https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-be-held-again-hofer-van-der-bellen?CMP=fb_gu
That will be interesting.
That will be interesting.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Undoubtedly true.
The leave campaigners don't seem to accept that we had a very cushy position in the EU. We were respected as a "leading country" of sorts in the EU. We had arranged opt outs to the vast majority of what the EU is all about (single currency, Schengen, free movement), and had a deal that many countries envied, and many others disagreed with. We already occupied a special position within the EU, and few if any other states would have been able to secure a position like ours. We were, essentially, only in the common market.
There is no doubt in my mind that we will not be able to arrange a deal that is this beneficial to the UK. We are in a weak position. Once we start the clock, we have two years then the guillotine falls. In those two years, we have to gain support from every one of the twenty-seven other member states, many of whom we have royally ****ed off. The EU will not be prepared to give us any special dispensation, and quite rightly so IMO.
LexyBoy
Established Member
The likely outcome of getting a significantly worse (for the UK) trade deal and/or having to accept conditions which the UK wishes to avoid is not the same as being "punished". The EU will want the best deal for its member states and it is in a strong position to bargain. There is no reason to give the UK the preferential treatment as we had as a member (me123 makes some good points above).
If it were some other country leaving rather than the UK, you can bet that UK MEPs would be pressing for whatever deal is most advantageous for us and sod the exiter.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Pound to Euro rate is now less than 1.20, the first time in 3 years it's gone that low.
Meanwhile Gove has said if he's PM we won't remain a member of the EEA.
Meanwhile Gove has said if he's PM we won't remain a member of the EEA.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
That's probably why it's dropping.
The EU can't give Britain a deal that's more favourable to the UK than membership of the single market, or one that might be perceived as better than membership of the single market. It will act in its members' interests (actually, it is its members), and those won't necessarily be tariff free trade. The same is true of the UK side, of course, but the balance of power is not very even as already discussed. And it will take a long time. I'm sure the UK press and many here will portray any defensive move by the EU as vindictive, and any such move by the UK as heroic.
Of course, the best arrangement (other than EU membership) would be EEA membership. Then we don't need any of this nonsense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's a demand I staunchly support, but it is ironic to see it coming from leave supporters. After all, not a single one of them has risen yet to my challenge to post a single number used by the leave campaign that wasn't made up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Does anyone else think we need another referendum to settle the EEA question? It's actually more fundamental than the one we just had, and the leave campaign often referred to the Norwegian model, which *is* EEA membership.
In my view, a manifesto commitment in a general election would not settle the issue, as the winning party in a UK election typically gets rather less than 40% of the vote. And this was not covered in any manifesto in the last election.
A conservative party leadership election is absolutely not an acceptable democratic mandate for such a position.
EM2
Established Member
NSEFAN
Established Member
Someone out there has a sense of humour, and can use HTML5!
That seems to me to be the crucial point. An awful lot of those speaking publicly in Britain still seem to think that we are in the stronger position and that we can just take our time and be bound to end up with a fine deal (save for Gove wanting out altogether!). But why should the EU do us any favours at all beyond what is needed for it to get the best deal for its own members, and why do we think we can irritate the EU by trying to run the negotiating timetable entirely to our liking. We do indeed hold the whip hand in not having to invoke Article 50 until we want to, but once we do invoke it, we have very little control indeed over the way things develop. We have spent over 40 years being non-communitaire; are we going to handle the exit process in exactly the same non-collaborative way?
(A note from the evening's BBC news. It seems now that the farmers want a guarantee that they'll still get all their subsidies after Brexit. You couldn't make it up!)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If May gets in, I can see a general election being triggered (Gove has said he won't). If it is won on a Remain ticket, there would be just cause to annul the referendum result.
Mvann
Member
So have the Green Party with their new video
delt1c
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,153
Pound to Euro dropping suits me.
How, via losing a vote of no confidence while holding a majority in parliament?
If there were a decent opposition, they could probably win a genuine vote of no confidence with support of a few UKIP-defecting Tories in marginals, although the SNP may decide to back the government in that case!
If the tories (or labour, or lib dems, or NewSDP) won a majority, with say 45% of the vote (an austounding result, when you can have 100% of the power on 37% of the vote), is that in itself really a mandate to ignore the will of 52% of the country?
I fear that a general election now would ensure a UKIP majority, or UKIP/Tory-Euro-Skeptic coalition, based on the fact that "the only way to ensure we leave is vote UKIP"
Gutfright
Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 639
Some would argue that the state is a legal mafia, and the mafia is an illegal state*. Both demand protection money using the threat of violence (if you consider enforced loss of liberty a form of violence, which some people do).
If you go along with that analogy, one might say that by voting to leave the people of Britain voted to pay protection money to one mafia instead of two.
*I think this definition is too shallow, but I'm struggling to define the exact demarcation between a mafia and a state. In some cases the two things are one and the same.
No by passing a motion to call an early election with two thirds of all the seats of the House of Commons voting in favour.
Gutfright
Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 639
I doubt it too.
The remain campaign was funded by the likes of Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. They are unlikely to let something as trivial as the will of the people get in their way.
The fixed term parliaments act 2011 also allows for a general election to be called following a no confidence vote (the wording has to be very specific) Only a simple majority is required in this case.
Will of "some" of the people and given the amount of possible protest votes probably more of the people that voted.
That seems only too plausible.
In our system a general election is effectively a choice between a Labour government and a Conservative government, but both of those parties are split to a greater of lesser extent over Europe. Yet what we should need would be one of them to stand on a ticket of "We won't invoke Article 50" (or at the very least "We're for the Norway arrangement" and the other to stand on "We'll get you out altogether". I don't see how this could be arranged, and so I don't see how a general election would be any help to anyone at this time.
Maybe at a time of national emergency we need a National Government or Grand Coalition, but that's not an idea that finds much favour here.
We must also remember that the EU and European leaders have more pressing issues to deal with than the UK's self inflicted problems.
The UK's main point of leverage is the timing of invocation of article 50. But it's hard to see what control that offers, especially if the other EU leaders are not prepared to seriously negotiate with the UK beforehand.
And I say again - we need a referendum to decide between the EEA and the isolationist positions.
The UK's main point of leverage is the timing of invocation of article 50. But it's hard to see what control that offers, especially if the other EU leaders are not prepared to seriously negotiate with the UK beforehand.
And I say again - we need a referendum to decide between the EEA and the isolationist positions.
Gutfright
Member
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 639
I thought the people of Britain were too uninformed to be trusted with a decision like that?
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
So what - there was a time it was on parity.
On Radio 4 a couple of days ago, the media show covered how well the media were played by both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07h2vjp
"Were journalists so constrained by rules and regulations requiring impartiality and balance as to be ineffective in helping audiences to fully understand some of the issues at stake, after all one survey had it only 22% of people felt they understood the key issues they were voting on either well or very well"
"it goes to the heart of what is impartiality. Is it impartial to give the same attention to people employing 1.75 million people {most of the ftse100}, and James Dyson" (this ithe flat earth fallacy)
"Even towards the end, 47% of people still thought {the £350m/day lie} was accurate"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This is Hilarious. While the Tory party and Labour party tear themselves apart, UKIP - the 3rd biggest party by popular support in 2015 - is also tearing itself apart, with it's entire westminster contingent looking set to be expelled from the party.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage:
http://order-order.com/2016/07/01/farage-carswell-expelled-monday/
EM2
Established Member
And it could well be again soon.
Unfortunately, even EEA membership is a significant barrier to trade
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36663853
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36663853
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
We keep getting 'official figures' that are also obviously wrong.
The economists, the statistic whores et al can quote till they are blue in the face.
Most people voted leave on the realities they experience in day to day life - not the lies, not the hype but how they perceive their world around them and how it has changed.
I would actually welcome another referendum now because I think the leave majority would increase.
Mvann
Member
The thing is, we have probably had better and more informative information in the last 7 days than we did for the whole of the referendum.
In the mean time there is a whole load of stuff that the EU didn't dare to enact in fear of influencing the referendum
In the mean time there is a whole load of stuff that the EU didn't dare to enact in fear of influencing the referendum
I don't know what trade barriers that article is referring to. Norway and Switzerland are part of the single market.
Mutant Lemming
Established Member
Will be good for exports and tourism
- Status