Brexit

[Rob C]

I suggest only young, rich and highly educated should be allowed to vote.

Well, perhaps, but it depends on what they are offered as choices.

Does second childhood count in your brave new plan?

;-)

Rob

[BernardLanguillier]

As for "populist"... Immigration is a real issue. Does mentioning it counts as "populist"?

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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?

[Rob C]

Oh, no!

We are both highly educated individuals, shouldn't we have the same point of view?

Such individuals are able to negotiate.

;-)

Rob

[Justinr]

Such individuals are able to negotiate.

;-)

Rob

Can we assume then that the EU bigwigs are not highly educated and intelligent individuals because they have decided not to negotiate?

[JV]

Are you suggesting that anyone from the 28 EU countries can immigrate to Switzerland?

"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. The right of free movement is complemented by the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, by the right to buy property, and by the coordination of social insurance systems. The same rules also apply to citizens of EFTA member states."

From:
https://www.sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html

Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, etc made a lot of promises they knew they couldn't keep...

[JV]

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

I admire your ability to ignore reality...

[JV]

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

Good call!  I will follow suit.

[hjulenissen]

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.

I dont know if the story is accurately represented, but I think that it made an impression just because men in some degree of power, at that age, appear to usually think that they know best. Perhaps this guy did, too, but he apparently thought it better to leave choices about the future to those who will see more of it than himself.

-h

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... she was the one that had to live with the consequences...

Of course, but that's why parenting exists

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"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....

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).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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.

When I enter a discussion I am always trying to build an opinion based on facts and very general principles such as logic, the belief in the importance of equality of opportunities for people (especially in terms of education), fairness, common sense,... which is why I will never be in politics.

So having to change point of view and opinion is natural and something I am willing to do if demonstrated that inputs were wrong or that I am deviating from my govering principles.

Beyond the respect I have for you, I don't feel that you are applying the same basic conversational ethics in this exchange.

Cheers,
Bernard

[elliot_n]

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.

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?"

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... The result of our referendum doesn't bear this out.

What do you mean by that?

[Zorki5]

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?"

There's no doubt there would be negative consequences if Britain goes by the result of the referendum. But it's also quite obvious that there will be positives, too -- even if the only true positive will be giving people what they said they wanted (no-one can deny this one, can't they?)

Will the latter outweigh the former? I'm tempted to [mis]quote poor Zhou Enlai by saying it's "too early to say"...

[Manoli]

-- 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 ?

[Alan Klein]

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?

[Jeremy Roussak]

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'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but you're eliding two wholly separate issues.

The first is the ludicrous petition to re-run the referendum, organised by those who lost. It's silly; it will be debated, because it has to be; but there will be no second referendum unless the facts - that is, the details of Britain's membership of the EU - change.

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.

Jeremy

[Rob C]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_SKelYT5k0&sns=em