Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UK music industry, bands, work permits and Brexit

sovereignty was the number one leave voter reason stated with immigration second. Just to correct a bit of a lie eh. Of course 'we all know that sovereignty is just a polite way of saying heil hitler' etc
The polling never ever got near to offering the sort of affective drivers that many folk were feeling. Cameron's problem was the large number of actual voters could remember times before 1975 when capital was still making concessions through fear. There was a huge amount of mistaking correlation for causation IMO.
 
Last edited:
Chris Smith, the director of this weekend’s Womad festival, told the Radio Times that this is a time when divided communities need the soothing balm of art and unifying power of music reaching across borders more than ever.

So some geezer raking it in from festivals speaks and the guardian are all over it. Shame he/they never mentioned this before the referendum :rolleyes:
Soothing music for glasto types behind big walls.
 
The supply of food, medicines and fuel concern me but I won't change my mind over this access for bands gets harder bit.

Indeed - Brexit poses a number of challenges, some of which could be serious and longstanding, some serious and temporary, as well as potential opportunities and lucky escapes - however some jobbing bands deciding not to tour France as a result of Brexit causes not a flicker on my give-a-fuck-o-meter...
 
You seem to not understand the different between a referendum and a general election.

The point is that we vote in a GE because we know that in 5 yrs time we get to vote again, and have the opportunity to kick out the govt if they've been particularly shit.
With the referendum, we were sold the idea that it was "advisory", and that if new info came to light between the referendum and the actual leave date, a substantive (i.e. non-advisory) referendum would be held.
 
The point is that we vote in a GE because we know that in 5 yrs time we get to vote again, and have the opportunity to kick out the govt if they've been particularly shit.
With the referendum, we were sold the idea that it was "advisory", and that if new info came to light between the referendum and the actual leave date, a substantive (i.e. non-advisory) referendum would be held.

Not for me - I always knew that it was advisory in theory, as was the Scottish referendum and all other UK referenda, but I've never believed it was advisory in practice.

As far as I'm concerned it's a done deal, with the only get-out being a GE in which a party that opposed the result winning by a landslide - that's not happened, so the result stands.
 
Not for me - I always knew that it was advisory in theory, as was the Scottish referendum and all other UK referenda, but I've never believed it was advisory in practice.

As far as I'm concerned it's a done deal, with the only get-out being a GE in which a party that opposed the result winning by a landslide - that's not happened, so the result stands.

So, basically your "belief" regarding the status of the referendum is based on your political position?

And to think you're trusted with the army's biggest willy-wavers. :facepalm:
 
The point is that we vote in a GE because we know that in 5 yrs time we get to vote again, and have the opportunity to kick out the govt if they've been particularly shit.
With the referendum, we were sold the idea that it was "advisory", and that if new info came to light between the referendum and the actual leave date, a substantive (i.e. non-advisory) referendum would be held.

I don't remember this -- was that idea really featuring, during the 2016 campaign?? :confused:
 
24/7 Rush gigs in the uk from 1st April next year then :thumbs: .

Surely the whole point of the Eu is that once you've entered there's free movement no? So bands wont needs lots of visas etc while they stay in the eu on tour. Or something. :eek:
 
So, basically your "belief" regarding the status of the referendum is based on your political position?

And to think you're trusted with the army's biggest willy-wavers. :facepalm:

And yet no one else remembers something you say was widely understood?

(I voted remain by the way, so leave isn't quite my political position)

If you wish to compare what I'm trusted with what you were trusted with, go ahead!
 
I don't remember this -- was that idea really featuring, during the 2016 campaign?? :confused:

Yes, it was.

Don't get me wrong, I think a 2nd ref would still see "leave" winning, but for different reasons. However, the fact that the Tories took the result as substantive purely because it suited their own political purposes does - IMO - take away from the legitimacy of the result.
 
24/7 Rush gigs in the uk from 1st April next year then :thumbs: .

Surely the whole point of the Eu is that once you've entered there's free movement no? So bands wont needs lots of visas etc while they stay in the eu on tour. Or something. :eek:

*Starts polishing bullet with Geddy Lee engraved on it, and the one with Bryan Adams.
 
The point is that we vote in a GE because we know that in 5 yrs time we get to vote again, and have the opportunity to kick out the govt if they've been particularly shit.
With the referendum, we were sold the idea that it was "advisory", and that if new info came to light between the referendum and the actual leave date, a substantive (i.e. non-advisory) referendum would be held.

A lot of people didn’t understand that, though.
 
And yet no one else remembers something you say was widely understood?

(I voted remain by the way, so leave isn't quite my political position)

If you wish to compare what I'm trusted with what you were trusted with, go ahead!

I was trusted to repel the communist hordes after our tanks and big guns were inevitably over-run after breaking down and/or running out of ammo. You're trusted with stuff that keeps breaking down and running out of ammo, "sir". ;)
 
The point is that we vote in a GE because we know that in 5 yrs time we get to vote again, and have the opportunity to kick out the govt if they've been particularly shit.
With the referendum, we were sold the idea that it was "advisory", and that if new info came to light between the referendum and the actual leave date, a substantive (i.e. non-advisory) referendum would be held.
I don’t mind the advisory chat popping up until hours after it turned out we hadn’t voted how they thought we would though. As for the subsequent ref, would that not simply be advisory too?
 
And it wasn't in the interests of the majority of our press to push understanding of it.

Depends what you mean by 'understanding' though - I understood the limits of 'advisory' to mean that if world war three broke out during the negotiations then they would go on the back burner while the fighting took place. At no stage did I take 'advisory' to mean it would get kicked into the long grass if there was a possibility that Avacados might get more expensive or that the big guns of 80's pop would write to the Grainaud to wail about the future of shit bands who can't get gigs in the UK.

So what did you take 'advisory' to mean - what conditions or problems did you think would require a re-think?
 
The point is that we vote in a GE because we know that in 5 yrs time we get to vote again, and have the opportunity to kick out the govt if they've been particularly shit.
With the referendum, we were sold the idea that it was "advisory", and that if new info came to light between the referendum and the actual leave date, a substantive (i.e. non-advisory) referendum would be held.
Yes in theory it is, but “we were sold it”
Not at all, we were led to believe our decision would be honoured.
 
Re all that 'binding' stuff:

There was nothing in the EU Referendum Act that made the result legally binding
The European Union Referendum Act 2015 – the law that allowed the referendum to take place – didn’t specify what would happen in the event of a vote to leave.

We know that because it didn’t contain any explicit statement to make clear that the result would be legally binding.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee explained in a 2010 report why that’s the case. It said “because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory”.

In other words, unless Parliament actively agrees to bind itself to the result of a future referendum, it is not legally obliged to enact the outcome.

In fact, the government recognised the need to make these things explicit in 2011, when Parliament passed the legislation to allow for a referendum on electoral reform. Section 8 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 makes very clear that the government would have to enact a new voting system in the event of a “yes” vote.

There was no such provision in the EU Referendum Act, which in legal terms means that the result was not binding.

Indeed, this was the basis of the supreme court ruling in January 2017, which clarified that an act of Parliament was required before the government could trigger Article 50.

The culture secretary said the EU referendum was binding – it wasn’t
 
it not just that bob fucking geldoff will find it harder to go on tour. Its not just that touring europe is a great opportunity for loads of struggling bands and artists. stopping freedom of movement is actually about a whole generation of young people (like my own kids) being denied a wide range of opportunities across the arts and culture and education and work because xenophobic twats in clacton are worried about too many foreign types coming in.
 
Back
Top Bottom