/?ref=ebln
Forgive 'em, for they knew not what they were doing...
Gathering myself together in hope of making lunch - local holiday today; prices all up 50% - I watched France24 for a few minutes. Interesting docu. on Slovakia, which showed that Jaguar Range Rover are opening production there, largely because of a well-trained workforce and the fact that wages are about €1300 before tax, which is higher than the usual Slovakian wage.
I couldn't find a relevant link on their website, so here's the Wiki equivalent and why Britain should worry. A bit late, unfortunately, unless Parliament gets unusually brave and cancels the entire mess once and for all. Hard to imagine why the rest of the UK auto industry wouldn't now choose to follow suite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_in_Slovakia
Further reading of the business pages of the Herald (Scottish newspaper leader) makes equally grim mood.
Rob C
I have pretty much stopped reading this thread but I thought you might be interested in this Spectator on hate crimes increase (http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/the-real-hate-crime-scandal/)
The link is behind a paywall, though.
... since "hate crime" is defined as a crime in which, regardless of actual intent, is perceived by the victim, whether reasonably or wholly irrationally, as being motivated by hatred, it's essentially meaningless. He gives the example of a gay man whose bicycle is stolen: if that gay man alleges that he considers his bike was stolen because he's gay, the theft becomes a "hate crime".
From an American's point of view, Britain left simply because they didn't want to be dragged back into the seventh century as a lot of Europe in on the verge.
Oh, dear Lord...yet another PC idiocy :(
I agree , there are positives and we will make a go of it come what may. It's what we do.
I can't imagine that anyone who has lived here for 16 years being required to leave. She and her family must surely by now be valued members of UK society but someone should reassure people in that situation that they will be welcome to stay. I can think of several people I know in the same position and it would be crazy to ask them to leave.
Teresa May hinted that people may be deported if reciprocal arrangements aren't made with other countries. In other words tit for tat. One wonders if you are in a foreign country and you own property. If deportation is a reality and you can't sell your property in a hurry, or get a reasonable price, that would be disastrous. Hopefully it won't happen.
Teresa May hinted that people may be deported if reciprocal arrangements aren't made with other countries. In other words tit for tat. One wonders if you are in a foreign country and you own property. If deportation is a reality and you can't sell your property in a hurry, or get a reasonable price, that would be disastrous. Hopefully it won't happen.
She did, but only in the context of a failure to agree reciprocal arrangements for UK subject living in other EU countries. To have given a guarantee that non-British EU citizens could remain here come what may would have been rather weak. In reality, it would seem unlikely that any non-national who has been living for a long time in the UK or in an EU country after the UK actually leaves the EU would be required to leave that country.
Jeremy
It has already started. The highlands of Scotland are desperately in need of residents.What has this to do with the UK leaving the EU? As far as I'm aware Australia isn't a member from the EU ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/01/australian-family-facing-deportation-from-uk-vow-to-keep-fighting
What has this to do with the UK leaving the EU? As far as I'm aware Australia isn't a member from the EU ;)
I have no opinion on whether they should stay or not, but in my mind it's just business as usual.
I think every EU citizen living in the UK has, in the absolute worst case, still ~2,5 years before they would be summoned to leave. Same with UK citizens living in the other EU countries.
What has this to do with the UK leaving the EU? As far as I'm aware Australia isn't a member from the EU ;)
I have no opinion on whether they should stay or not, but in my mind it's just business as usual.
I think every EU citizen living in the UK has, in the absolute worst case, still ~2,5 years before they would be summoned to leave. Same with UK citizens living in the other EU countries.
Can anyone honestly see that ever happening?I can't see that happening either (and surely hope it doesn't happen), that's why I called it a "worst case scenario", not an "expected scenario".
Did you read the article or see coverage on TV. They came to the UK on a promise they could stay. After departing for the UK the UK government changed the rules and applied it retrospectively stating they must leave if a suitable job wasn't offered which wasn't the case when they came. In a nutshell they went back on a deal. I posted the link in context to the government not being trustworthy in their promises which would be the case whether it was with the EU or other countries. To sum up I - and others - don't trust the government in respect to ANY immigration issues.
I wonder if the concern for their position would be quite so great if they just happened to be of a different colour or religion?
Impossible to answer??? Why did you think to ask?
Did you read the article or see coverage on TV. They came to the UK on a promise they could stay. After departing for the UK the UK government changed the rules and applied it retrospectively stating they must leave if a suitable job wasn't offered which wasn't the case when they came. In a nutshell they went back on a deal. I posted the link in context to the government not being trustworthy in their promises which would be the case whether it was with the EU or other countries. To sum up I - and others - don't trust the government in respect to ANY immigration issues.As I said I have no opinion if it would be right for them to stay or not, my only point was it didn't have anything to do with Brexit.
As I said I have no opinion if it would be right for them to stay or not, my only point was it didn't have anything to do with Brexit.
And I did read the article which says "The government announced the cancellation of the post-study work visa scheme in March 2011, three months before the Brains arrived in Scotland.
Gregg Brain said they applied and had been accepted for the scheme in 2010, and did not become aware of the changes to the rules until two years later, shortly before they came into effect."So it wasn't changed after they came, it was changed after they got accepted and before they came. Whether that is enough to not trust the government in ANY immigration issue is a personal choice.
Unlike yourself I live in the UK. Not a personal remark but there was a lot of TV coverage that explained the situation. The Tories in particular have a bad track record on treating immigrants, asylum seekers and others. They planned to cut the immigrant level to "tens of thousands" but the amount increased to hundreds of thousands. Asylum seekers in Scotland - Uk responsibility - have had a hard time.
http://104.46.54.198/media-centre/news/2013/dec/25-increase-child-asylum-seekers-detention
Locking up children is disgusting, some for up to a year.
Unlike yourself I live in the UK. Not a personal remark but there was a lot of TV coverage that explained the situation. The Tories in particular have a bad track record on treating immigrants, asylum seekers and others. They planned to cut the immigrant level to "tens of thousands" but the amount increased to hundreds of thousands. Asylum seekers in Scotland - Uk responsibility - have had a hard time.
http://104.46.54.198/media-centre/news/2013/dec/25-increase-child-asylum-seekers-detention
Locking up children is disgusting, some for up to a year.
Gee,
Can't somebody else take the refugees for a while. How about alphabetical order (or reverse alphabetical order). Maybe Afghanistan, Albania and Algeria can take a turn (or Zimbabwe and Zambia, whichever order you prefer). Eventually it'll roll around to the U countries again.
I take it you are being flippant? People are leaving those countries in large numbers. I am not a supporter of Merkel's politics but I admire her for her stance with respect to refugees.
I'm being flippant but the point is serious. Unrestricted immigration is unsustainable. Either it has to be controlled rationally or it will lead to very unfortunate consequences for all involved. The resources of the first world countries are finite and at the moment close to exhaustion. To ignore this in a democratic society will inevitably lead to changes in who runs the country. Merkel is only the most obvious case.
And what is your grand plan for controlling immigration? Nobody else has one but if you have one then a Nobel prize is yours to be had.
Reduce inequality globally.
How do you manage that? The end of Capitalism? That is not going to happen and whilst it exists then inequality will remain and worsen.
And what is your grand plan for controlling immigration? Nobody else has one but if you have one then a Nobel prize is yours to be had.
Now you're being silly. Border security is not rocket science. Until very recently it was the general rule not some kind of master plan. It involves polite border guards with automatic weapons. Just ask the soviets from the 1980s how many immigrants they let through. Come to think of it the Chinese government does a pretty good job of monitoring people going in and coming out of their borders. All it requires is enough brains to realize that good fences make good neighbors.
Violence?
Now you're being silly. Border security is not rocket science. Until very recently it was the general rule not some kind of master plan. It involves polite border guards with automatic weapons. Just ask the soviets from the 1980s how many immigrants they let through. Come to think of it the Chinese government does a pretty good job of monitoring people going in and coming out of their borders. All it requires is enough brains to realize that good fences make good neighbors.
Well we live on a big island - not really that easy to police a border without building a fence all along the coast with watchtowers. Not a future I relish.....
Jim
Well we live on a big island - not really that easy to police a border without building a fence all along the coast with watchtowers. Not a future I relish.....
Jim
The Telegraph:
Theresa May will trigger Brexit negotiations without Commons vote (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/theresa-may-will-trigger-brexit-negotiations-without-commons-vot/)
Interestingly, it's only third "most read" article, topped by Brenson falling from his bicycle...
As I've only lived in the UK for 3 years I'm not qualified to judge, but I love the idea of the UK being separate from continental Europe. God knows 1/4 of eastern Europe has already moved here anyway and no one is asked to leave.
I see the UK much like the U.S. Almost ashamed that the country is strong then in turn lower the quality of life to a lesser degree because the immigrants bring a standard that is not acceptable to most of the western world.
When I moved to LA the motorways were manicured and beautiful. Then we became a "safe harbor" city and the motorways looked like Mexico. I don't blame the immigrants because that's all they know, but it still lowers the living standards as we continue and no one gets to vote on that.
So let the UK be the UK and pay their tax money into their own country, not EU politicians we don't have a vote on.
Anyway democratic outcome should be accepted.
BC
Rather ironic. On the one hand you state that .....I'm not qualified to judge...... then you claim........Almost ashamed that the country is strong then in turn lower the quality of life to a lesser degree because the immigrants bring a standard that is not acceptable to most of the western world.
Does you presence in the UK lower or raise the quality of life that UK residents enjoy?
... Does you presence in the UK lower or raise the quality of life that UK residents enjoy?
I just think a democratic decision should be accepted.
and legally fought for years to remain
My head is spinning ...
and why 'd shefightunless she was an illegal alien in the first place ?
We live in the UK some of the time, mostly in LA . . . actually mostly on an airplane as we work everywhere . . .
Coots,
I know.
I think you meant to address that to 'drmike'
M
Coots,
I think a democratic decision will be accepted, when it's made in accordance with our *democracy*.
Britain is a Parliamentary democracy. Parliament decides.
This court case isn't about overturning a democratic decision, it's about who gets to decide what the *yes/no* choice means: an elected Parliament or an unelected PM and couple of her appointees looking to ride roughshod over the whole process.
M
I just hope Parliament pulls the rug on the nonsense that the vote was.
It, the Go campaign, was conditioned by a pack of lies that were instantly denied, disowned as 'mistakes' the moment the result came in. Boris wrote an article for the Telegraph pleading the case for remaining, two days before he voted to quit; personal political ambitions overruled national interest. It is painfully obvious other than to the wilfully blind, that a weak currency only allows the 'advantage' of exports seeming to be cheaper (thus more competitive) within an ideal world where there is no need for imports and nobody expects ever to travel outwith the prison. The US may be closer to that than any European country ever was. The fact that part of the London stock market is high reflects the fact that most of those top 100 firms are bringing in earnings from abroad, and those, translated into pounds, produce a higher number as the pound gets weaker. That does not make good reading in reality, it just illustrates the low value of the pound, made worse when the realisation arrives that the money being made is being made outside the country. So, where do folks imagine the employment producing the profits actually is? (We did choose Brexit because those unemployed foreigners in our city centres are stealing our jobs, didn't we?)
As Birmingham, Alabama may have made being American uncomfortable, so being British now makes many of us feel. We have been branded as a bunch of xenophobes, rural louts with the intelligence of a country stile, the wit of a rabid bat.
Some speak/dream of striking a great, new Exit trade deal with the rest of Europe: you join a family, live with them for years, suddenly piss in their soup yet you expect them to offer you a coffee and brandy, and a special love during the night? Only in a particular type of the British mind.
We are pissing on Europe, we did piss on both Australia and New Zealand; do some expect those lands to say hey, welcome back, as if they needed us still? We deserted them and their vital industries, why would they care about us now, having long ago made other arrangements, except to welcome the skilled, bright minds always queuing up to go live there to find what is now ever more hard to find at home in the UK?
But, perhaps Parliament will do the really honorable thing, and stop this nonsense at the eleventh hour by taking charge of its real responsibiity which is to the country, not to fellow MPs. Given confrontation with a potential suicide, do you try to talk him down or do you approach and give him a helpful push off the cliff? It's up to you, Parliament, which will you be?
Cuba, Kennedy and the missiles proved that the edge can always be avoided, even at the very last moment. Britain still has time if it has moral guts.
Given that he is coming from a country and social group with a generally higher standard of living, I'd venture to say "raise."
Given that he is coming from a country and social group with a generally higher standard of living, I'd venture to say "raise."
Part of the fraudulent dishonesty of mainstream post-referendum talk is the use of a set of terms like 'will of the people', 'democratic decision', 'clear outcome' and such like. Given the range and complexity of issues in the question of EU membership, or not, many have referred to the profound inappropriateness, in a parliamentary democracy, of actually submitting this, one of the most complex political questions ever, to a referendum process. The 'result' can only comprise a set of responses to a number of much simpler questions, such as 'do I like having a lot of European immigrants in my deprived northern community', or 'do I want to return to the good old days of unencumbered British sovereignty without having to take orders from Brussels', and so on. In other words, the result cannot be seen as a meaningful response to the immensely complex issue of EU membership, but only as a sounding of community attitudes to partly emotional issues, each having a variable relationship to that of actual EU membership. That is, assuming we accept that there was a clear result. With a limited turnout and less than 4% difference in responses, if folks had tossed a coin to decide, results would not have been much different.
I very much hope People's Challenge and associated parties are successful. Can English politicians, on either side of the House, admit they have made a serious mistake in pursuing this phoney referendum result, one which is presently driving the country towards catastrophe of sorts? More broadly, when will the so-called mother of democracies ever have a political system and structure appropriate to the times we live in?
I just hope Parliament pulls the rug on the nonsense that the vote was.
It, the Go campaign, was conditioned by a pack of lies that were instantly denied, disowned as 'mistakes' the moment the result came in.
I think it's always amusing to see that democracy is only legitimate when the result agrees with the outcome that the commenter agrees with. So here's my question. You think the Brexit referendum was illegitimate. Do you think that the Scotland vote if it had been to secede should also have been ignored by the UK Parliament? After all it's the same issue.
You need to grasp the difference...
You going to America meant that it "lowered" the standard?
You need to grasp the difference between an advisory referendum and a legally binding one.
Here you go :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014#Legality_of_a_referendum
I think it's always amusing to see that democracy is only legitimate when the result agrees with the outcome that the commenter agrees with. So here's my question. You think the Brexit referendum was illegitimate. Do you think that the Scotland vote if it had been to secede should also have been ignored by the UK Parliament? After all it's the same issue.
Well then by all means the the Tories should take the people's advise and give them the Brexit.
Mark, let me put it this way: for a Jr. Member ( ;-) ) you are writing rare, serious Snr. Member wisdom!
... which, in a Parliamentary democracy, they alone can't do - it first requires an Act of Parliament.
The Prime Minister says she doesn't need one.
The Applicants say she does.
And THAT is what the application for judicial review is about - it's not the 'what', but the 'how' and the 'who'.
Rob, let me put it this way: his opinion matches yours... ;)
... which, in a Parliamentary democracy, they alone can't do - it first requires an Act of Parliament.
The Prime Minister says she doesn't need one.
The Applicants say she does.
And THAT is what the application for judicial review is about - it's not the 'what', but the 'how' and the 'who'.
I really don't understand the basis of the whinging about "lies". Representations were made by politicians. Politicians lie, or at least choose to present what they see as the truth through a lens which makes it appear as they wish it to appear. There was no shortage of scaremongering (lies, to adopt easier terminology) on both sides: Osborne's threat of a panicked and emergency austerity budget, for one. Armageddon has not followed the vote to leave, at least not yet.
Well if you are a majority that shouldn't be too hard to get.
Politicians lie, yes. But only the other guy's. Your own are always unimpeachable! It should be carved in granite (in scare quotes) over the polling stations.
/*sigh
What is it about the distinction between a Law Court and a Parliament (a legislative assembly) that you have such difficulty comprehending ?
... Facts are not propaganda. They are coldly unemotional, whether you accept them or turn a blind eye...
Rob,
Facts are like recipe ingredients, necessary, yet insufficient element of a meal. You wouldn't eat them uncooked or unprepared. Some cooks are better than others.
Which ingredients (facts) you choose for a meal, how you prepare them individually, how you combine them together, in which order and what proportion, is what ultimately matters more.
Facts are not propaganda. They are coldly unemotional, whether you accept them or turn a blind eye. They are not opinion.
Probably true in relation to past fact, Rob (although arguably not even then); but obviously untrue when it comes to predictions. Nobody's crystal ball works all that well.
Jeremy
I've been both fascinated and dismayed my entire adult life by the phenomenon of people insisting, often at volume, on the absolute nature of evidence-less claims while simultaneously insisting, often with much hemming & hawing, on the relative nature of evidence-rich conclusions. This is, to say the least, schizo. In reality no claims or conclusions can be absolute,1. but the weight of evidence is a reliable guide as to what shouldn't & should be taken seriously.
Brexit intrigues me because it was a faux-rational economic decision made primarily for emotion-fueled cultural reasons. 2. This, rather than the mechanics of how it plays out, is what I think deserves attention.
-Dave-
2. That's because your life, and that of your kids and theirs will probably not be impacted. Ours will, directly and hard. Mine already has.
Yes. My comment reads cold, for which I apologize.
One of my English nieces is considering a move to Canada, dependent in part on how Brexit plays out. Like me she inherited the family nomad genes and has spent significant time "abroad," but she's always thought of London as home. Being single & smart & resourceful she'll manage fine but she worries about the future prospects of her cousins (and their kids), none of whom share her enthusiasm for mobility.
-Dave-
No apology needed, Dave; these things can only, at first quick reaction, be seen from the immediate personal perspective. My own kids/grandkids were in tears, would you believe, at the result. Especially the lawyer grandchild, who had studied Law in Paris for a year as additional part of her course, in the fair expectation that Europe would be wide open to her without the hassle of seeking out work permits and employment first.
For myself, it raises doubts of how I may survive future health emergencies. We used to have private health insurance until my wife discovered at first hand that treatment under the State was every bit as good as that for which we'd paid privately. I stopped paying it when the last pemium was already € 3,600 p.a. That was eight years ago. Today, no company would dream of taking me on. A further stay in hospital woud ruin me financially and, I'm sure, see me in permanent debt. An effin' mess, of value to nobody, and born of lies, xenophobia and the ultimate excuse of blaming personal failures on others. Unfortunately, one could make it up, and sixteen million out of sixty million did! For myself, I'm already losing about fifteen percent in the value of my pension.
Rob
Hi Rob,
You have all my sympathy.
The whole "brexit" thing is a deeply unresponsibele act, resulting in Britain's and breton's future hanging on negotiations with EU at conditions which are in no way defined and on which Great Britain has zero influence and with an uncertain outcome. Also, let's not forget that it started with unsuccessful negotiations to begin with.
My friends at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg say that many of their British colleagues apply for citizenship in Luxembourg to stay within the EU. But, ordinary Britishers don't have that option.
It may be a relevant question to ask which mandate the government was given by the referendum? Is it a mandate to negotiate conditions for leaving the EU or a mandate to the leave the European Economic Area?
Best regards
Erik
Unfortunately, one could make it up, and sixteen million out of sixty million did!
Making it up is, sadly, having quite a moment. I told my niece, re. her possible move to Canada, that she ought to consider other options beyond the North American continent. Early next year I plan to visit a friend & former business partner who now lives in Melbourne. Think I'll do some recon work too while I'm there.
-Dave-
It may be a relevant question to ask which mandate the government was given by the referendum? Is it a mandate to negotiate conditions for leaving the EU or a mandate to the leave the European Economic Area?
Considering ‘informed consent’ in the UK health care environment, no intervention can be made without this, given in writing, at least in the case of operative procedures. It would probably be a criminal offence in most situations to make an intervention without such informed consent.
. . . The (formerly) United Kingdom looks set to be the big 'loser'.
I question whether a less than 4% difference with limited turnout...
I'd say this: whatever the circumstances of the Brexit vote and the possibly arguable validity of the result, the May government has made the political calculation that maintaining "traditionally English" (which is to say, white) cultural hegemony in England is worth whatever economic hit they'll have to take. Maybe even worth the breakup of the UK itself, should that come to pass. I simply don't take anyone seriously who claims the Leave vote was driven by economic issues.
-Dave-
The country was The (formerly) United Kingdom looks set to be the big 'loser'.
(...)
So is there a ‘mandate’ for anything in the ensuing result? In Switzerland, there is, controversially, much political decision making by referendum. But there is at least a very serious, intensive education process beforehand, giving detailed, accurate expositions of the arguments for and against the proposal/s in question, distributed (at least to Swiss abroad) in printed form. There are at least the makings of informed consent or dissent.
(...)
This discussion of informed consent for medical processes (which, as Jeremy pointed out has no real bearing at law) is a furphy.
Hi Jeremy, thanks for your advice. You say that 'English law does not recognise the concept of "informed consent"', however medical practice fortunately does, with written pre-operative consent from patient or appropriate representative being routine practice, as it is in other instances of intervention in medicine.
And I don't see how the legalistic point you elaborate undermines my argument that for the EU referendum to be considered capable of generating any 'mandate'
Anyway, thank you again for your interesting detailing of the law of consent.
I've not yet ceased to be amused by the last two words of midwives' entries in obstetric records I see reading "Vaginal examination by consent"
I am neither doctor, nor a lawyer (while some recent participants in this thread actually are both, btw). But I watch TV medical characters, like Dr. House. In every episode, the plot goes pretty much the same: in the quest for the right diagnoses, he and his team usually go through at least two or three wrong ones. And each time they pressure the patient or parents or significant others to sign a consent form. The message is the same: you either sign or you die. So how "informed" is that consent? When a team of doctors doesn't really know what is going on (until they do), how "informed" is that consent? Even if you would, magically, manage to graduate from a medical school in between the moment you are asked to sign and the moment you do (five minutes later), how really "informed" would that consent be?
And back to the topic: who's to say that the info given to voters is true, even if they read it? Are some people, or some social groups, or some governments, magically blessed by only telling the truth, with no self-interest, errors of judgment, no hidden agenda, etc.? And what exactly is that truth in complex issues, where emotions and cold numbers intersect, for instance? And who is to say that cold numbers should always supersede emotions?
Considering ‘informed consent’ in the UK health care environment, no intervention can be made without this, given in writing, at least in the case of operative procedures. It would probably be a criminal offence in most situations to make an intervention without such informed consent.
Hi jfirneno - no, it wouldn't!
I think the problem with the Brexit referendum is that everybody who voted leave didn't know what they voted for, other then to leave under unknown conditions.
They just had faith that a group of politicians would be able to negotiate a better deal then they have today being part of the Union.
I think for a referendum to make sense (certainly one which can be decided by a simple/single majority) both alternatives need to be crystal clear, if not you get the mess that's been created now.
I think the problem is that the people who don't like the result are looking to find an excuse to ignore what people voted for. It's called hypocrisy.I never said I want to ignore the result and I never said I didn't like the result.
I never said I want to ignore the result and I never said I didn't like the result.
You either need to improve your reading skills or retake your clairvoyance classes.
You are just scapegoating anybody who has any critical comment on the referendum.
Good luck, it's an excellent way to kill any meaningful discussion here.
It is hypocrisy precisely because the people who voted to leave are the older people who have lived through the decades long process of the EU proving that it is an ever more obtrusive bureaucracy that answers to no one, and least of all to the local voters. This was their one chance to escape. Saying that they were misled is laughable. The young people are the ones who lack perspective on what the future holds for them. Calling out someone for saying patently absurd things is not scapegoating it's commonsense.I never said they were misled. Have you taken lessons from Don Quichote for fighting windmills? Does it ever occur to you that people can be critical of the referendum while being OK with the outcome of the vote? I think the only one who is absurd in this thread is you because you assume that any critical note is automatically being against the outcome.
I never said they were misled...
Perhaps you didn't, but some other people did quite recently, and you just got caught in the crossfire.Might be, but I'm not sure. Why is he quoting my post then?
Uncovering the smoking cannon: can anyone be held accountable for untruths told and overspending during the EU Referendum campaign?
In the aftermath of the EU Referendum, many have expressed the view that the outcome would, or at least could, have been different had the Leave campaign being conducted differently. It has also been suggested that there may have been overspending in breach of the strict rules for Designated Organisations, which receive a public subsidy for their campaigns, and by other campaigners. What, if any, remedies does the law provide? There will be few lawyers have not been asked this question over the last week but the answer is not straightforward.
The starting point is the European Union Referendum Act 2015 which lays down the framework within which the Referendum was conducted. In contrast to election statutes, it includes a petition mechanism for the result to be set aside. The Act briefly mentions that judicial review claims in respect of the Referendum have to be brought within a truncated six-week time period, but says nothing about the basis of such a claim. The fact judicial review is recognised on the face of the Act as a possibility must mean Parliament contemplated such a claim being brought in certain circumstances. What might they be?
Judicial review claims are essentially concerned with the legality or procedural fairness of the decisions or actions of public authorities. Plainly, members of the public cannot be challenged in this way regardless of how they vote or why. Democracy allows an irrational vote to be cast and values equally to one cast by the voter who has conscientiously taken account of all relevant considerations. It is also clear that some significant procedural irregularity on the part of returning officers or other public officials that would have made a difference to the outcome could be the subject of judicial review claim. But as regards this referendum, a sufficiently egregious and large scale error by officials would almost certainly have come to light by now.
Campaigning on the basis of false or misleading statements is nowhere mentioned. That suggests, in the face of things, that however unethical it may be, it is not prohibited. That might be thought surprising, particularly when at least one Leave campaign assertion – the £350 million per week savings to be made as a result of Brexit – was identified as misleading by public and private organisations, but nevertheless sustained.
There is no real prospect of the courts reading in a duty not to knowingly or recklessly make such statements during a referendum campaign into the Act, less still to enforce it by making a ruling that would force a second referendum to answer the same question put to voters. That is primarily because Parliament has fashioned a limited and narrow obligation to tell the truth to the electorate in the context of general elections, but did not choose to impose a similar obligation during referendum campaigns. The election duty is found in section 106 of the 1983 Representation of the People Act which provides:
“A person who, or any director of any body or association corporate which—
(a) before or during an election,
(b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election,
makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true.”
Even had this appeared in the 2015 Act, and it does not, the obligation does not extend to statements about policies or consequences and indeed the courts have expressly recognised that there is no accountability at law for such statements: see Gibson J in The North Division of the County of Louth (1911) 6 O’M and H 103 at page 163 (approved of in what is now the leading case, R (Woolas) v The Speaker of the House of Commons [2010] EWHC 3169 (Admin)). The European Convention on Human Rights provides no help either. Free and fair elections are guaranteed, not so free and fair referenda.
Other legal and regulatory remedies would not affect the outcome of the referendum. If, for example, a campaigner were successfully prosecuted for incitement to racial hatred or some other public order offence, the referendum result would be unaffected. The same is true of complaints that might be made relying on the codes which regulate the conduct of Ministers, Members of Parliament and MEPs. Political speech is specifically excluded from the regulatory regime for advertising.
The position on overspending might be different, however. If there were compelling evidence of the spending limits set down in the 2015 Act being contravened, either by a Designated Organisation, or one or more other campaigners, the Electoral Commission would be able to investigate and even has powers to hold an inquiry. But the deadline for reporting campaign expenditure expires in December, many months after a direct challenge to the outcome of the referendum would be possible based on the findings of a Commission investigation. In theory then, if there was the most egregious breach of the referendum expenditure rules that could be shown to have materially influenced the outcome, the courts just might be persuaded to intervene now by way of judicial review. At present, there is no real evidence the rules were breached in that way. If there is a smoking cannon, it remains hidden.
It follows that the remedy for concerns about the outcome of the referendum having been distorted is almost certainly a political, rather than a legal, one. Political because the referendum advises Parliament of the views of those who voted in it, but does not oblige Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU at all costs. And when deciding what to do next, MPs and peers can certainly take into account the extent to which those they represent, whether Leave or Remain voters, were misled if there is compelling evidence of that having happened. Similarly, if members of the public have evidence of expenditure irregularities, that should be brought to the Election Commission’s attention urgently as it may be able to investigate and advise parliamentarians before a decision to evoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is made.
John Halford
Bindmans LLP
Leaving the EU would be a massive intervention in the lives of British citizens, altering the whole political, economic, cultural and social landscape. So why ought there not to have been a similarly stringent process of informed consent/dissent, if a ‘mandate’ of any sort was to be the outcome of the referendum process? Instead, we were exposed to a charlatan’s parade of misinformation, lies and emotive propaganda from snake oil salesmen posing as responsible politicians, driven by either the interests of their own political careers or those of a jingoistic and most unpleasant assortment of far right Conservatives - surely a travesty of any notion of informed consent, whose perpetrators in other contexts requiring informed consent could be liable to criminal proceedings. Perhaps the point about informed consent should be more prominently voiced.
It is the young ones, particularly those who were not yet old enough to vote, and those not yet even born, who will have to live with the results for the most part, rather than the older generations.
It is outrageously pompous, presumptive, and condescending to suggest that those who voted to leave were "too young to understand" or that they lacked "perspective". The older generations needed simply to wait in order to "escape".
Pegelli:I never reacted to any statement you made, don't make up things and if you're in a hole stop digging. Why would I react to anything you say? It's no use anyway, you made up your mind and anybody who is even mildly critical gets scapegoated and you accuse them from not liking or not accepting the result and then call them hypocrites. That way it's pointless to have any discussion with you on the results and/or process of the referendum.
If you are actually interested and look at the post that I quoted from you'll see that this is another quote from that post that should provide all the context needed. Apparently grown people can't be trusted to use their own judgment based on many years of living under the EU system. You just reacted to my statement to this post.
I never reacted to any statement you made, don't make up things and if you're in a hole stop digging. Why would I react to anything you say? It's no use anyway, you made up your mind and anybody who is even mildly critical gets scapegoated and you accuse them from not liking or not accepting the result and then call them hypocrites. That way it's pointless to have any discussion with you on the results and/or process of the referendum.
All I did was making a single remark about why I think the referendum wasn't the best conceived process by the British politicians and then you start assuming all kind of things I said (and didn't say) and start calling me a hypocrite. That's what I react to, not the actual referendum.
I'll take your word for it.Don't take my word for it, just read my post and it will be blatantly obvious that you've been carried away in your cynical negative reaction on any critical remark about the Brexit referendum.
Have a nice day.
Don't take my word for it, just read my post and it will be blatantly obvious that you've been carried away in your cynical negative reaction on any critical remark about the Brexit referendum.
Cool! All we have to do to escape is die. Brilliant!
Indeed. Whereas you've left a much longer life sentence to the younger generations with no foreseeable way to escape (the EU is not going to take the UK back following an Exit, and there's a real chance there will be no UK anyway as Scotland looks to take its own path).
So with your "perspective", you've gained at most a generation of "reprieve" and left behind "forever" for everyone else to deal with, against their collective preference. You literally get less for murder.
Jeremy, could you explain what you find particularly amusing here? It is simply recognised evidence of best practice, whereas your deriving inappropriate amusement from such confidential clinical records and citing them, even anonymised, in a clinically unrelated public forum is certainly not.
Seems, then, that medical ethics are as suspect as political ones; and to think I have a granddaughter in medicine and another in law...
Now, now, calm down. It will be all right. While I'm not sure the EU will still be around in a decade or so, I'm pretty sure that if it is they'll let you back in. Look at Greece. They're flat broke and can't get thrown out even if they try.
Okay:You're interpretation of what I wrote is late (You've only now looked at my post?) as well as wrong. My only point was that nobody knew what all the tax, immigrant and single market etc. etc. rules of the "leave" situation were going to be. If you know what these details look like maybe give David Davis a call, he's still struggling to define the GB ingoing negotiation position (so your input will be highly valuable for him) and nobody knows where it will end since the negotiation process hasn't been started yet. To me that sounds like a fair description of the actual situation and is far from negative and cynical.
I've looked at your post. You said "I think the problem with the Brexit referendum is that everybody who voted leave didn't know what they voted for, other then to leave under unknown conditions." You're saying that grown ups don't know what staying or leaving the EU means. Well that sounds like you're saying they're not smart enough to make up their own minds. That sounds cynical and negative to me.
And back to the topic: who's to say that the info given to voters is true, even if they read it? Are some people, or some social groups, or some governments, magically blessed by only telling the truth, with no self-interest, errors of judgment, no hidden agenda, etc.? And what exactly is that truth in complex issues, where emotions and cold numbers intersect, for instance? And who is to say that cold numbers should always supersede emotions?
BTW, didn't the nation formerly known as Great Britain try hard negotiations with the EU before going into the referendum on remain or exit?
Erik, please avoid spoiling what might be a sensible point by silly comment. My country remains Great Britain and it will continue to be Great Britain (Scotland is going nowhere, however Sturgeon might posture).
Yes, there were negotiations. Cameron was humiliated, deliberately; that is, at least in part, why the country voted to leave the EU (not the humiliation, of course: the lack of achievement, on both sides). I suspect all concerned now regret the approach.
Jeremy
Erik, please avoid spoiling what might be a sensible point by silly comment. My country remains Great Britain and it will continue to be Great Britain (Scotland is going nowhere, however Sturgeon might posture)
Jeremy
I have 'great' affinity for the scots (family tree), but Sturgeon bemuses me. Staunchly, she and the SNP want independence from England (even prior to EU vote) and yet wants closer ties with Europe. Ironically if Scotland gained independence they might end up with a bigger deficit than Greece - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/24/scotlands-huge-deficit-blows-15bn-hole-in-case-for-independence/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oil-price-slump-lands-scotland-with-bigger-deficit-than-greece-52w0h97cq - shortfall in the Scottish economy is being met by rest of UK taxpayers. 2015-16 size of Scotland's deficit, £14.8 billion + £500 million from the year before.
it was all about migrants and fears of foreigners, including other Europeans, the very people to whose lands we go, to enjoy living their lifestyle...
Another assertion without evidence and another flawed analogy? :-)
Rob, I can totally picture you taking snaps around Dracula's castle in Romanian mountains, or nice Polish girls in potato fields, or enjoying bites of Bulgarian paprika, chased with plum brandy :D
...Sorry for the silly comment. I removed it. And I will not joke about it in the future...
What Scot in their right mind wants to remain associated with this economic mess?
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/
Why do the English want Scotland to remain in the UK if Scotland is a burden?
Oh, come on Erik, that was a good one, don't be so easily beaten into submission by Jeremy, a.k.a. The Staunch P.C. Warrior! ;) ;D
When it comes to humor, my stance is that everything is a fair game. Just check Jeremy's and others' jokes about dead people in another thread. Particularly appropriate targets are anything and anyone that calls themselves "Great..." :)
Sorry for the silly comment. I removed it. And I will not joke about it in the future.
Oh, come on Erik, that was a good one, don't be so easily beaten into submission by Jeremy, a.k.a. The Staunch P.C. Warrior! ;) ;D
When it comes to humor, my stance is that everything is a fair game. Just check Jeremy's and others' jokes about dead people in another thread. Particularly appropriate targets are anything and anyone that calls themselves "Great..." :)
Scotland is not bound to remain in GB.
I was very anti Scottish Independence prior to the Brexit fiasco, and fiasco it is regardless of the blind bleatings to the contrary. Living in Europe and not the UK, I have a bit more clear an idea than most who do not have that experience. It is no ideal situation, but almost anything is preferable to isolation from one's best market. Anybody with any business experience knows that. And business is the key to all relationships between countries.
But, back to Scotland. As against Scottish Independence as I was, and as were most of the people I have met, minds change when the population numbers cause reckless economic harm, which is what Brexit has done. You'd be surprised how many former UK fans have changed opinion. Yes, the economic difficulties for an Indy Scotland remain, but then they have just got worse under the present system, too. Perhaps it's now time for an even greater change?
I'm honestly surprised at those who still contend that leaving Europe has been a good thing. How anyone can doubt the vital importance of interdependency in commerce just amazes me. And make no mistake: success and survival in this world is all about commerce. Yet, in the Brexit fiasco, it was all about migrants and fears of foreigners, including other Europeans, the very people to whose lands we go, to enjoy living their lifestyle, for the best, annual two weeks in our lives!
Rob, of course Scotland isn't "bound" to remain part of the UK; but it will. It has no viable economy: that was true even before the oil price fell so dramatically. It can't live on whisky, haggis and tartan. It receives massive subsidy from the rest of the UK (that is, from England and in particular from London). If it left, it would need to apply to join the EU, adopting the poisoned chalice that is the euro; and it's not likely that countries such as Spain, with its own secessionist difficulties, would welcome a breakaway state. I wasn't suggesting that it couldn't leave, merely expressing a very firm belief that it simply won't.
Of course commerce is vital. That's why our leaving won't prevent deals being struck. We aren't turning in on ourselves: we're expanding our horizons, free to make deals that can't be scuppered by a Wallonian vote. There will be difficulties, but I foresee opportunities as well. And anyone who imagines that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia is deluding himself.
Jeremy
Rob, of course Scotland isn't "bound" to remain part of the UK; but it will. It has no viable economy: that was true even before the oil price fell so dramatically. It can't live on whisky, haggis and tartan. It receives massive subsidy from the rest of the UK (that is, from England and in particular from London). If it left, it would need to apply to join the EU, adopting the poisoned chalice that is the euro; and it's not likely that countries such as Spain, with its own secessionist difficulties, would welcome a breakaway state. I wasn't suggesting that it couldn't leave, merely expressing a very firm belief that it simply won't.
Of course commerce is vital. That's why our leaving won't prevent deals being struck. We aren't turning in on ourselves: we're expanding our horizons, free to make deals that can't be scuppered by a Wallonian vote. There will be difficulties, but I foresee opportunities as well. And anyone who imagines that all Leavers were motivated by xenophobia is deluding himself.
Jeremy
Good education in Scotland, if you can buy it, is second to none.
Rob
My wife was a teacher for many years so I am aware of the diffcluties which are often ceated by interfeering Gov's - I note that standards in Scotland, whilst still very good, have dropped in recent years, so maybe not so second to none -
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/falling-literacy-scottish-schools
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/snp-under-pressure-over-appalling-drop-in-scottish-school-numera/
When parents themselves lack good education, there is little incentive for the kids, either from themselves or their parents.
Rob
Jeremy that is patronizing drivel. You are supposedly an educated man. If Scotland has no viable economy then why does England want to hold on to Scotland???
It's not patronising, Robert. It may or may not be inaccurate (ie drivel), but it's an observation which you haven't done anything to dispute. As to the latter question, I think the answer is sentiment.
Jeremy
IMHO there are far more important matters for our species to be concerned about than Brexit ...
IMHO there are far more important matters for our species to be concerned about than Brexit, a mere detail in comparison to our World wildlife which has apparently fallen by 58% in 40 years - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37775622
In 1950, around the time Sir David Attenborough began his broadcasting career, there were 2.53 billion people in the world. Sixty-three years later and the latest estimate of world population is 7.16 billion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537
We aren't turning in on ourselves: we're expanding our horizons, free to make deals that can't be scuppered by a Wallonian vote. There will be difficulties, but I foresee opportunities as well.
< May’s student deportation programme in tatters as legal appeal falls apart (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/may-s-student-deportation-programme-in-tatters-as-legal-appe) >
A long-running programme to deport foreign students from the UK on the basis of hearsay evidence was in ruins today, after the appeal court ruled against the Home Office.
The decision to quietly shelve the legal challenge is a damning moment for Theresa May, who presided over the department when it used flimsy evidence to threaten tens of thousands of foreign students with detention and deportation.
Everyday living, paying bills,working etc etc is far more important. Do you wish that the world goes back to 2.53 billion?
Are you happy with 7.16 billion and counting and the destruction we cause?
How do you reduce that amount? Contraception? Euthanasia? Who decides who lives and dies?
... Do you wish that the world goes back to 2.53 billion?
... Alas you haven't stated why England wants to hold on to Scotland...
As to the latter question, I think the answer is sentiment.
" Just to recap, for those who understandably find this confusing: Britain’s foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, campaigned for Brexit but was suspected of wobbling privately towards remain. The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, campaigned for remain but was suspected of wobbling privately towards leave.
And our prime minister was presumably either faking it in front of the Goldman Sachs faithful, or is faking it now when she insists that hard Brexit will be a rip-roaring success, or is secretly in two minds about the most totemic issue of the day – but dammit, the British people ordered a burger, and that’s what they’ll get.
And we wonder why people don’t trust politicians.
...Otherwise, why even elect educated representatives if the ill-informed people have to take the decisions.
Referenda are unfit for solving questions that have complex/conflicting effects. For major decisions, a very high turnout threshold would be the minimum requirement, but it's best reserved for simple yes/no answerable issues with a clear understanding of the consequences (thus simple and clear cut issues). Otherwise, why even elect educated representatives if the ill-informed people have to take the decisions.
Britain had a .5% increase in their GDP since the vote to leave the EU three months ago. That's a positive sign.GDP (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/u-k-economy-wins-round-one-of-brexit-before-real-test-begins)
It was really a simple binary decision.
... the conflicting effects are almost impossible to fathom...
Are the people who wish population reduction contemplating suicide themselves, and commit suicide as an example to others to follow suit?
Are the people who wish population reduction contemplating suicide themselves, and commit suicide as an example to others to follow suit?
..and therefore the instrument of a referendum is (in such a case) flawed.
A.k.a. "life."
And yet every day, every one of us, individually or collectively, in business or private lives, make decisions based on imperfect and incomplete information.
Wait for a year and then see what happens after the break. Britain hasn't left yet so too early for rejoicing.
Britain had a .5% increase in their GDP since the vote to leave the EU three months ago. That's a positive sign.
Yes, the choice was binary, but the conflicting effects are almost impossible to fathom and therefore the instrument of a referendum is (in such a case) flawed.
Cheers,
Bart
We need something definitive, not just the 50-50 equivalent of the toss of a coin!
Rob C
Wait for a year and then see what happens after the break. Britain hasn't left yet so too early for rejoicing.None of us can predict the future. You're making an assumption that the EU will stay hail and hearty. What if other countries pull a Brexit or people just get tired of subsidizing other dead-beat countries. Then the EU may be reduced to a trading zone where each country has their economic sovereignty restored. Kind of what Britain is doing right now. If that happens, Britain's Exit as the first may put them at the lead of countries with the best economies.
Jeremy – this is pure spin, verging on propaganda.
The Wallonian vote is a hiccup, not a terminal end. The Canadian trade agreement will be finalised, as will the TTIP but, as the UK is about to find out, trade agreements take time.
" Just to recap, for those who understandably find this confusing: Britain’s foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, campaigned for Brexit but was suspected of wobbling privately towards remain. The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, campaigned for remain but was suspected of wobbling privately towards leave. And our prime minister was presumably either faking it in front of the Goldman Sachs faithful, or is faking it now when she insists that hard Brexit will be a rip-roaring success, or is secretly in two minds about the most totemic issue of the day – but dammit, the British people ordered a burger, and that’s what they’ll get. And we wonder why people don’t trust politicians."
and from the ultra Brexit 'Telegraph'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/26/remainers-seem-to-think-its-a-scandal-that-theresa-may-listened/
Stating that the Scottish economy isn't viable and it wasn't ever viable is absurd. The UK economy is a lot less viable than the Scottish economy which is in danger of going under when the UK economy inevitably crashes. There is only £14 billion of debt in the Scotland economy Alas you haven't stated why England wants to hold on to Scotland whilst wanting a divorce from Europe.
Johnson considered the issue to be balanced. He thought about it, carefully. He wrote articles both for and against, in an attempt to clarify points in his own mind, and he decided in favour of Leave. What on earth is wrong with that?
Harris's article about May is along the same lines. She campaigned, weakly, for Remain. The public voted for Leave, so she's going to do what an elected politician ought to do, and work to ensure that the best outcome is obtained, given the will of the people.
The public voted for Leave, so she's going to do what an elected politician ought to do, and work to ensure that the best outcome is obtained, given the will of the people.
Only journalists think that issues are black and white.
Jeremy
Referendums are dangerous, no one can predict the outcome.
Which, again, is why super majorities for referenda are a better way. Even with a low turnout, you shouldn't have a significant decision decided by a genuinely small minority. If the change is significant enough to warrant a referendum, then it's significant enough to say you need more than just a single vote to make the decision to change.
52 percent for Brexit, at 72 percent turnout = 37 percent of voters.
67 percent to enter EU, at 62 percent turnout = 41 percent of voters.
Neither provided even a simple majority of eligible voters.
Asking for a super majority in order to leave also means the same at the time of voting to enter.
I fully agree, referenda on such complex issues with potentially conflicting effects should require a 67% (or rather even 75%, which is 37.5% of all potential voters) of eligible voter turnout, as a minimum requirement.
Cheers,
Bart
So much for analysis of complex issues. Why do you think the public could do better than American or British law makers or vice versa?
I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make.
Johnson considered the issue to be balanced. He thought about it, carefully. He wrote articles both for and against, in an attempt to clarify points in his own mind, and he decided in favour of Leave. What on earth is wrong with that?
Northern Ireland court rejects Brexit challenge: "Brexit can happen without lawmakers giving it final approval, a Northern Irish court ruled on Friday..."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-idUSKCN12S12B
Northern Ireland court rejects Brexit challenge: "Brexit can happen without lawmakers giving it final approval, a Northern Irish court ruled on Friday..."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-nireland-idUSKCN12S12B
It looks lke Brexit is actually going to be the de facto break up of the old UK. It would be nice if both Irelands forgot bigotry and became an entity; that would encourage Scotland to forget religious divides too, which are probably not based on religion but on the pub to which you are beholden, the crummy team you support. Chickens, eggs? If Ireland (N) does get its rights recognized, which I hope that it does, ain't nuttin' gonna hold back Scotland from doing it too.
That will make for an interesting balance of power in the region.
Rob
In the end Brexit happened because the politicians of both parties were only listening to the City, and because Germany effectively ran the immigration policy for the rest of Europe. I was in Peterborough a few months ago, and basically half the people there (no exageration) were direct imports from ex-soviet block countries. The mood of the locals was ugly. Brexit puts MPs back at the mercy of the voters - not a bad thing; the EU has been run by a majority of one -Germany - for too many years, and even if their intentions are good their one-size-fits-all-Germans solution has not worked so well for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or even France and the UK when you look away from the 1%.
Edmund
In the end Brexit happened because the politicians of both parties were only listening to the City, and because Germany effectively ran the immigration policy for the rest of Europe. I was in Peterborough a few months ago, and basically half the people there (no exageration) were direct imports from ex-soviet block countries. The mood of the locals was ugly. Brexit puts MPs back at the mercy of the voters - not a bad thing; the EU has been run by a majority of one -Germany - for too many years, and even if their intentions are good their one-size-fits-all-Germans solution has not worked so well for Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, or even France and the UK when you look away from the 1%.
Edmund
Well, Mallorca has thousands of foreigners living in it; never heard of a "Go home Foreigner" campaign, never ran into local animosity... the locals know perfectly well that through the work we create for them here they enjoy a prosperity the likes of which never existed before. Foreigners supply/supplied the difference between owning a car and the classy alternative of the burro cart. Ditto housing. That some foreigners try to run businesses is neither here nor there in the general scheme of things: they pass totally unnoticed. And on top of that, there is a genuine friendliness in the people, a willingness to help you out when you need it and ask, that has zero to do with personal gain or economics. It just is. And being old is not yet considered an infectious disease.
In Britain you need but go to a hospital or a hotel to realise that without the very people being pilloried, there would be no hospìtals or hotels still working.
And where you live: where would Paris be sans its tourists? The effects of terrorism have made measurable differences to prosperity already - except perhaps to your quoted 1%.
Movement and variety makes this world go around; Slobodan should know and be aware of that too...
;-)
Rob
Rob,
Maybe the politicians in Mallorca spend their time delivering building permits for houses and hotels, hiring doctors for their hospitals and teachers for theirs schools, investing in infrastructure, and shmoozing the local voters? That is what UK politicians stopped doing as the profits of the City of London baking system and the idol of perpetually rising house prices slowly became their only bellwethers.
The UK should be a business-school case study of how complacent politicians can ruin a democracy, just as China is a case study of how a totalitarian dictatorship can genuinely over the long term improve the lot of its citizens, out of the fear of losing its grip.
And by the way, we can add this as a note to the debate on globalisation: The US and UK are lobbying for global deregulation of the service industries so that the financial (Goldman&Co) and big tech industries (Apple, Google & Co) can work unfettered everywhere, export their profits, and never never be subject to local regulatory supervision or pay local taxes. China is lobbying for zero tariffs on physical manufactured products. The US and China haev agreed to swap one for the other. In the end, globalisation is serving the 1% in the US and UK, and the 100% in China who actually make things - I would say that when it comes to trade, the Chinese self-appointed pols have their people's interest more at heart than the US elected representatives do.
Edmund
Rob, you can't be seriously comparing effects and attitudes of tourism with unchecked immigration!?
I'm not comparing effect, I'm comparing attitudes to non-Spanish residents in Mallorca with some UK citizens' attitudes to non-Brits in the UK. (If you want to talk tourism, I'm more skeptical about it than any Spaniard I have ever met.)
Tourism, however, is apparently the biggest single industry in the world. So, you could surmise that not only have the Brexiteers signalled their distaste for anything non-Brit, but also for that magical industry that fills hotels and airline seats the world over. But it's not really anything new: even during WW2, when Britain hosted many US servicemen about to lose their lives protecting British and European ones, there was the well-knowncomplaintjoke about US soldiers being "over-paid, over-sexed and over here," which shows you that within the UK, fear and distrust is nothing new, in fact it's a national characteristic. Why else do you imagine that large parts of the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots proletariat have this acute dislike for the English? Partly it's the inferiority complex some within those societies share, but also very much because of the perceived arrogance that many English people display - but they also do that to one another... especially the south towards the north, and thus vice versa.
Unchecked immigration's a red herring: Britain hadn't signed up to that, ever. Free movement within European countries does not mean free movement of the world's dispossessed, it means of Europeans. The current migration crisis is another matter, one that should be handled within the zones that cause it. Facing (not) up to that reality is just another fudge that has been made by the world's powers. AKAIK nobody is trying to migrate to Russia or to China; not even France seems to be good enough for some, hence The Jungle which will obviously reappear any time soon. France apparently already has a far bigger Muslim population than the UK, where one would have thought these migrants would have felt more at ease than in Britain, but isn't it curious that the attraction is not for France, but for Britain, and by Britain, let's be specific: London?
What's at play here is a helluva lot more than people displaced by civil war.
Rob
...by Britain, let's be specific: London?
Rob,
And why not? There they have a Muslim mayor, whose first order of business was to ban bikinis :)
As an American looking from afar, it seems that the EU is in trouble exactly because it decided to use the advantages of a free trade zone to push for political integration among different sovereign countries that have their own cultures, languages and identities. The Brits are just the first that revolted to this idea; more will follow. Even considering that America is the land of immigrants, you see similar attitudes here as well. So one can understand the misgivings of European countries that have had more homogenous histories.
Rob,
And why not? There they have a Muslim mayor, whose first order of business was to ban bikinis :)
London is lost already, which explains The Jungle to anyone in doubt.
Mayorialm decision based on religion or not, it ain't nuttin' new:
Rob C
...he actually banned "body shaming"...
Of course.
Which mayor, of which city in the world, doesn't dream of tackling such important urban issues like "body shaming" as his/her first order of business?
Oh, by the way, if a nicely built, normal, i.e., not too fat, not too skinny, swimsuit model is considered "body shaming"... God help us all and save us from this leftie idiocy.
Of course.
Which mayor, of which city in the world, doesn't dream of tackling such important urban issues like "body shaming" as his/her first order of business?
Oh, by the way, if a nicely built, normal, i.e., not too fat, not too skinny, swimsuit model is considered "body shaming"... God help us all and save us from this leftie idiocy.
Some healthy doses of "body-shaming" is exactly what huge swathes of the population need!
Rob
...totally misrepresented the story..
Some healthy doses of "body-shaming" is exactly what huge swathes of the population need!
Yes, if you belong to those who trust every word coming from politicians, and especially the official spin they try to put on it.
Besides, such a "misrepresentation" appeared in the British press immediately after the official spin, thus is hardly my invention.
Hi Rob,
If that were the case, then the US Pentagon seems to agree (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/bizarre-leaked-pentagon-video-is-a-science-fiction-story-about-the-future-of-cities/).
Cheers,
Bart
Slobodan,
Londoners did not see the removal of this ad as a religious or a political act. The general concentus was that it was a good idea to ban the ad from the tube as it promoted pills as the way to a perfect body - not a good thing to put in front of our kids on their way to and from school everyday.
And now that those breasts have gone the mayor can concentrate on building the additional 25,000 affordable homes that the capital needs each year.
Paul
Thank you for the link, Bart. I don't think it's sci-fi at all; these slums exist and so do no-go areas in many cities where the fuzz won't enter becuse of danger, and the realisation that their form of peace-keeping solution isn't wanted either. France 24 showed an example of this recently in Paris, I think it was, where two police cars doing surveillance work were fire-bombed by a group of youths, and several policemen badly injured. In fact, the French police have been holding unofficial marches to demonstrate for realistic arms and equipment adequate to meeting the risks they face. Already there have been calls for sharia law to replace indigenous law with the latter within certain communities. So yeah, it's coming faster than anyone thought, and because the general consensus doesn't want to acknowledge there is a risk. Ignore it and, like disease, it'll go away. Anyone who does have open eyes is stigmatised with being racist or just far right; there's a word, a slogan and attitude to blunt every opposition.
I fear for my young generations.
Rob
If the population truly resists, large cities can not be conquered, they can only be destroyed. This is military reality, and has little to do with everyday policing issues.
Edmund
And the worlds fifth largest economy.
Paul
And the worlds fifth largest economy.
Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.
After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.
But, because it is so difficult to distinguish a causal link from a mere correlation, the UK’s post-1973 rebound does not itself definitively establish that EU membership has made the country more productive — the fundamental issue at stake. Ruth Lea, economic adviser to Arbuthnot Securities, a private bank, says the leading cause of its reversal in fortunes was in fact “a certain lady from Finchley” — the late Margaret Thatcher, who privatised state-owned companies, took on the unions and deregulated the City of London.
France, West Germany and Italythe proper will be to compare with the average of just France & Italy, sans Germany
Often the long-term advantage as not apparent in the short term. The British voters may be smarter than many politicians and corporate chiefs.
The same revolt happened
I sit back stunned, almost every day, watching politicians and tv pundits knocking those who predicted the fall of the pound, wishing to deny the reality of that by excuse after excuse and reasoning more insane at every turn. These are the people who, on being hit by a political truck only a blind person living in a remote cave could not see coming, will still say no, you don't understand: the truck's bearing humanitarian aid for us; rejoice comrades, for our hour is nigh!
Rob C
Speaking of trucks, the well known American poet John Dunce who penned the notorious line "I ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for me" also wrote with clairvoyance: "every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a land of clods be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less ". And so it is, the less — diminished, but not by much. :)
The UK is the 28th kid in the Europe class, and Teach has no time for its tantrums.
Brexit won't be a controlled landing, it will be a crash landing, the UK has run out of runway.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/uk-choice-hard-soft-brexit-161026065853568.html
John Donne, who lived in England between 1573 and 1631, was not, technically, American.
He wrote "Every man's death diminish me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee".
Your presumably deliberate "land of clods" msiquotation might indicate that the rest of your post is not to be taken remotely seriously, in which case I apologise for the correction.
Jeremy
7. The most fundamental role of the UK's constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament.
[..]
10. The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government … In the Judgement of the Court the argument is contrary … to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
Bart, I think this means there should be a parliamentary vote to approve the government giving notice under article 50.
I think we're at the start of a next episode of an interesting saga, however I find it hard to imagine the parliament overturning the majority of the referendum, but it's not impossible.
In any case, I think it means more delays in giving the notice
Jeremy,
No need to apologise, you are technically correct, to wit - the poet never made it to America in his voyage of discovery - Newfoundland is indeed part of Canada.
Edmund
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
So, once again, statute beats prerogative - as it should.
Bart, I think this means there should be a parliamentary vote to approve the government giving notice under article 50.
I think we're at the start of a next episode of an interesting saga, however I find it hard to imagine the parliament overturning the majority of the referendum, but it's not impossible.
In any case, I think it means more delays in giving the notice
Neither of the first instance decisions - Northern Ireland and England - matters, nor does the fact that they contradict each other. Both are heading directly for the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. The SC's decision is the only one that matters.
Best line I read today on the subject:
a real dog's brexit
If I recall correctly, the NI decision was that 'it was not a devolved matter'. Today's was an initial defeat for the Government in its attempt to fast-track and subvert due process. I don't see the contradiction.
If it is appealed, then that will almost certainly entail a review of the assumption that notification is non-reversible. That will only give May an additional headache. It'll be simpler for the Government to come to heel and accept that the matter has to be put before MP's, as it should have been from the outset.
Lord Kerr, author of the Brexit process, stated on TV last night that the government could change their mind about leaving any time in the next two years if they wish. There is a "get out clause" written into the process. It looks like the Brexiteers have been Brexited?
Best line I read today on the subject:
a real dog's brexit
The government is not taking the opportunity offered by the judgment to start the exercise again, properly. An appeal has been announced and the court has been denounced. The ministerial heads are going down again and the UK state is charging at the wall of reality.
Those in favour of the UK remaining in the EU can draw only limited comfort from the decision. There is no reason to believe parliament will directly defy the result of the referendum. That is as unrealistic as the idea that the UK can simply walk away from the EU. The only thing that has been undermined by the High Court’s decision is Mrs May’s superficial approach to achieving Brexit.
Eventually, the government will have to adopt a broader, more collaborative and more open approach to the process, as there is no alternative to making a success of it.
Edmund,
How good to see you here! Last I heard you were shooting talent on the Champs-Elysées ...
Manoli
Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
... but the Daily Hatemail & Daily Express are apoplectic with rage, spitting out their collective dummy, throwing toys out of the playpen & scweaming and scweaming.
Several politicians have accidentally used the word "breakfast" instead of "Brexit", one several times in a single speech.
No, that's not right. See the whole judgment, or a useful summary here (http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Court%20dismisses%20Brexit%20challenge/j_j_Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20Brexit%20JRs%2028%20Oct%2016.htm).
I don't think there's any doubt that it will be appealed, and your terminology ("come to heel" - what a preposterous phrase to use to describe a complex argument) presupposes the outcome.
I heard that interview. I think the noble Lord is confusing intent with what was actually done. Whatever the drafters might have meant to include in the treaty, the actual terms of Article 50 seem to me to be crystal clear.
Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
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. [emphasis supplied]
Paragraph 3 makes it quite clear that notice is irrevocable: it can at most be delayed ("extend this period") and then only by unanimous decision.
Jeremy
I'm not British. But it seems that once the British court ruled that Parliament must decide, any actions already taken to withdraw from the EU is null and void due to item #1 since the Constitution was not followed. The two years rule in #3 is irrelevant. In effect, the EU has never been notified that Britain wants to withdraw from the EU because the Prime Minister's notification was not valid since it was unconstitutional given. Frankly you're back to square one as far as the EU is concerned. They were never notified.Alan, one small detail, the PM has not notified the EU yet, she was planning to do that in March 2017. Now she can only do that after she has the vote in parliament to approve the notification or if the government wins the appeal. So there is nothing to be nullified, because nothing happened yet.
Pieter, I understand. Same thing. The EU has not been notified that Britain is exiting.. So Article 50 Par. 1 still applies. It takes an act of Parliament. The British people's referendum doesn't count and the relationship of Britain with the EU is unchanged.I agree the referendum doesn't "legally" count, but most politicians have said to respect the vote from it. Unless the government wins the last appeal it will indeed take an act of parliament to be able to notify the EU under article 50. My advice to the government would be to just get on with it and stop dragging their feet.
At the end of the day there won't be a departure because I don't think the Tory party really want one.
...I find it amazing that the Brexit promoters wanted to get more power into the GB parliament and now that they need the same parliament to start the process they don't trust them and throw an emotional fit.
Brexit is going to happen. May won't act to undermine her own position, and to not deliver Brexit would have the Tory party membership up in arms, demanding her head. Of course, if she stretches the process out long enough, half of them will be dead anyway, but even then she's got the swivel-eyed loons on the right of her party to contend with. Probably best to just get it over & done with. The other concern is that for all their blather about democracy, the will of the people & UK sovereignty, the Brexiteers actually don't give a stuff about any of it, unless it goes their way. If they were really interested in democracy & the will of the people, they wouldn't have lied through their teeth in the referendum campaigning, and wouldn't oppose a second referendum at some point. If they truly cared about UK laws & UK sovereignty, we wouldn't see this idiotic reaction to the court ruling over Article 50. No, what worries politicians of all stripes, is how the racists & xenophobes would react to seeing the Leave decision overturned. The Daily Hatemail, Express, and The Scum would be calling for blood, with torches & pitchforks, marching on Parliament, and the likes of Britain First & the EDL lynching foreigners in the street.That is very well said, Chairman Bill, I like your turn of phrase but I am all for throwing as many spanners in these particular works as humanly possible.
... within a few years we will find ourselves in much the same state as the US: citizens will start to arm themselves, legally or otherwise, for the simple reason that the rule of law will become pretty irrelevant, and so will the will or ability of the police to control the lunatics...
By asking for a referendum, didn't the parliament admit tacitly that they are unable to resolve the issue themselves, that it is above their pay grade?Don't think so, if they thought it was "above their pay grade" as you call it they would have passed a bill for a binding referendum. However they didn't. They passed a bill for an advisory referendum. It's now up to them to listen to the advice (or not ;)).
I am all for throwing as many spanners in these particular works as humanly possible.
.... It's now up to them to listen to the advice (or not ;)).
Except no sex to make up.I'm not so sure of that either ;)
Jeremy,
Unless there's hidden meaning in Mancunian dialect, 'come to heel' means 'a person or organisation agreeing to obey, usually because they have been forcefully persuaded to do so.' - at least according to my understanding and that of the Cambridge University Press.
So thank you for your bombastic interjection but I'll stick with the generally understood implications of the phrase and hold that it is entirely appropriate in the current context.
In so far as you suggest the argument is a complex one - the argument may have been, but the judgement is not. The decision is detailed and thorough, the LCJ even went so far as to describe the Government's position as 'baffling' during the proceedings and the court held the government's case to be so weak and 'flawed at a basic level' that it judged it untenable, irrespective of the challenge of the claimants.
My bolding of text. The referendum was advisory, and our constitution requires Parliament to make the final decision. I'm not sure what part of this is bothering some people, but the Daily Hatemail & Daily Express are apoplectic with rage, spitting out their collective dummy, throwing toys out of the playpen & scweaming and scweaming.
I agree the referendum doesn't "legally" count, but most politicians have said to respect the vote from it. Unless the government wins the last appeal it will indeed take an act of parliament to be able to notify the EU under article 50. My advice to the government would be to just get on with it and stop dragging their feet.
That's less than entirely clear. It will take a decision, but whether a full Act is required was not the subject of discussion.I think we're splitting hairs here, but I agree with you. That's why I wrote act and not Act :D
Jeremy
Hence my marital anecdote. Except no sex to make up. Then again, one side will end up screwed anyway ;)
Well that's new: I'd never thought of sex in terms of dog biscuits before...
Rob
Bart, I think this means there should be a parliamentary vote to approve the government giving notice under article 50.
I think we're at the start of a next episode of an interesting saga, however I find it hard to imagine the parliament overturning the majority of the referendum, but it's not impossible.
In any case, I think it means more delays in giving the notice
Hi,
More than that, I would suggest that the government needs a mandate from the parliament and that mandate would contain directives for negotiation.
But, the issue is complicated as it seems that invocation of article 50 is irreversible. This interpretation was significant for the decision at the high court. My understanding is that invocation of article 50 is a one way ticket for negotiations where Britains position may be very weak.
Passing "brexit" trough parliament may be a very good thing. It may give all parties some time to calm down and find and evaluate options. Something constructive may come out of it.
Best regards
Erik
Not very reflective, are you?
I'm sure more than half the world's population understands there is an analogy.
Edmund
Erik,
You assume that a UK Tory party beholden to the banking community can negotiate a deal which the rest of the country outside London can live with. But the Tories cannot negotiate - precisely because in the negotiation the other party can obtain whatever it wants as long as it grants the banks passporting. So leave will really need to mean leave - or a deal that is very very bad for anyone not in the financial industry.
Edmund
Ah Edmund, the eternal protesting student!
Get real: The City is the biggest earner we have in the UK; the rest of Europe is already wooing every banker, wanker and shark for their business. Why, because it likes them? Nope because of the wealth they bring flooding in. What London has is gravitas, history and expertise. Unfortunately, expertise is the part that does the work; it can be bribed to go just about anywhere. Make it difficult for it to operate, and it will do exactly that: vanish next door.
What exists outside London, and I presume London, to you, means the world of money, has always existed exactly where it finds itself today. Much of it, especially northwards into the industrial belts, made its way via industries that originated there and eventually died either naturally as they became redundant through new inventions, or through left-wing sabotage coupled with the work ethic that still existed in many countries that took over from the UK producers. You cannot beat the reality of low-wage economies outquoting everything that an established 1st world country can offer in the marketplace.
As to why you believe that a deal good for the City will automatically be bad for the rest of Britain is beyond me: I think everything that's bad for the City is going to be a million times as bad for the rest. Don't forget: the City (as in its people) can move at any time it chooses; that's why it's being wooed!. The rest of the population could, but under Brexit will no longer be able so to do just because it feels like it. Again, the wheat and the chaff: the wheat will always be sought after and offered jobs, regardless of nationality.
If someone finds an open link to today's Torygraph opinion piece ...
If someone finds an open link to today's Torygraph opinion piece ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/05/why-i-will-not-allow-the-british-peoples-vote-for-brexit-to-be-s/
The phrase "come to heel" is used to indicate that a master has controlled an unruly dog. It would not be used other than with the intention of giving offence. It is wildly inappropriate in this context.
It may be that English is not your first language.
Strange that her first 'piece' to the people should be hidden behind a paywall, particularly after such contentious reporting.You just have to register without payment details to get a free read of that. Main message is she's off to India, where she sees big opportunities for UK: "the partnership of the century" are concluding words.
Yet another reason she doesn't want to put it to parliament ..
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5597/30507974980_58865367a0_b.jpg)
In other words, the other ones are rigged? Do you know what a logical argument looks like? Here's a clue; it doesn't look like your post.
Then why don't you explain the fact that the polls consistently say one thing and the actual vote says another? You don't like the word rigged? How about selection bias? But recognizing the full-throated and one sided partisanship of the industry presenting the polls it's kind of difficult to not make the connection between the discrepancy in results of the polls and the result that the pollsters desire. Sometimes it's best to admit the truth. In this case that truth is that a small majority of the British people don't want to belong to the EU.
All the polls show figures that are within their margin of error. Margin of error doesn't mean 'rigged'. Look it up.
As for the claim that a majority of the people don't want to be in the EU, you have no evidence to support such a claim. A majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. That's all the referendum showed. Everyone who has turned 18 since June, didn't get included in that referendum, but we know that over 75% of younger voters had a preference for Remain. Quite a few old people have died since June, and a hard winter will see a good many more die too. They overwhelmingly voted for Brexit. Simple changing demographics move the figures inexorably in favour of Remain. It also doesn't account for those who didn't vote at all, nor those who've since changed their minds - they might now have an opinion on the whole thing, rather different from the one they had in June. A good number of people seem a tad pissed off that there won't be an extra £350 million going into the NHS, having been led to believe that would be an outcome from Brexit.
Here's a useful diagram - majority for Brexit? I think notAnd it's so disgusting to hear this small fraction translated again and again into the fake, mythic entity, "the will of the people", a concept so open to political manipulation and abuse.
source: https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-7399226
Rob,
....
Sorry to repeat myself as a protesting student, but my impression is that thanks to "negotiations" and treaties all the computer profits are made in Silicon Valley, all the financial profits are made in London and NY and everything else is made in China. And btw, student protest has a long and honorable tradition, since the children of power can speak truth to power without being mowed down
Edmund
... I simply indicated where the statistics appear to be moving.
The fear of what people voting directly would vote for in a democracy is the reason America has an Electoral College to vote for the President...
And it's so disgusting to hear this small fraction translated again and again into the fake, mythic entity, "the will of the people", a concept so open to political manipulation and abuse.
I'd venture to suggest the reason is actually known as...federalism.
Ah, but you looked only at one side of that movement: that the passage of time will eliminate old people from the voting demographics. But the same passage of time causes some in the foolish youth to mature to adulthood, thus moving from socialists to realists. And the same passage of time will inevitably cause some not-so-old people to become old, and, according to you, even bigger racists, xhenophobes, and bigots.
You see, waiting for old people to die isn't such a brilliant strategy after all.
Wow, you're spouting some bollox, aren't you?
Your evidence is evidence that a specific number & percentage voted to leave the EU. That's it. That is all you can claim the referendum result is evidence of. Nothing more. As for the claim that I'm waiting for people I don't like to die, like I said earlier, you really don't do logic, do you? I said nothing of the kind, yet you think you can reasonable infer that? Very odd. I also said nothing about the hand of destiny. I'm not given to supernaturalism, which is what such ideas boil down to. I simply indicated where the statistics appear to be moving.
That's true to an extent. But that was mainly the structural reason; that each State was Sovereign. The Founders despite their desire for democracy, were afraid of the people, or at least some of them. Slaves, non land owners, etc. They also knew that people would always vote for things they need for themselves. I forget which Founder said it. But his concern was that some day the people would vote the country into poverty so desirous each person is of their own welfare. Frankly, I think we've reached that point. Members of Congress refuse to cut the budget and have the Fed keep printing with ever increasing debt. They know if they cut benefits to the people, or raise their taxes, they won't get voted in. Term limits might bring them back to their senses.
If the "disgusting" democracy is "so open to political manipulation and abuse," imagine what non-democratic concepts would be open to.Hi Slobodan - I didn't state or imply 'democracy' is 'disgusting', just that to say less than half of the eligible voting population voting 'leave', under a hail of misinformation and lies, on an issue that was, as many believe, inappropriately put to a referendum process in the first place because of its complexity and ramifications, is not to speak truthfully of 'the will of the people'. I also said that 'the will of the people' can be a misused concept, with all sorts of people presuming to understand and express this, for their own various purposes.
Hi Slobodan - I didn't state or imply 'democracy' is 'disgusting', just that to say less than half of the eligible voting population voting 'leave', under a hail of misinformation and lies, on an issue that was, as many believe, inappropriately put to a referendum process in the first place because of its complexity and ramifications, is not to speak truthfully of 'the will of the people'. I also said that 'the will of the people' can be a misused concept, with all sorts of people presuming to understand and express this, for their own various purposes.
Hi Slobodan - I didn't state or imply 'democracy' is 'disgusting', just that to say less than half of the eligible voting population voting ...
Which is commonly understood and practiced as democracy.....? Well, it's great that not "everybody thinks the same" here!
...Socialism is about liberty, equality & fairness...
....? Well, it's great that not "everybody thinks the same" here!
Sounds like what's happening here in America during the run up to the Presidential election. You're not alone.
Mark, would it be fair to infer that you are lamenting low voter turnout in democracies?
I'm still not clear why so many fear Brexit.
...Why have an elected parliamentary democracy? Why not put all the big issues to popular referenda?...
Oh, dear Lord!
Perhaps that's how it starts: as a mass idealistic delusion. Ask the people of the Soviet block how it ends. They were free to stay, equal in poverty and with a fair chance of ending up in the Gulag.
Ain't it funny how people who never actually experienced socialism sing praises to it?
Ignoring the xenophobic undertone, not only is English my first language but, judging by the above, my command of it may well be somewhat more extensive than yours. And, to save you asking, I am equally fluent in another four. I'm in Milan next week so that should also save you puzzling over my time stamps. Finally, if you're going to resort to thinly disguised put-downs, do try to be original – that's at least the third time you've used the same line.
And indeed, some countries do that (e.g., Switzerland).
Politics is a fight of interests, for the benefit of certain segments with those interests.
There are very, very few common interests in a large group of people, let alone large countries. Survival in the face of enemy attack might be one.
And indeed, some countries do that (e.g., Switzerland). I think reasons boil down to size. What is possible in relatively small country becomes impractical in a large one, hence the representation. In other words, it is not because representative democracy is superior to a direct one, but rather more practical.
The illusion of the representative being superior lies in the misguided expectation that the electorate is voting in people "who know what they are doing" and that they will do it for the benefit of all. Nothing can be further from truth. Politics is a fight of interests, for the benefit of certain segments with those interests. There are very, very few common interests in a large group of people, let alone large countries. Survival in the face of enemy attack might be one. Everything else is up for grabs by interest groups. Political parties simply represent those interests. It is one of Marx' major tenets that only proletariat has no interest of its own and can therefore faithfully represent interests of the whole society.
Tremendously important points. Had successive UK governments prioritised some evenness of regional development, the referendum outcome would arguably have been quite different. Really important point about environmental quality also.
I suppose that part of the problem is that no politician wants to confess that, in the end, there's safety in numbers. Most seem to want to pretend that their country can do everything by itself. Not so, I'm afraid.
No one is suggesting Great Britain become an island economically. But they don't have to give up their political sovereignty to do so. America and other countries have made all kinds of trade agreements without turning over their law to foreigners. It's bad enough to have to trust politicians to do the right thing who are your compatriots . Why would you want to trust some unelected gnomes in Brussels to do right by you? They're going to disappoint even worse. For a country that stood up to the Nazis in "your finest hour", certainly you can handle a couple of trade issues. Stand up for yourself, man.
The rest of Europe alignes itself with the 'rules' and simply goes on right ahead and does exactly what it wants to do. The UK's problem is in believing that rules are to be followed,
Sovereignty. What a delightful concept, did it mean anything(?)
I shall henceforth ignore your "contributions" to this thread.
Or did it mean too much? Have we heard more than enough about 'sovereignty'? Might it be a cloak for an almost jingoistic nationalism? Might we profit from a more regional collective approach, pooling ideas and resources, embracing rather than alienating our neighbours and friends?
Manoli,
Oh so many years ago, I took a lady for dinner to an NY Chinese in the then still cheap Village.
We didn't develop chemistry. Come the end of the meal the owner's little girl, age 7 it seemed, brought us the cookies.
Mine said: "You never stop trying".
Hers: "You should have been a lawyer."
Edmund
Shoulda eaten Italian!
Rob
From what I understand from a couple of people I know who have worked at Brussels, Britain has a trouble maker reputation for still getting changes and amendments made to draft EC Directives and Regulations long after everyone else is happy for them to go to the vote. But as you say other countries are less concerned because they carry on regardless, where as we Brits actually try to implement them.
Cheers,
Graham
The Brits have to be who they are. Do you want to become like some countries in the EU who lied about their affairs to get in and continued to lie to get subsidized? If you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.
....... Why would you want to trust some unelected gnomes in Brussels to do right by you? .......
Alan, I think you have fallen for another popular misconception. It's one of these cases where if (some) politicians say it often enough people will start believing it.
- The European parliament is elected by the people of Europe
- No European law or regulation can come into effect without a majority support in the European parliament
- There are many countries (including the US) where the members of government do not have to be picked from the chosen representatives from the parliament (senate/house/.....)
So in my mind the picture that everything bad that comes from Brussels is cooked up by unelected gnomes is not correct
I have no idea why being in Europe would stop us being who we are. I see no threat to my Britishness, from being in Europe, just as I see no threat to my Scottishness by being part of the UK.
But maybe that is at the root of difference between those who want to leave or stay (the EU, or the UK), those of us who feel we can be who we are and still benefit from being part of something bigger, and those who don't.
Cheers,
Graham
I have no idea why being in Europe would stop us being who we are. I see no threat to my Britishness, from being in Europe, just as I see no threat to my Scottishness by being part of the UK.
But maybe that is at the root of difference between those who want to leave or stay (the EU, or the UK), those of us who feel we can be who we are and still benefit from being part of something bigger, and those who don't.
Alan, I think you have fallen for another popular misconception. It's one of these cases where if (some) politicians say it often enough people will start believing it.
- The European parliament is elected by the people of Europe
- No European law or regulation can come into effect without a majority support in the European parliament
- There are many countries (including the US) where the members of government do not have to be picked from the chosen representatives from the parliament (senate/house/.....)
So in my mind the picture that everything bad that comes from Brussels is cooked up by unelected gnomes is not correct
That's the key: feeling.
That's exactly why there's a problem. The European Parliament is not British.Alan, your point was that it were unelected gnomes that made the rules for the Brits which I pointed out is not correct. You didn't say that there were too few Brits in the European parliament, so your rebuttal is besides the point. The parliament was elected, but not only by the Brits, but by all Europeans.
That's the key: feeling.
I see this debate often framed in terms of right vs. wrong, where each side tries to portray the other as wrong, using facts (or "facts"). In reality, each side only feels certain way. And the majority felt the need to leave. That's about it.
It is like arguing with your partner why he/she shouldn't leave you, using scientific evidence and logic: "But honey, you'd pay more tax, filing as single." Try that next time and see how it works for you (rhetorical you).
Yes, except some of use have the opposite attitude - "You' don't love me, no need to prolong this, there's the door"!
And that's exactly what the other Europeans are now telling the UK.
Edmund
Yes, except some of use have the opposite attitude - "You' don't love me, no need to prolong this, there's the door"!
And that's exactly what the other Europeans are now telling the UK.
Edmund
This is only half the story.That's democracy at work, the UK is getting Brexit with slightly under 52% of the votes in the referendum, so how about the slightly more then 48% that wanted to stay? Very little sympathy for them from the Brexit supporters. So this shoe fits the other foot as well.
The EU has a 2 tier legislative process. Maybe the UK only opposed 50 bills in the Council Of Ministers but the bills then go to the EU Parliament to be debated by and voted on by the elected MEPs. In this chamber the UK MEPs have been on the losing side in over 50% of votes in the last few years.
This is only half the story.
The EU has a 2 tier legislative process. Maybe the UK only opposed 50 bills in the Council Of Ministers but the bills then go to the EU Parliament to be debated by and voted on by the elected MEPs. In this chamber the UK MEPs have been on the losing side in over 50% of votes in the last few years.
Alan, your point was that it were unelected gnomes that made the rules for the Brits which I pointed out is not correct. You didn't say that there were too few Brits in the European parliament, so your rebuttal is besides the point. The parliament was elected, but not only by the Brits, but by all Europeans.
The 2 major parties in the UK are both big fans of first past the post. This has kept one or other of them (with a slight blip in 2010) in power for the last century. That is why none of their politicians
on the losing side are complaining. They see proportional representation as worse than Brexit.
There's no perceived distinction between "unelected" and "elected but not by us".But there is a real distinction, "unelected" means not elected, i.e. appointed, "not elected by us" just means that. And even the latter isn't a true statement, the UK had several elected MEP's in the European parliament so a more accurate description should be "not all of them elected by us".
Alan, your point was that it were unelected gnomes that made the rules for the Brits which I pointed out is not correct. You didn't say that there were too few Brits in the European parliament, so your rebuttal is besides the point. The parliament was elected, but not only by the Brits, but by all Europeans.
Secondly as the poster after me pointed out, GB only opposed 50 of 2500 legislations and that was the choice of either the UK parliament or the UK government. If Europe really was so bad why didn't they oppose more?
But there is a real distinction, "unelected" means not elected, i.e. appointed, "not elected by us" just means that. And even the latter isn't a true statement, the UK had several elected MEP's in the European parliament so a more accurate description should be "not all of them elected by us".
You're playing word games.I'm not playing word games, I think my definitions are sound. We just don't agree and that's fine. Would be pretty dull if everybody always agreed. No more fun discussions here ;)
You're playing word games. You're slicing and dicing sentences to create some meaning that really isn't there. The bottom line is the EU Parliament, made up of mostly foreigners, is telling Britain how they have to run their own country. And the Brits object. They're willing to sacrifice short term economic gains for long term political sovereignty.
We're seeing the same thing play out here in America with Trump and Senator Sanders who ran against Hillary Clinton in the Democrat nomination. Both Trump and Sanders are calling for America to come home. They both object, right or wrong, to bad international trade deals and other economic and fiscal policies that favor those in power. Although they come at it from different directions and have their own ways of addressing it, they both want to diminish power at the top of the American political and business elite that have left the middle class behind. American's resentment may not be enough to beat Hillary Clinton who represents the entrenched power because there are too many other factors at play. These include the fact that the entire political and economic power structures are pushing for her to win. People in Britain, America, and other places are rising up against the power structure in their countries as well. Whether Trump wins, or Brexit happens, won't stop the overall movements around the world against countries' power structure. It's going to be very interesting to watch what happens over the next few years.
Hi Alain,
Britishers don't like it as there are some 3 million Polish people working in Britain. The British don't realise that those are grown up people who´s basic training was paid for by Poland, they see that Polish people do some of the jobs Britishers will not do, or will do for lower salaries. The Britishers also forget about their 2 million expats working in the EU.
...Polish people do some of the jobs Britishers will not do...
Brexit was a 2 horse race. 1 winner 1 loser, doesn't matter the size of winning distance.
If the result was the other way round, would the losers been asking for a re run of the vote. No and it would not have got another mention.
As an economist, I can tell you that's an economic nonsense. There are no such jobs that Brits (or Americans) won't do. There are jobs that they won't do at the offered wage, which is a different matter. A simple economic solution is to increase the wage until supply meets demand. It is the illegal immigration (or legal, in the EU case) that provides a labor force willing to undermine the equilibrium wage. And the lowering tide lowers all boats, hence the decline of the middle class.
As an economist, I can tell you that's an economic nonsense. There are no such jobs that Brits (or Americans) won't do. There are jobs that they won't do at the offered wage, which is a different matter. A simple economic solution is to increase the wage until supply meets demand. It is the illegal immigration (or legal, in the EU case) that provides a labor force willing to undermine the equilibrium wage. And the lowering tide lowers all boats, hence the decline of the middle class.
Something is not clear in your statement...
Economic solution to what problem? There are plenty of workers available to be filled at the lower wages.
...Polish people do some of the jobs Britishers will not do...
Brexit was a 2 horse race. 1 winner 1 loser, doesn't matter the size of winning distance.
If the result was the other way round, would the losers been asking for a re run of the vote. No and it would not have got another mention.
Brexit was a 2 horse race. 1 winner 1 loser, doesn't matter the size of winning distance.I think the Brexiteers had all their speeches about "losing by a small margin", "continuing the quest" and "we'll push for another vote" ready. And they were very surprised that they didn't have to use them and I don't assume they would have given up and said: "that's it, now the matter is solved fore good"
If the result was the other way round, would the losers been asking for a re run of the vote. No and it would not have got another mention.
Exactly.No way
If the result was the other way round, would the losers been asking for a re run of the vote. No and it would not have got another mention.
A simple economic solution is to increase the wage until supply meets demand. It is the illegal immigration (or legal, in the EU case) that provides a labor force willing to undermine the equilibrium wage. And the lowering tide lowers all boats, hence the decline of the middle class.
They would have gone away to lick their wounds. I agree that there would be no call for a re run for now but the euro sceptics would not have gone away. They would be quietly regrouping and planing their next moves.
You only have to look at the Scottish Independence "once in a generation" referendum result and aftermath to see how little trust and respect politicians have for the will of the people.
As an economist, I can tell you that's an economic nonsense. There are no such jobs that Brits (or Americans) won't do. There are jobs that they won't do at the offered wage, which is a different matter. A simple economic solution is to increase the wage until supply meets demand. It is the illegal immigration (or legal, in the EU case) that provides a labor force willing to undermine the equilibrium wage. And the lowering tide lowers all boats, hence the decline of the middle class.
... Here's UK per capita GDP minus the average of France, Italy and Germany since the late 50's:
But, because it is so difficult to distinguish a causal link from a mere correlation, the UK’s post-1973 rebound does not itself definitively establish that EU membership has made the country more productive — the fundamental issue at stake. Ruth Lea, economic adviser to Arbuthnot Securities, a private bank, says the leading cause of its reversal in fortunes was in fact “a certain lady from Finchley” — the late Margaret Thatcher, who privatised state-owned companies, took on the unions and deregulated the City of London.
...I think we should let Slobodan clarify his point...
It is the illegal immigration (or legal, in the EU case) that provides a labor force willing to undermine the equilibrium wage.
I suppose that part of the problem is that no politician wants to confess that, in the end, there's safety in mumbers. Most seem to want to pretend that their country can do everything by itself. Not so, I'm afraid.
Every country can be a niche player, if it's small enough, but Britain is not. The same holds in business: I never wanted to become an employer of photographers or of anyone else. As consequence, I sort of turned myself, much by design and hope, but also just as much by circumstance, into a unique kind of player: I ended up doing pretty much what I wanted to do and very little else. The other studios in my area could not go there: they had to have continuity of work just to pay staff, where I did not. It was an intention, at first, but also became a sort of trap. But I did outlast several of the big setups. However, for a country, I see it as too risky a ploy. And especially now, in the face of a shrinking world ever more global in its concepts.
Rob
There may be little incentive to work if you can live on welfare programs...
?
As an economist, I can tell you that's an economic nonsense. There are no such jobs that Brits (or Americans) won't do. There are jobs that they won't do at the offered wage, which is a different matter. A simple economic solution is to increase the wage until supply meets demand. It is the illegal immigration (or legal, in the EU case) that provides a labor force willing to undermine the equilibrium wage. And the lowering tide lowers all boats, hence the decline of the middle class.
Slobodan. It's the bolder sentence that I don't understand. Could you clarify what you meant?
Then employers have to raise wages. Citizens will then take the higher paying jobs in that case as you did state.
... On a separate issue, wages are also low because the economy stinks...
The UK’s Supreme Court said on Tuesday it has received the government’s appeal against last week’s Article 50 ruling and the case will be heard in early December.
The Supreme Court has now confirmed the appeal will be heard over four days starting December 5 although the exact number of hearing days will depend on further submissions received from the parties and the legal arguments to be considered.
As expected, all 11 Supreme Court justices will sit to decide the case – this reflects the constitutional importance of the case as previously the largest Supreme Court panel to hear a case has consisted of nine justices. The court proceedings are set to be streamed via live video link.
The ruling is expected to be reserved at the end of the hearing and will be given at a later date – probably in the New Year.
I'm sorry I misunderstood 'There used to be a long standing joke in the UK ; ' I incorrectly assumed it was being applied to British workers.
The election of Trump, who backed Brexit, could play into the hands of the UK. The billionaire’s trade advisor was quoted last month as saying ‘Britain would be offered a free trade deal before the rest of the European Union’.
Too early to believe promises? The election promises were all hot air.
The election of Trump, who backed Brexit, could play into the hands of the UK. The billionaire’s trade advisor was quoted last month as saying ‘Britain would be offered a free trade deal before the rest of the European Union’.
It just hit me that's how he's going to get Mexico to pay for the wall. With excise taxes charged to Mexican goods imported into the US. That will also tell American companies not to ship their factories from America to Mexico at a loss of American jobs.
Britain being out of the EU, will also give the Brits similar flexibility like America that members who stay in the EU don't have. Countries that want to trade with the US will have to drop their import duties. This may force other countries to get out of the EU. I'm just allowing my imagination to work right now. But there could be huge changes coming for the EU now that Trump will be President. That's why EU officials really wanted to have Clinton win. She would keep everything the same at America workers disadvantage. Europe better get ready. There could be huge changes coming with the EU from this side of the Atlantic if Trump keeps his word.
Well, I know that the Mustang is now finally being imported rt. hand drive...
But I can't, off the top of my head, think of a heap of things that Britain already buys from America. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any beyond Jim Beam, Jack Daniels and Southern Comfort. Music doesn't seem to make much money for musicians anymore, only for the Internet companies who middleman it... Nike etc. are already too expensive for millions, and probably not really made in the US - thought I don't know - and if they do have to get made at home in their entirety, then they will only be affordable to the Trump family. And who owns companies like Nike anyway? Institutions. And who owns them? It's all too complex to say this company is American, this one British, this one French. Television and movies? Foreign sales buoy up all the producers, wherever they live or produce their artworks.
I think that the reality of the rust belts, whether in America, Scotland or the north of England, will remain red. They all depended on somebody needing their products at affordable prices. Only the low-wage economies can keep that going these days; expertise is no longer a thing few countries have: everybody can do it all. Even send up space stations. Or at the very least, rockets. Even N.K does that.
Mr Trump will probably find - as if he didn't already know - that not a lot can ever be changed for the better when it's already dead, and living alone as a nation is now perhaps too dificult even for one as large as the US.
I think the truth is that the same old same old will continue, even if to a new rhythm.
Rob
Good point. Subsidies are BS. We should get rid of them.
More importantly, will America be able to produce world class science and engineering without the assistance of foreign-born elite talent. Answer: Nope. We have the laziest students in the developed world. I don't see that changing soon.
For better or for worse, exactly this. The world is no longer, and never again can be, the first world manufacturing economy of the post-war era. The economy IS global. Production is spread internationally in whichever way is it's efficient. Domestic production relies less and less on middle-class manual labor and more on automation. The genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of wishing can make it not so.
Could you theoretically force manufacturing by lowering domestic tax rates? Maybe, but that won't address cost of labor. Can you make foreign products uncompetitive via tariffs? I suppose, but imagine the economic horror that would bring upon the very people that already feel as if they can't make economic progress.
The 60s are gone, gents. Those jobs aren't coming back, illegals didn't take them in the first place, and no matter how many time you repeat "make America great again" they're not coming back.
Says you. Time will tell.
... We already have a model, it happened under Obama and it says I'm right (http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-manufacturing-jobs-and-china)...
Well, I know that the Mustang is now finally being imported rt. hand drive...
But I can't, off the top of my head, think of a heap of things that Britain already buys from America. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any beyond Jim Beam, Jack Daniels and Southern Comfort. Music doesn't seem to make much money for musicians anymore, only for the Internet companies who middleman it... Nike etc. are already too expensive for millions, and probably not really made in the US - thought I don't know - and if they do have to get made at home in their entirety, then they will only be affordable to the Trump family. And who owns companies like Nike anyway? Institutions. And who owns them? It's all too complex to say this company is American, this one British, this one French. Television and movies? Foreign sales buoy up all the producers, wherever they live or produce their artworks.
I think that the reality of the rust belts, whether in America, Scotland or the north of England, will remain red. They all depended on somebody needing their products at affordable prices. Only the low-wage economies can keep that going these days; expertise is no longer a thing few countries have: everybody can do it all. Even send up space stations. Or at the very least, rockets. Even N.K does that.
Mr Trump will probably find - as if he didn't already know - that not a lot can ever be changed for the better when it's already dead, and living alone as a nation is now perhaps too dificult even for one as large as the US.
I think the truth is that the same old same old will continue, even if to a new rhythm.
Rob
And exactly what Obama's policy measures can be credited for that?
We live better because imports are cheaper here in America. Of course your import duties are what pays for socialize medicine.It's terribly sad that you think you 'live better' just because you can buy cheap imports.
It's terribly sad that you think you 'live better' just because you can buy cheap imports.
I think my quality of life is better because we have brilliant free health care.
My opinion? I think that the private system kept me in hospital far longer than I needed to be so as to milk the insurance company.Not sure it's to 'milk the insurance company'. There's certainly a lot of over treatment 'just in case' that often isn't really necessary and can put the patient at higher risk overall.
I have come to believe that a state-funded (meaning paid for by taxation) system, is the only one with any sense of morality attached.Absolutely. Seeing some of the attitudes from the US makes me despair of any degree of human kindness and compassion.
... Of course your import duties are what pays for socialize medicine. It is free after all, isn't it? ...I've read a great deal about comparing Europe to the USA. I find that a completely incorrect comparison. The USA is one Country. Europe (actually a continent) is probably denoted to mean the European Union. While there are EU regulations, each member country is still indepentent and has their own laws and regulations. While this may not be the ideal solution under for such a Union, it is so.
Says immediate past history.
I've read a great deal about comparing Europe to the USA. I find that a completely incorrect comparison. The USA is one Country. Europe (actually a continent) is probably denoted to mean the European Union. While there are EU regulations, each member country is still indepentent and has their own laws and regulations. While this may not be the ideal solution under for such a Union, it is so.
Alan, in Germany I pay roughly 570 Euros per month for my medical plan, my employer contributes 230 Euros. I pay the first 2,100 Euros of annual bills I may submit to my medical insurance. I hope you aren't really of the impression that all medicine in Europe (which country? there is no European medical system or insurance) is free. It ain't. It's f'n expensive!! And when I retire in less than four years, I'll have to pay my monthly contributions without any employer's contributions.
I read a great deal of crap being written about the EU and the USA. It's being stated as fact. I wish there were some great, wise book in which all Facts were written. There isn't. Wikipedia isn't always completely right either. Subjects aren't just black or White, right or wrong, left or right.
You and your employer are paying that much, especially you? Well, how is that different than the USA? I thought socialized medicine was free. What have I missed? What about other countries over there?
You and your employer are paying that much, especially you? Well, how is that different than the USA? I thought socialized medicine was free.
Glad you got that off your chest. Hope you feel better. I'm going to sleep.
Of course your import duties are what pays for socialize medicine. It is free after all, isn't it?
... dental care is subsidised...
Ah, that explains!
P.S. And Manoli, stand down! I know you are going to post how the image is photoshopped and then link to a BBC article about how bad British teeth is a myth. I know, but a joke is a joke :)
I've read a great deal about comparing Europe to the USA. I find that a completely incorrect comparison. The USA is one Country. Europe (actually a continent) is probably denoted to mean the European Union. While there are EU regulations, each member country is still indepentent and has their own laws and regulations. While this may not be the ideal solution under for such a Union, it is so.
Alan, in Germany I pay roughly 570 Euros per month for my medical plan, my employer contributes 230 Euros. I pay the first 2,100 Euros of annual bills I may submit to my medical insurance. I hope you aren't really of the impression that all medicine in Europe (which country? there is no European medical system or insurance) is free. It ain't. It's f'n expensive!! And when I retire in less than four years, I'll have to pay my monthly contributions without any employer's contributions.
I read a great deal of crap being written about the EU and the USA. It's being stated as fact. I wish there were some great, wise book in which all Facts were written. There isn't. Wikipedia isn't always completely right either. Subjects aren't just black or White, right or wrong, left or right.
Farage met with Trump today. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/politics/nigel-farage-donald-trump-meeting/index.html
What effect do you think that will have on Brexit and the EU?
... Nothing is for free, but everyone in Europe is covered for life,young, old, sick,poor, unemployed et al.I know all that, which you hade written. My point was to explain to Alan that there was no free medical insurance as he has mentioned.
Omegadeep: Frankly I am quite surprised that Germans are paying so much money. Some how I thought you had socialized medicine and everything was paid by the government. Also some questions:
1. What do you mean ward patient? In the USA, we don't have wards (unless its a special section like a recovery area after an operation. Insurance usually pays for semi private room - two patients are the max. Private rooms have to be paid extra.
2. What happens with pre-existing conditions? Do insurance companies insure these people if they come to them as new insureds? How does the insurance company offset the loss with these patients because the insurance premium payments won't be enough to pay for the services?
3. How much more is the private add ons? What I see here in the USA is that the better doctors are dropping out of government programs. So while you have insurance, you wind up with less skilled doctors, surgeons, etc.
4. What will the long-term effect of two tiers of doctors have on the health of the people and the state of medicine in Germany? Will smarter youngster forgo medicine for other careers since the monetary rewards are less then they have been?
5. How are medical costs controlled when you have maximum demand (everyone is insured)? Are tests and other procedures limited?
Frankly, it seems Germans are paying a lot of money for less than optimum services unless they can afford private insurance.
I know all that, which you hade written. My point was to explain to Alan that there was no free medical insurance as he has mentioned.
You failed to mention that once over age 55, one cannot return to a Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung, you're stuck with the private insurance. The government health plans have a certain price cap. The private insurances don't, and they keep increasing their monthly premiums each year - often dramatically. I recall an increase of 163 Euros monthly some six years ago. That's boardering on criminal in my view. And there is no legal way out of that scheme (thanks to that creep Philipp Rösler).
There are hundreds of thousands (in Germany) without any health insurance. These are usually self employed who simply cannot afford the insurance. That's illegal but what are they to do? Living in general is becoming too damned expensive!
I've never come across anyone without heath cover in Germany and I do have a lot of close German friends. If you are too poor then the state provides QEDOmegadeep, it seems the numbers have changed since the last report I watched on TV. There seem to be some 80,000 persons without health insurance. Here's the report I just view (it's a year old though): Krankenversicherte (http://www.n-tv.de/ratgeber/Was-droht-wenn-man-keine-Versicherung-hat-article16064241.html)
In the UK the Health Service is paid for through general taxation at 20% base above UKL 11,000 p.a. 40% above UKL 43,000 p.a and 45% above UKL 150,000 p.a. and National Insurance paid as either a percentage of gross pay or rates as low as UKL 2.60 a week for self employed. Free at point of delivery, no forms, no signatures just an NHS number given at birth.
...or to drugs, for which a standard "per item" prescription charge applies.
Jeremy
Value added tax (VAT) also goes into the general melting pot, as does various other forms of taxation (vehicle excise duty being an obvious example).It's easier to say that the NHS is funded by all government income, so add corporation tax, import duty etc. etc.
And while it's true that most healthcare is free at the point of delivery, that doesn't ----- or to drugs, for which a standard "per item" prescription charge applies.For the clarification of those unfamiliar with the NHS, it's worth mentioning that the prescription charge is only an administrative fee for the dispensing of the drug and isn't related to the cost of the drug at all. There's also a pre-payment option for those needing drugs long term which limits the annual cost to £104pa until the age 60 after which they are free.
Income tax is a little more complicated than that: for example, there's a marginal rate of 55% for incomes between £100k and £122k, as £1 of tax-free allowance is lost for each £2 earned. Value added tax (VAT) also goes into the general melting pot, as does various other forms of taxation (vehicle excise duty being an obvious example).NHS dental charges
And while it's true that most healthcare is free at the point of delivery, that doesn't apply to dentistry (which is merely subsidised) or to drugs, for which a standard "per item" prescription charge applies.
Jeremy
Fine shot, Rob. Good street.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/12/01/explainer-miller-in-the-supreme-court-the-key-arguments/
Trump and Renzi have happened since Brexit. Does that change anyone's thoughts on Brexit?Also Van der Bellen happened, a more surprising result (especially the magnitude) then what happened in Italy.
“It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”
It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”
Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.
We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.
The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.
And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.
All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.
There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.
The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.
Nine out of 10 economists say ‘remain in the EU’
You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.
Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.
The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.
No time for walls: the best of Europe, from its music and food to IM Pei’s pyramid at the Louvre, depends on an easy collision of cultures
There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.
The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.
Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?
I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in.”
AA Gill | 16-Jun-2016
Rob,
You're too pessimistic. The fun has only just begun and we're nowhere nearer to EU exit than the NHS is better off by 350 million a week. Supreme Court has come and gone and now we wait for January ...
Last week AA Gill passed away from cancer at the age of 62. Among the many tributes and obituaries, an Irish Law firm published one of his pre-referendum articles (http://dndlaw.com/aa-gill-on-brexit/).
Reproduced below for posterity ...
Rob,
You're too pessimistic. The fun has only just begun and we're nowhere nearer to EU exit than the NHS is better off by 350 million a week. Supreme Court has come and gone and now we wait for January ...
Last week AA Gill passed away from cancer at the age of 62. Among the many tributes and obituaries, an Irish Law firm published one of his pre-referendum articles (http://dndlaw.com/aa-gill-on-brexit/).
Reproduced below for posterity ...
It's a great article with his witty, sparky trademark turn of phrase, but it only tells part of the story and there is the problem. People voted Leave for a vast range of reasons some of which had little to do with "Europe" and much more to do with dislike of being pushed around by bossy metropolitan elites and their endless agendas. The arrogant, complacent twit Cameron was their perfect embodiment. Then there is the small matter of the EU's catastrophic economic record which has stolen the lifechances of millions and millions of younger people in Southern Europe who have little to look forward to beyond constant unemployment, in a "bloc" in a state of perpetual turmoil because the EU is apparently incapable of securing its borders or orchestrating an orderly writedown of its bad banking debt. In some ways the remarkable thing is that Remain got as much as 48 per cent.
I still agree with almost everything AA Gill wrote and consider myself firmly European. I spent three years living in France and loved it. France, Spain and Italy have given me many of the great experiences of my life. But looking at the other side, the economic disasters, the foreign policy, the chicanery and democratic deficit of the EU apparatus itself, well I am conflicted.
See how difficult this is? There is nothing simple about it even from person to person. And there will be nothing simple about the UK leaving or about what happens next. The people in charge of all this, on both sides, are about as low-grade as they come, imho. I don't think one can say much more than that the whole thing is a total mess and the actors involved will almost certainly make it worse. The mostly likely outcome, imho, is that we'll end up with something very like what there was before with the deckchairs and nameplates moved around a bit. Alas, they will still all be on the deck of a ship called Titanic ...
"dislike of being pushed around by bossy metropolitan elites and their endless agendas. The arrogant, complacent twit Cameron was their perfect embodiment."
Well, that's strange, somebody has to run the show, and Cameron did it rather well for quite a while. His problem was ever letting a referendum happen. He should, and could, have fudged his way out of it, as all politicos have to do at one time or another. He simply had too much faith in common common sense, which is really rather rare and not very common at all.
Gill was right: jingoism, pure, blind and simple.
Or so I read it.
the same thing would happen regardless in your next election as one side would have come out for Brexit and they would win.There have been anti-EU candidates in British elections for decades. A minority that won't see the advantages of EU membership have been around since the day we joined.
You'll find out if the British Supreme Court rules against the referendum
I just heard the new word in town (my little town, at least): Russian troll-factory.
The same silent majority voted in my America's presidential election
I just heard the new word in town (my little town, at least): Russian troll-factory...
The same silent majority voted in my America's presidential election against the elites in Washington, Hollywood, main street liberal press, etc. There was no referendum. If there was no referendum in GB, the same thing would happen regardless in your next election as one side would have come out for Brexit and they would win. You'll find out if the British Supreme Court rules against the referendum and requires parliament to vote on it to make it law. You'll have an election where one side will come out for Brexit and they will win.
So the "billionaire" Trump and his Goldman-Sachs and oil company ex-CEO buddies in cabinet are not part of the elite? What is this, Newspeak?
That would be "outsiders" elite ;)
Then this interview with a British lordJust a nutter who doesn't understand.
So yesterday the Mariposa Sheriffs department released this NEW independant Forensic level testing. Worth a look at
(full version is on the Sheriffs facebook page. It was hard finding it on Youtube, so this is the longest I found).
Interestingly he refutes with no questions regarding an independent Italian police training organization that trains EU forensic departments.
But goes on the entire time about old news about hacking which was mentioned weeks ago. Taiwan has had this China division idea for a long time now, nothing new. Syria Assad? That's supposed to be new?
Partisan division? That has been his issue since he was running.
Well, make of it what you will. But here is some very damaging evidence that I was disappointed seeing, but somehow was not shocked.
https://youtu.be/yuhF-Ok3djI
Then this interview with a British lord on world leaders was interesting as well...
https://youtu.be/SbjItdIUDMo
Robert, It's not a matter of elite, it's a matter of policies and experience. Trump and the seasoned business people and CEOs he selected for his cabinet want to lower taxes and do away with strangulating regulations to allow the free market to work better. He intends to use the power of his office and Congress to insure fairer trade. If he succeeds, the regular people who are giving him a chance instead of 4 more years of the same will benefit. Then, he and the Republican party will grow stronger. If he fails then the Republicans will lose the Congress in 2018 and he'll lose re-election in 2020. Time will tell.
If businesses do good and grow, then there are more jobs, and better paying jobs.
Rob C: I was addressing my response to Robert's post, not yours.
Regarding your post, you're not correct in thinking that what's good for business is not good for workers. If businesses do good and grow, then there are more jobs, and better paying jobs. For "regular" people. You're just being cute. People understand what I'm talking about. And the people who voted for Trump understand he's a billionaire. They don't care. They voted for an outsider hoping he'll keep his word and do good by them. If he doesn't, then he won't get re-elected. No one thinks Hillary, the classic self-absorbed insider, cares a hoot and would do anything to help the economy.
I'm afraid the first link has sound that I can't hear well enough to keep continuity, so had to abandon ship.
....
Rob
since he was a key player in Brexit.Absolutely NOT. A complete nobody in the UK.
So the British Supreme Court said the Parliament must do Article 50 for Brexit to happen. The people voting for Brexit in a referendum doesn't count. So what next?First go and read the BBC news site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news then when you're better informed come back and comment again.
First go and read the BBC news site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news then when you're better informed come back and comment again.
What I read in another article was that 80% of the PM will vote for it. Is that true? It seems like most were against Brexit so are the PM's so frightened of getting re-elected when only 52% of Brits voted for Brexit. why the change?I assume you mean members of parliament (MPs) rather than the prime minister (PM).
I assume you mean members of parliament (MPs) rather than the prime minister (PM).
It seems that, yes, most MPs won't stick to their convictions and vote what they said they believed and are playing lip service to the "will of the people", so won't challenge the referendum result.
Without an effective opposition party in parliament at the moment, there seems little chance of the other half of the country having their voice heard at all.
It's all a complete f**king mess.
Rob, I was wondering, with the threat of reciprocal health arrangements ending and given how long you've been living in Spain, if it would it be possible for you to have dual nationality and if so whether this could safeguard your health care needs?
Rob, I was wondering, with the threat of reciprocal health arrangements ending and given how long you've been living in Spain, if it would it be possible for you to have dual nationality and if so whether this could safeguard your health care needs?
It's all a complete f**king mess.
Listening to Theresa May’s big Brexit speech last week, I remembered that the English have a taste for heroic failure. Their favourite poem, Rudyard Kipling’s If, says that triumph and disaster are the same thing. It also enjoins the English to “lose, and start again at your beginnings/And never breathe a word about your loss.”
Losing everything – even life itself – and not whining about it is the English ideal of heroism. And I do wonder if this inherited ideal is not playing itself out in Brexit.
While everyone else is screaming “Stop! You’re headed for disaster,” the stiff lips part just enough to say, “Ah, but we will treat it as a triumph and never breathe a word about our loss.”
Most of the modern English heroes, after all, are complete screw-ups. In her very entertaining and insightful book, Heroic Failure and the British, the historian Stephanie Barczewski says the exploits that have loomed largest in English consciousness since the 19th century are retreats or disasters: the Charge of the Light Brigade, the doomed Franklin expedition to find the Northwest Passage, “Scott of the Antarctic”, the “last stand” against the Zulus at Isandlwana, Gordon of Khartoum, the Somme, the flight from Dunkirk.
This culture of heroic failure she defines as “a conscious sense of celebration of the striving for an object that was not attained”.
When everything falls apart
It requires, one might add, an ability not to feel sorry for oneself when everything falls apart.
The essence of English heroic failure is Capt Scott reflecting on his fast-approaching death at the Antarctic: “We took risks, we knew we took them. Things have come out against us, and therefore we have no cause for complaint, but bow to the will of Providence, determined still to do our best to the last.”
I bet Boris Johnson has these lines in his back pocket for use when the messianic hopes of Brexit go down in flames.
Now, it must be admitted that there is something lovable in this English capacity to embrace disaster. It is, for one thing, highly creative. It transforms ugly facts into beautiful fantasies.
The charge of the Light Brigade was hideous idiocy. At the battle of Balaclava in the Crimean war in October 1854, the British cavalry charged, sabres aloft, at the Russian artillery, down a long valley that was also flanked by more Russian guns that could fire on them from above.
It was pure suicidal butchery: survivors wrote things like “never was such murder ordered”. But the English back home loved it. The prime minister Lord Palmerston described it as “glorious” and Alfred Tennyson wrote a poem that every schoolboy, even of my generation in republican Ireland, knew: “Theirs not to make reply,/ Theirs not to reason why,/ Theirs but to do and die.” Like the English working-class being led by their contemporary Tory blimps to charge the European artillery.
So what if they get mauled? It will be glorious – and shame on anyone who asks the reason why.
The problem, however, is that the original English cult of heroic failure was, paradoxically, a symptom of British power.
As Barczewski astutely notes: “Heroic failure . . . neither effected nor engendered decline; on the contrary it arose from British power and dominance, and from the need to provide alternative narratives that distracted from its real-life exploitative and violent aspects.”
Zombie cult
The English could afford to celebrate glorious failure because they were actually very successful – the myths of suffering and endurance covered up the truth that it was mostly other people who had to endure the suffering.
But the return to heroic failure in the psychology of Brexit is a perfect example of a mythic mindset surviving long after it has ceased to be useful.
The English are no longer dominant and powerful.They are a mid-sized, fairly average western European nation. They can’t afford to indulge their inherited tastes for grandiose screw-ups. But they still have a sweet tooth for these empty calories.
Brexit is a perfect vehicle for this zombie cult. It fuses three of the archetypes of heroic English failure.
There is the last stand, exemplified by Gen George Gordon at Khartoum, another fiasco that quickly became a byword for heroism in the face of inevitable disaster: Brexit is imperial England’s last last stand.
There is the suicidal cavalry charge: May hilariously threatened Europe that if it does not play nice, she and Boris will destroy its economic artillery with their flashing sabres.
And there is the doomed expedition into terra incognita to find a promised land. This kind of heroic failure is exemplified by Sir John Franklin’s fatal search for the Northwest Passage in the 1840s.
The gods of history were surely sending a message when, just three months after the Brexit vote, they allowed Franklin’s ship, HMS Terror, to be found at the bottom of an Arctic bay.
Yet, unheeding of this omen, HMS Brexit sets sail into uncharted waters, confident of finding the, as yet undiscovered, passage to the promised land where you can always have more cake even when you’ve eaten it.
How the nation will weep with pride when some future explorers discover its ghostly remains in the icy depths of reality.
Fintan O’Toole: Brexit resurrects the English cult of heroic failure
Move to leave the EU feeds into the British taste for celebrating disasters as triumphs
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexit-resurrects-the-english-cult-of-heroic-failure-1.2947706
Rob is unnecessarily concerned. When I was living in Spain, all it took to get full medical coverage was renting an apartment. I did not even have a permanent residency.
So the British Supreme Court said the Parliament must do Article 50 for Brexit to happen. The people voting for Brexit in a referendum doesn't count. So what next?
Fintan O’Toole: Brexit resurrects the English cult of heroic failure
1...So? O'Toole is an Irishman with a particular political standpoint. His own country has benefitted hugely from EU membership, with a vast inward flow of money.
2...He's a literary editor; what ability or knowledge he has to comment on politics or economics is rather unclear.
Jeremy
1. But the point you just made, surely, is that it suited Ireland very well indeed (membership). Why not the UK too? I saw no gain in throwing away the large market (client) that we have, right on the doorstep.
So? O'Toole is an Irishman ... a literary editor; what ability or knowledge he has to comment on politics or economics is rather unclear.
The supreme court assumed – for no better reason than counsel on both sides agreed – that triggering article 50 was irrevocable. But the judges in the majority went out of their way to state that they did not necessarily agree with this assumption, which had not been argued, and one dissenting judge described it as “possibly controversial”. So here is the great remaining, unresolved question: does article 50 start an inexorable Brexit from which the UK cannot withdraw, or might another parliament repeal May’s great repeal act in the future, before we have actually left?
Only parliament can trigger Brexit. But can it then reverse the process? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/parliament-brexit-supreme-court-article-50-europe)
Op-ed piece, in Jeremy's (kikashi) favourite rag, by Geoffrey Robinson QC (and, yes, for those who don't know him, he is another heavyweight).
1. But the point you just made, surely, is that it suited Ireland very well indeed (membership). Why not the UK too? I saw no gain in throwing away the large market (client) that we have, right on the doorstep.
2. If he hasn't the qualifications to forming a reasoned judgement, what better qualifications do you imagine the guy down the factory floor or in the pub has to form judgement on the same issue?
...I have little enough confidence in elected MPs' decision-making abilities, and none at all in those of my fellow subjects..
But that came as part of working, didn't it? You were paying income tax so you get the benefits...
Then it seems there are hundreds of thousands of other expats who are similarly unnecessarily concerned.
The UK government recognises this is an issue that will need to be resolved during the brexit negotiations.
Similarly, no reasonable reading of Article 50 (which I've posted in full earlier in this thread) leads to any conclusion other than that notice given under it is irrevocable...
What is less clear – and what the judges have deliberately left opaque – is whether, once article 50 is triggered, it can be reversed [...] The supreme court assumed – for no better reason than counsel on both sides agreed – that triggering article 50 was irrevocable. But the judges in the majority went out of their way to state that they did not necessarily agree with this assumption, which had not been argued, and one dissenting judge described it as “possibly controversial”.
Interesting view, Jeremy. Seems to negate the very essence of democracy. You seem to be giving at least some, albeit minimal, credit to elected representatives, and yet they are elected by those with "no decision-making abilities." A paradox? Are enlightened monarchies or benevolent dictatorships our only chance then?
It's not so much what is said, but rather what is not said. And nowhere does it explicitly state that notice under Art. 50 is irrevocable (indeed legal advice to the French Government concluded that it was indeed revocable). Until it's tested in the CJEU, if ever, I doubt we'll have a definitive answer.
So much for "referenda are bad, trust our members of the Parliament" mantra: :)
The horror now is that some MPs have ignored both their own stated beliefs and those of their constituents and voted for the unknown problems of Brexit. Fueling another layer of distrust in the political process.
It's a total mess and unlikely to end well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html
I suspect the 'Prince Fredinard' moment will be seen in hindsight as when Nick Clegg supported the Tory coalition.
Now that the Parliament has acted, how long before Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK?
Not at all....
I guess, Jeremy, I am still puzzled by the discrepancy of the parliament vote (80/20) vs. the popular vote (51/49). One would expect a majority to support the referendum results (ithough many hoped otherwise), but one much closer to the popular vote split.
I guess, Jeremy, I am still puzzled by the discrepancy of the parliament vote (80/20) vs. the popular vote (51/49). One would expect a majority to support the referendum results (ithough many hoped otherwise), but one much closer to the popular vote split.
The current opposition if one can call it that is headed by a feeble and indecisive old man. All imho.Not a good assessment of the man. He is far from feeble, having been elected within his party by a huge majority. He's now become pretty arrogant with such a big internal party mandate. That the mandate comes from a load extreme left wingers and naive idealists won't make him electable by the general public.
Then look at France: the most popular Conservative candidat, Fillon, is currently being investigated for the million euro fraud of paying his English wife 900,000 euros over eight years for doing nothing and his two kids for legal services as they were still students - all from public funds, of course. He's also accused of making a coupe of hundred big ones for himself as advisor... Such our representatives.
Now that the Parliament has acted, how long before Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK?
I guess, Jeremy, I am still puzzled by the discrepancy of the parliament vote (80/20) vs. the popular vote (51/49). One would expect a majority to support the referendum results (ithough many hoped otherwise), but one much closer to the popular vote split.
[Corbyn]'s doing a great job of making the Labour party unelectable and keeping the Tories in power for the foreseeable future.
Not a good assessment of the man. He is far from feeble, having been elected within his party by a huge majority. He's now become pretty arrogant with such a big internal party mandate. That the mandate comes from a load extreme left wingers and naive idealists won't make him electable by the general public.
He has already proved quite decisive within his party, over riding the more centrist members of the party to his own will.
He's doing a great job of making the Labour party unelectable and keeping the Tories in power for the foreseeable future.
Grim times
You shouldn't expect yesterday's vote to echo the referendum - there wouldn't have been any vote in Parliament if the Cameron government had drafted the referendum bill to make it binding.
50% is government votes which were all for the bill. Labour MPs were split. The majority of Labour MPs are now terrified of losing their seats to pro-Brexit parties, so they voted to pass the bill. But those who voted against were from areas like London that want to remain. Add Scotland's SNP and you've got your 20%.
Now that the Parliament has acted, how long before Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK?
Sounds like they are placing democracy before courage. Aren't elected officials suppose to represent the wishes of the people who vote for them?
Which brings up a question from this American. How does the Upper House work? Are these Lords elected or what? How do their votes impact Brexit?
He looks entirely feeble to me. He's been elected by a majority of activists whose political goals make his party completely unelectable but he won't stand up to them.He doesn't need to stand up to them, their his key to leadership. He likes what they think and visa versa.
He cannot get to grips with thinking on his feet in ParliamentA part of that is wanting to be different and non-combative, not that this strategy is working well.
He is indecisive, having tried to play it both ways on the Europe referendum.Not really indecisive. He's on record as being anti-EU for very many years. Having to comply with the party's pro-EU stance was difficult for him and explains why he was so hopeless in the run up to the referendum. Now he's happy to command his party to go with the dubious result.
I think we both agree he's a liability, but don't underestimate him.
Not sure of that second point. He has little crossover appeal to the middle class and barely appeals to traditional Labour voters outside London.Maybe, but he's been elected to lead the second biggest political party (at the moment) in the UK by a very substantial majority. That in itself is significant.
Scotland and Northern Ireland should get on with Brexit along with the rest of Britain to get into the trade deal that Trump wants to make with GB..
Legally I can kill him, Queen confirms
31-01-17
(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/images/stories/queen-cerise-425x265.jpg)
THE QUEEN has confirmed that if President Trump makes a state visit, she can kill him with a sword and nobody can touch her.
Palace staff have assured the Queen that, according to English law, Trump is a subject of the Crown and can, if judged to be damaging the monarchy, be dispatched without repercussion.
She said: “I haven’t made up my mind yet. I might.
“It’s been an awful lot of years hefting the old sword without using it, and who better to christen it on? Just imagine the look on his satsuma face.
“And the colonies would be so grateful they’d have me straight back as their reigning monarch, which solves this Brexit thing literally at a stroke.
“I should do one useful thing before I abdicate, really. And imagine how furious it’d make the May woman.”
Her Majesty added: “I genuinely can’t think of a reason not to. Anyone?”
Maybe, but he's been elected to lead the second biggest political party (at the moment) in the UK by a very substantial majority. That in itself is significant.
A lot of his policies do have wide appeal and merit, but his personal presentation and some of his more radical views will ensure he'll make the Labour party unelectable whilst he's in charge.
THE QUEEN has confirmed that if President Trump makes a state visit, she can kill him with a sword and nobody can touch her.
But this vote was more procedural , agreeing that the referendum result was as binding as everyone thought.
Lords are not generally elected and can attend and vote, and claim a daily allowance, until they die.Incredible, eh? And people have the gall to complain about the EU's lack of democracy.
- Most have been nominated by the major party leaders over the years. They can be anyone like former MPs, union leaders, people who have funded the political parties (no scope for corruption there!), business people, religious leaders, artists etc etc.
- Two small blocks get there by virtue of being bishops in the Church of England, or as very senior lawyers - the "Law Lords".
- Finally there is a group there on the hereditary principle. This is smaller than in the past, and is elected by other members of the hereditary "nobility".
They can propose amendments to law and sometimes block a bill, but if the government wishes it can always overrule the Lords by creating hundreds of new ones to outvote them. Not sure if that has ever happened.
If GB had proportional representation I doubt that there would ever be a majority government. It would suffer the same problems as the other countries that have proportional representation, governments falling at the drop of a hat.
A big part of Britain's problem is the screwy political system with a first-past-the-post system that turned a 37% popular vote into a Cameron government and a referendum intended to unify his party rather than take us out of the EU. On the left it lumps together Corbyn's unelectable socialist party with the wider social democrat to liberal centre. If only Blair hadn't prayed with Bush, he'd still be in power.
If GB had proportional representation I doubt that there would ever be a majority government. It would suffer the same problems as the other countries that have proportional representation, governments falling at the drop of a hat.
Like Germany, you mean?
I understood that's what you meant by PR, and Germany is just one example where PR has produced good, stable government. There is a majority government, just not a single-party one. Also, in Germany there's a 5% (?) threshold which constrains the number of parties, while in Italy you get a multiplicity of parties. There isn't just one type of PR.
Compare that with 37% of the popular vote producing a majority government. I've lived in a safe seat for 25 years and I don't believe my vote has ever counted. If you'd been here in 2015, you wouldn't have known there was an election going on. With such a democratic deficit, is it any wonder that people used the Brexit referendum to have their say?
.... And why on Earth would one envy the Italian system, a system that has had more changes of government in the post-war decades than anywere else I can think of...
Maybe read what I wrote? I mentioned Italy as a comparison with Germany where PR produces stability. Italian government instability isn't just because of the electoral system anyway.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. By your measure, we should then always have one party in power which is certainly not the case. Just look at Scotland, which was one of the greatest power blocks that Labour ever had... look at Labour there today.
And why on Earth would one envy the Italian system, a system that has had more changes of government in the post-war decades than anywere else I can think of; you want government by coalition, you get the camel rather than the horse.
she had voted Brexit after noticing that her supermarket bananas were all straight. She blamed that on the EU and it was the moment she decide to vote for Brexit! She then added without irony that she later found that Aldi, another supermarket that happens to be German-owned, did have curved bananas. That's Brexit for you....Yes, that's the story of Brexit. A huge number of ill informed people voting on nonsense issues they didn't understand. The complete irony of it is that they the people who will suffer most from the consequences of their ignorance.
And yet they've been the 7th industrial power in the world all along. Go figure.
Maybe read what I wrote? I mentioned Italy as a comparison with Germany where PR produces stability. Italian government instability isn't just because of the electoral system anyway.
No idea either how you imagine I'm saying one party in power. I'm saying the precise opposite, that PR produces a majority government, just not a single party one. Scotland's PR system did actually produce a small single-party majority in Holyrood, now it's a coalition - in either event, stability at least as far as Holyrood is concerned. In the Westminster elections first-past-the-post gave the SNP all but one seat with about 50% of the popular vote - leaving voters of all the other parties in the cold.
We just had a fudged-up coaltion government in the UK a short while ago - don't you remember?
Nonsense. It was 5 years of stability and govt with popular consent in very perilous times. Bye.
... A huge number of ill informed people voting on nonsense issues they didn't understand...
Moving on, I want my country back. Pre-Brexit referendum, without the open, rampant xenophobia & racism (Daily Mail, Express & Sun excepted, obviously), without the ridiculous fear & hostility.+1
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh dear. It's the way you tell 'em.
Oh come on, Germany has had 60+ years of good, stable government. Italy was cited as an example of PR producing instability. Bye.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh dear. It's the way you tell 'em.
Moving on, I want my country back. Pre-Brexit referendum, without the open, rampant xenophobia & racism (Daily Mail, Express & Sun excepted, obviously), without the ridiculous fear & hostility.
I'm certainly holding my nose while I say that the coalition did provide 5 years of much-needed stability after the crash. But it's obvious it did so.
PS By "popular consent" I mean a stable majority in Parliament and a majority of the popular vote.
John, the caveats grow like Pinocchio's nose.
What a shame that the young and the mid-aged have been robbed of so many opportunities that they had as rights, that they could simply get up and go somewhere else without having to ask first, have to have a job waiting to which to go, et-awkward-cetera. Oh! it was a two-way deal, wasn't it? Can't have that - unfair! Might also benefit the better-educated on all sides - doubly unfair!
As a Brit from a long line of Brits I'm never happier than when I'm elsewhere.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Oh dear. It's the way you tell 'em.
Moving on, I want my country back. Pre-Brexit referendum, without the open, rampant xenophobia & racism (Daily Mail, Express & Sun excepted, obviously), without the ridiculous fear & hostility.
Clarification, not caveats, clearly needed for the illiterate and ignorant....
What can I say, I was at art college in the sixties. ;-)
Oxford dictionary:
caveat: noun, a warning or provision of specific stipulations, conditoins, or limitations.
Snap.
Not snap at all. I saw that what I had said was unclear, so I clarified it. FFS.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/15074120.Captains_of_industry_reveal_damage_done_to_UK_businesses_since_Brexit_vote/?ref=eb
It's so obvious, that it seems impossible for everyone not to have known this.
Rob C
I agree, but that's not necessarily the right question. Have you seen this excellent piece on education and voting (http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2017/02/06/23960) from the redoubtable John Naughton?
Thanks for the link; the north/south divide in Britain seems to underline what's being poined out in the link. Sobering reading all right!
Rob
Britain could not be "half-in, half-out" of the EU, the Prime Minister said to Parliament, referring to the letter to the EU that they are leaving.Nothing new, sometimes politicians feel the need to state the obvious with the hope the people think they're brilliant ;)
So what does it all mean now?
Nothing new, sometimes politicians feel the need to state the obvious with the hope the people think they're brilliant ;)
The question is not "half-in, half out", it's clear they are 100% out (in 2 years). The point is what agreements do they make with the EU to avoid falling back on WTO trade rules and what they have to give back in return.
...Brexit is complex and compromises will have to be made - no-one wants a lose/lose result. Bad for companies in the UK could be bad also for the likes of BMW, Peugeot, Volkswagon, Citroen, Fiat and the other industries that have significant exports to the UK. Europe also benefits from UK human expertise, just as we do from theirs. Let's see what happens after the initial posturing is over and the real negotiations are conducted.America and lots of countries are not in the EU yet they trade with the countries in Europe. Why should it be harder for Britain? What things will be easier now that they're going to be out?
Jonathan
America and lots of countries are not in the EU yet they trade with the countries in Europe. Why should it be harder for Britain? What things will be easier now that they're going to be out?They will have to renegotiate all the trade that was "free" under the EU. In addition, there is a lot of EU centric business in London (banking, the European Medicines Agency that regulates drugs in the EU) that are likely to leave the country because of Brexit. Some banks are already moving staff to Frankfurt. There will be a significant loss of high paying jobs in London that won't be replaced.
Is the second paragraph of this comment intended to demonstrate the truth of the first?Yes, that's why I also said May was stating the obvious while trying to sound smart.
Jeremy
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15190607.Iain_Macwhirter__Be_very_afraid__the_Brexit_nightmare_is_truly_upon_us/?ref=eblnThey're critters from the swamp and it needs to be drained. Which is why I don't understand why people want to give governments more power to regulate and control our lives.
What the hell's left to say, beyond the fact that politicians, in their duplicity, are the most disgusting animals to stalk this Earth?
They're critters from the swamp and it needs to be drained. Which is why I don't understand why people want to give governments more power to regulate and control our lives.
They're critters from the swamp and it needs to be drained. Which is why I don't understand why people want to give governments more power to regulate and control our lives.
... Which is why I don't understand why people want to give governments more power to regulate and control our lives.
Yes, that's why I also said May was stating the obvious while trying to sound smart.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15190607.Iain_Macwhirter__Be_very_afraid__the_Brexit_nightmare_is_truly_upon_us/?ref=ebln
I think you have missed my point.Maybe, maybe not ;)
Jeremy
It's an article by someone who, obviously, didn't vote to leave. There are decent responses to all the propositions he states as "facts".
Jeremy