The Brexit process

[Pickman's model]

I'm not sure this is true.

you are right to be suspicious of lbj's verity.

 

[bimble]

It means leave.

No longer be a member of the European Union.

OK?

Ye but what if it also means an 10% increase on your weekly food cost and a rise in unemployment. If that had been on the ballot as a necessary cost of achieving 'sovereignty' maybe the result would have been different.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ye but what if it also means an 10% increase on your weekly food cost and a rise in unemployment. If that had been on the ballot as a necessary cost of achieving 'sovereignty' maybe the result would have been different.

i suspect more people voted leave on the basis of immigration and money for the nhs than voted leave for the sovereignty

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Ye but what if it also means an 10% increase on your weekly food cost and a rise in unemployment. If that had been on the ballot as a necessary cost of achieving 'sovereignty' maybe the result would have been different.

They couldn't put that on the ballot as they did not know if that would happen.

Follow your line; "Would you like to vote to remain in the EU and for Britain to become the next Greece?" - they didn't put that on the ballot either: cos no one knows the future.

 

[editor]

So you if you voted Labour at the last GE you did so for the farrago that is the current Labour party, yeah? Cos that was on the table?

OK. So you think it's exactly the same thing. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

[pocketscience]

Yes, largely. It would have been a vote of 'no change', so there would have been none of these problems.

"no change" was, and never will be on the cards.
It's been made clear for a while now by the powers within the Eu, that they plan to push forward with greater fiscal & social union, citing it as the only fix available of the growing divide between richer northern and the poorer southern countries.
Not being in the Euro (& schengen etc), the UK has been a constant thorn in the Eu side when trying to progress with with further union, and it was this that forced Cameron to call the referendum.

If remain had been the majority of the referendum vote, your 'no change' would really have meant that the Eu would be able to force the UK into making a blunt choice - to either adopt the Euro and relinquish its budgeting to Brussels or being shut out of Eu policy decision making.

Well that's one of the contradictions, isn't it? The referendum voted 'out', but with no detail about how it would happen or the consequences of the various options. Whichever particular version of brexit the govt comes up with, it would not be democratic for them to be able to force it through using the referendum as justification.

By the same token,the above mentioned scenarios weren't highlighted either. If they'd have made it clear that a remain vote would amount to a very strong possibility that the UK would be accelerated into full Eu integration, including adopting the Euro, how do you think that would have impacted on the result?

 

[DotCommunist]

so if this does go to vote in parliament eventually after much to-ing and fro-ing and legal fees, fair to say that any MP in a 50%+ constituency who votes remain will be out on their ear come 2020

btw the mail article contains the word 'fury'. Predictable writing they have

 

[Pickman's model]

So you if you voted Labour at the last GE you did so for the farrago that is the current Labour party, yeah? Cos that was on the table?

a vote for labour is so often a vote for hope over experience.

 

[Pickman's model]

so if this does go to vote in parliament eventually after much to-ing and fro-ing and legal fees, fair to say that any MP in a 50%+ who votes remain will be out on their ear come 2020

btw the mail article contains the word 'fury'. Predictable writing they have

it's all automated, the mail. "fury" "the model (and you won't believe the underwear she's wearing)" "backlash" it's all just journalism by numbers

 

[ffsear]

 

[brogdale]

At this juncture it's important not to lose sight of the fact that the referendum was not presented to the electorate because the Government suddenly wanted to know what they thought.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

 

[Pickman's model]

 

[Pickman's model]

not sure why the 'ex-olympic fencer' is in there.

 

[gosub]

so if this does go to vote in parliament eventually after much to-ing and fro-ing and legal fees, fair to say that any MP in a 50%+ constituency who votes remain will be out on their ear come 2020

btw the mail article contains the word 'fury'. Predictable writing they have

Think the election will be a lot sooner than that.

 

[DotCommunist]

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

not sure why the 'ex-olympic fencer' is in there.

Because most of the mails readership will be foaming at the mouth that a gay will be making important decisions.

Even the mail has run pieces on how disastrous leaving the EU would be. . . I think they even ran a story the very next day.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

not sure why the 'ex-olympic fencer' is in there.

Olympic athletes, bit suspicious, you never know what funny ideas they might pick up with all that going abroad.

 

[Pickman's model]

Because most of the mails readership will be foaming at the mouth that a gay will be making important decisions.

Even the mail has run pieces on how disastrous leaving the EU would be. . . I think they even ran a story the very next day.

yeh. but is there some ground-swell of hatred towards former olympick athletes i'm missing?

 

[gosub]

Amazing to see those with avowedly progressive politics holding this view. Would you always support the right of Parliamentary sovereignty over the people?

If the Supreme Court decides that sovereignty rests between it and the executive...I will be taking to the streets.

 

[Ax^]

is they anyway the current Tory party can blame the last labour goverment for this ruling

 

[DotCommunist]

Because most of the mails readership will be foaming at the mouth that a gay will be making important decisions.

'Openly' gay remember. Flaunting it. Their dog whistle shit is so transparent.

 

[DotCommunist]

is they anyway the current Tory party can blame the last labour goverment for this ruling

Nick Cohen has already banged out 2000 words blaming corbyn for everything.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

"n
If they'd have made it clear that a remain vote would amount to a very strong possibility that the UK would be accelerated into full Eu integration, including adopting the Euro, how do you think that would have impacted on the result?

There was zero chance of this happening - the UK already had a semi-detached membership and there was no political will to change that. As it happens, I think the appropriate time to have had a referendum on the direction of the EU was with the Maastricht treaty. But the UK doesn't have a constitutional requirement for a vote to change the constitution - rather, referendums are used as political footballs (which in this case, Cameron deflected into his own goal).

But strictly speaking this was a 'no change' position simply because if remain had won, there would have been nothing to do to fulfill the will of the referendum. Absolutely nothing. What future direction the UK takes in the EU then remains entirely up for debate, and if the numbers had been reversed, it would have been foolish to ignore the nearly half the electorate that wanted out - it would have been in no way a mandate for closer integration. I want the EU to change radically - the argument for doing that would not have been closed down by a narrow remain victory. If anything, a narrow victory would have opened it up - the EU isn't good enough, it needs to be changed, and this is how we propose to do it...

 

[Raheem]

Maybe he's an Olympic fencer as in he sold one to the Russians.

 

[Anju]

'Openly' gay remember. Flaunting it. Their dog whistle shit is so transparent.

Compounded by the mention of fencing, so not just flaunting it but doing so in a graceful yet aggressively thrusting manner.

 

[andysays]

Here.

That's an interesting article, not just in how it deals with the question of if this issue will go to the ECJ, but also because of the argument there that Article 50 is reversible.

I've been assuming that it isn't, but if it is there is at least the possibility of invoking A50 now, having the negotiations and then putting the known results of those negotiations to another referendum.

And that in turn further undercuts the argument that for the government to invoke A50 without consulting parliament would be undemocratic, because there would* still be an opportunity to vote once we actually know the terms we'd be leaving under.

*or at least there could; whether there would is another question, I guess

 

[Pickman's model]

There was zero chance of this happening - the UK already had a semi-detached membership

oh don't talk such nonsense.

 

[Raheem]

That's an interesting article, not just in how it deals with the question of if this issue will go to the ECJ, but also because of the argument there that Article 50 is reversible.

I've been assuming that it isn't, but if it is there is at least the possibility of invoking A50 now, having the negotiations and then putting the known results of those negotiations to another referendum.

And that in turn further undercuts the argument that for the government to invoke A50 without consulting parliament would be undemocratic, because there would* still be an opportunity to vote once we actually know the terms we'd be leaving under.

*or at least there could; whether there would is another question, I guess

My understanding is that, while there's a legal argument that a50 is reversible, in practical terms the word of the Council of Ministers is law, and at the moment they say it isn't. Perhaps at some point they will see it as a good idea to change their minds, but I don't think they will do it just out of sympathy with Theresa May's predicament.

 

[gosub]

That's an interesting article, not just in how it deals with the question of if this issue will go to the ECJ, but also because of the argument there that Article 50 is reversible.

I've been assuming that it isn't, but if it is there is at least the possibility of invoking A50 now, having the negotiations and then putting the known results of those negotiations to another referendum.

And that in turn further undercuts the argument that for the government to invoke A50 without consulting parliament would be undemocratic, because there would* still be an opportunity to vote once we actually know the terms we'd be leaving under.

*or at least there could; whether there would is another question, I guess

you need unanimity to reverse it, that would have to achieved whilst carry out negotiations in bad faith to the manner outlined in the procedure. .... Theoretically possible, but unrealistic.