Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Arakhor]

Quite so. I doubt that the UK government will ever apologise for misleading the voters for 45 years regarding the European fiasco.

I quite agree that Theresa May should definitely apologise for actions taken by Edward Heath et al, because she's totally responsible. Apologising for a Labour man like Harold Wilson would be beyond the pale though.

Spoiler stating the bleeding obvious :

This is heavy irony, in case it wasn't abundantly clear.

 

[Arakhor]

I suppose on some level it does take some guts and resolve to say to the country "we said we'd give you a referendum on the EU and abide by your decision, but actually we're going to ignore it and do what we want instead".

Well, if the Government were going to consider it inviolable, they should have given it legal standing, rather than making a purely advisory referendum. Then again, why should we be surprised? Politicians are master-classes at doing precisely that anyway.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, if the Government were going to consider it inviolable, they should have given it legal standing, rather than making a purely advisory referendum. Then again, why should we be surprised? Politicians are master-classes at doing precisely that anyway.

They probably didn't realise that so many people who didn't get the result they wanted would kick up such a massive fuss about ignoring or overturning the result of the referendum.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, then they're fools, since 100% of the electorate have not got what they wanted so far, with no clarity in sight.

What's more, Farage no less was predicting that the will of the people could not be denied if the result of the referendum was close and we got exactly the split he was predicting, just in reverse. Demagogues are dangerous things, don't you know.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, then they're fools, since 100% of the electorate have not got what they wanted so far, with no clarity in sight.

Well that never happens does it. And we didn't have petitions and people going on marches when they didn't get the AV voting system, or when the Scottish people voted to stay in the UK. Why were they fools for not predicting the sheer level of butthurt that would ensue this time, enough to make them feel the need to enshrine the result in law to shut people up?

 

[Arakhor]

Maybe because the AV referendum was several magnitudes of importance beneath that of the recent one and perhaps because the SNP would not let Westminster ignore a successful Scottish campaign? They're hardly being a pillar of moral probity concerning the "once in a generation" promise after all.

It's also an enormously divisive issue and given the sheer enormity of the work needed to bring a No vote to pass, the Government should have provided for a legal framework for it to occur, other than the Prime Minister claiming the sole right to do so at his/her discretion.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Maybe because the AV referendum was several magnitudes of importance beneath that of the recent one and perhaps because the SNP would not let Westminster ignore a successful Scottish campaign? They're hardly being a pillar of moral probity concerning the "once in a generation" promise after all.

It's also an enormously divisive issue and given the sheer enormity of the work needed to bring a No vote to pass, the Government should have provided for a legal framework for it to occur, other than the Prime Minister claiming the sole right to do so at his/her discretion.

What do you mean "would not let Westminster ignore a successful Scottish campaign"? I presume you mean Scottish independence campaign? I would imagine the Scottish Remain (or No or whatever it was called) camp would consider their campaign equally Scottish. But even then... my point is they didn't win, and yet still didn't march on the capital demanding the referendum result be overturned (at least not for a couple of years). Your explanation as to why they didn't do this is because they would have done it if they won? I genuinely have no idea what you're saying there.

 

[Arakhor]

There might have been Unionists matching on Holyrood if the SNP had won (anything's possible, especially in heavily divisive campaigns such as IndyRef and Brexit), but I meant that they wouldn't have needed to set the result in law as the SNP wouldn't have let Westminister hem and haw about it if they continued to have any voice in politics at all.

(I just realised that I used enormity quite incorrectly in my last post. I know what it means and I still got it wrong. )

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well predicting what might have happened in some alternate universe is all well and good (and may well be a reasonable prediction), but it doesn't change the fact that the SNP and all the Leave/Yes/Whatever voters lost, and yet didn't march on parliament, or start petitions, or endlessly harp on about how it was only advisory and not legally binding on Twitter. It doesn't really make sense to say that the only reason they didn't march on parliament is because they wouldn't have let anyone else do it if they'd got the opposite result.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not saying that's the only reason at all, rather it's one possible reason why it didn't happen. It doesn't change the whole fiasco we have now where the Prime Minister is claiming that she alone has the power to launch Brexit, yet is refusing to say when or where it will happen.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why is that a fiasco? It might not be 100% streamlined and exactly how you want it to be (not that, I presume, you want the exit to be triggered at all), but it's hardly some unmitigated farce.

 

[Akka]

I suppose on some level it does take some guts and resolve to say to the country "we said we'd give you a referendum on the EU and abide by your decision, but actually we're going to ignore it and do what we want instead".

It would be especially funny to see the exact same people blaming the EU for a lack of democracy and shouting about "taking back our own decision-making" be the ones to admit that they aren't going to listen to a democratic referendum, while the EU has already acknowledged it.

 

[Gigaz]

When all this is over and the Brexit is cancelled I hope there will be a great Pythonesque film about the referendum and about how people wanted to have power and money and failed miserably due to what were basically their own shortcomings.

 

[Arakhor]

Why is that a fiasco? It might not be 100% streamlined and exactly how you want it to be (not that, I presume, you want the exit to be triggered at all), but it's hardly some unmitigated farce.

I'm not in favour of Brexit at all, of course, but if we're in a position which literally no one wants* and everyone can criticise (and which still hasn't made the Eurosceptic Tories shut up), I think it's fair to say that it hasn't exactly been handled well, to say the least.


* If, in fact, this situation is what 'you' wanted for some reason, I'll stand corrected.

 

[SMcM]

The UK government could also apply some intelligence and guts, and resolve instead to explain to the voters exactly how they were misled.

Yes, I can't see that one either....

No, many have already realised they were mislead or made a mistake, and we're going to need to accept that the other voters will never understand/accept that they were being mislead. They'll dismiss the truth as scaremongering.

 

[Arakhor]

Cognitive bias affects us all, particularly regarding divisive matters.

 

[FriendlyFire]

At this rate might as well stay in the EU

Boris Johnson abandons plan for points-based immigration system promised in Brexit campaign
Foreign Secretary insists Britain will ‘take back control’ despite rowing back on the measure

Boris Johnson faced embarrassment as he confirmed he had abandoned his EU referendum promise to introduce points-based immigration curbs.

During the campaign, the now-Foreign Secretary vowed the Australian-style system would tackle immigration that was “completely out of control” and would “neutralise the extremists” on the toxic issue.

Theresa May announced she had rejected the idea – despite it being the centrepiece of the Vote Leave campaign, backed by Mr Johnson.

No 10 had already stressed that the decision had full Cabinet support, which suggested that Mr Johnson had stepped into line.

But the confirmation comes on the back of Ms May also refusing to stand by Vote Leave pledges on increased NHS spending and not to pay into the EU after Brexit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-based-immigration-system-wont-a7234821.html

 

[Gigaz]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...prepared-to-secure-future-outside-eu-says-fox

Actually I'm just sharing this because Liam Fox' attitude is so ridiculous.

Fox, a former GP and staunch Eurosceptic, suggested business executives would rather be playing golf on a Friday afternoon than negotiating export deals.

Don't you say.

 

[EnglishEdward]

At this rate might as well stay in the EU

The whole point of Leaving is that the UK will be able to decide,
within practical reason, what its approach will be on:

(a) immigration policy
(b) spending money on the NHS
(c) laws
(d) etc

The fact that it has not done so prior to formally issuing its intention under article 50
does not in any way undermine the purpose of voting Leave, for self determination.

There is a separate debate on each of these, and there is no need to either delay leaving or to rush decisions on them prior to leaving.

And it is a mistake to regard the wider benefits that Leave campaigners claimed
as if they were either contracted deliverables of, or conditional prerequisites, for exit.

The UK electorate voted Leave.

The UK electorate did NOT vote Leave providing the UK government can:

(i) guarantee passport-ing for the City of London financial services
(ii) end net immigration from the EU
(iii) guarantee an extra £350 M/week on NHS
(iv) sign cushy trade deals with China, remnant EU, India, USA etc
(v) re-introduce grammar schools or bring back hanging
(vi) rename Brussel sprouts freedom sprouts
(vii) ban Eurovision singing competition or Eurotrash from our screens etc.

It is a big mistake to regard the various different Leave campaigners
many aspirations and claims as a rigid manifesto.

The only requirement now for Theresa May is to manage the Leaving.

 

[EnglishEdward]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...prepared-to-secure-future-outside-eu-says-fox

Actually I'm just sharing this because Liam Fox' attitude is so ridiculous.


Don't you say.

Gigaz,


Sadly Liam Fox's statement is broadly correct.

It is the situation in the UK that is ridiculous.

In the UK, there are an awful lot of business executives, government ministers, senior
civil servants and management consultants who have decided not to work Fridays.

They got there by networking rather than hard work, and regard themselves as an
elite being correspondingly entitled to a three day week end three times a month.

But when it comes to their own employees, they are only too happy to volunteer
them to work 14 hour days and give up their weekends; and if they don't; they
can always get another desperate unemployed or a Romanian to do for that.

This is particularly true in London.

Occasionally I would be summoned down to London at short notice on a Friday
(usually because the convener had failed to book a room on a Monday to
Thursday in advance). And the normally full floors would be very nearly empty.

I can remember a few years back the Indian head man of Tata steel in an interview
with, I think the BBC, praising his company's work force at the steel plants
but saying he could not contact any senior managers in London on Fridays.
I'd list the URL, but it seems to have been sanitised probably by those managers PR.


Edward