burneside
Member
Of course the decision is reversible at some point in the future. We joined the EEC/EC/EU 43 years ago and have now reversed that decision. I personally think there won't be an EU to rejoin in the not too distant future.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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
Of course the decision is reversible at some point in the future. We joined the EEC/EC/EU 43 years ago and have now reversed that decision. I personally think there won't be an EU to rejoin in the not too distant future.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Indeed. While there is no specific statute convention is that the Monarch invites the person who commands the confidence of the largest body of MPs to form a government.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,161
If the election ended up with SNP on 50, and the others couldn't get better than 100 seats, then hello Mr. Salmond PM!!
Queen Nicola and PM Alex.
Not sure whether that's less or more frightening than Corbyn/Nuttal.
On the other hand, pass me a kilt...
Correct, however the current government did not form in 2015, it formed in 2016, so 5 years after that would be July 2021.
The government may well last longer than July 2021 - certainly if Labour carry on their existing path. HM The Queen asked Theresa May to form a government on July 13th 2016, I believe that government will stand until HM The Queen asks someone else to form a government.
But that's all technicalities.
And the same happens with the EU commission, when the commissioner lacks the support of the parliament (which is changed via a vote) then a new commissioner is appointed by said parliament. There's no Queen to do the actual pomp and circumstance, but the effect is the same.
Works well for me!
(Except Alex Salmond is now just a R&F member of the party, it would be Angus Robertson who would be our new PM).
Not with the same benefits that we have now though (vetos, opt outs, rebates etc). Unless we find Article 50 is reversible before departure we've flushed our benefits away.
It's the parliament that lasts five years, not the government.
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 doesn't make any reference to the formation of a government, only to the date of the previous election.
Technically, the FTPA (section 1(3)) says that the next election shall occur on the first Thursday in May, 5 years after the last, so whilst the current Government was formed in July 2016, the next election will be the 7th of May 2020 (assuming that we don't have an election in the mean time as a result of anything else)
I am fully aware of this, I was replying to the statement
"The British government can be overthrown every four years in its entirety, sometimes sooner"
Which is wrong on two fronts (it's every 5 years, and it doesn't co-incide with the formation of the government)
Military grade pedantry does not make for good debate. The exact life of a parliament is neither here nor there in a discussion about Britain's decision to leave the EU. You could try a line of argument that my momentary lapse is a sign of intellectual degeneracy which proves all EU doubters have low IQs, but the Darwinian angle on the vote has been done to death. If you believe the French or Germans are genetically smarter, I can recommend a few towns that may give you pause for thought.
NSEFAN
Established Member
There's still the actual point though, which is that saying that the UK government can be overthrown every 4 years is too simplistic. We could surprise them all next time by voting en masse for independent candidates, but this is basically never going to happen. Given there is now no "credible" alternative to the Conservatives, the party is well established and can basically do what it likes. Heck, even if the Conservatives are voted out, a lot of people involved in running the country and informing the decision making will continue to work for the government: look at how much we complain on RailUK about the DfT, whose bad decisions span across multiple governments.
If we want to talk about how undemocratic or shambolic the EU is, our own system of government is not a very good counter example.
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,582
Which is what I effectively said in my second sentence.
For Mickey Mouse, substitute Clegg...............then again maybe not, same difference!
Good point. I'm not saying our electoral system is an exemplar of democracy - it's mostly about vote whoring in a few swing seats. My point is that one of the existing parliaments is sidelined, if not redundant. I prefer the immediacy of self government by a small nation state, dodgy and self serving as it is, than a supranational body of Eurocrat chair polishers, mainly because I neither know nor trust what their notion of Europe represents.
At heart I think it's a quarrel between people who believe they do it better, all the time and whatever it is, and people who believe sovereignty is worth a light.
Last edited by a moderator:
bramling
Veteran Member
In your opinion.
I happened to study the EU as part of my degree, so I don't consider myself to be at all ignorant about the EU, and I voted leave. Strangely enough, I haven't changed my mind since - and even more strangely I don't know anyone else who has either. At my work location we did a straw-poll and something like 90% of people were planning to vote Brexit, and a few weeks ago we did another whip-round poll to see if anyone had changed their mind, and in fact two people who voted Remain have subsequently changed their minds.
bramling
Veteran Member
Okay, assuming Britain had voted remain, how could we stop or alter Britain's involvement in free movement of people, the EU position on which seems to have been one contributory factor behind the referendum result?
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,085
I know three people who voted leave who now regret their vote, though, strangely, I've not come across any who voted remain and wish they'd voted the other way.
Not wanting to rehash the pre-referendum debate but many people seem to forget that free movement works both ways. There are three million plus Brits taking advantage of it and working in Europe.
Johnuk123
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 2,802
There is no evidence that anyone has changed their mind in any meaningful numbers despite what the BBC and the Guardian might say.
I think there was a poll on here a few days ago saying things haven't changed, I certainly haven't seen any polls saying people have changed their mind.
Doesn't matter anyway because you can't keep having votes until you get the answer you want unless of course the EU is running it.
Where do you get that figure from? It is much higher than other figures I have seen. The UN, IPPR, BBC all say 1.2 million, and that includes retirees, children and other non-workers.
Indeed you are correct - I was thinking of the three million EU citizens in the UK. UK in the EU is closer to 1.5 million.
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
Never mind the numbers, or even whether it might be in Britain's interest to change or not. *Assume* Britain did not want to be bound by this EU policy, how could we opt out of it? Is there any definite way we could opt out without being at the mercy of Europe's institutions?
It would be very difficult since it's easier to not sign up to an agreement than it is to get out of it once in. I think the best we would be able to manage - assuming again that we didn't want out of the free market - would be to make it unattractive for people to move here speculatively.
The news that the Lords has added an amendment to the Brexit Bill that aims to guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in the UK to remain in the UK (by 358 to 256) seems to have gone unreported on here.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Government incoming, and no doubt calls from the Daily Mail to abolish the House of Lords.
Wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Government incoming, and no doubt calls from the Daily Mail to abolish the House of Lords.
Trog
Established Member
Something and nothing, the government can have parliament knock it off again and bat it back to the Lords. Or if the amendment is literally what it says it is, the government could introduce proposals but not act on them.
bramling
Veteran Member
There we go. One good reason why many voted leave.
True. But that was based on the (arguably*) false premise that free movement of people does more harm than good.
*I believe that it does more good than harm but others are entitled to disagree.
EM2
Established Member
Why is it a good reason?
NSEFAN
Established Member
Again, we run into the same problems that have been described above with our own method of government which, being pragmatic, is not going to change any time soon. The arguments being made above are also used to justify Scottish independence, that Parliament in London is holding the Scots back and meddling in Scottish affairs, yet this wasn't enough to split up the UK when push came to shove.
I don't get why people enjoy being divisive, when the whole point of these governmental systems is to provide a level of management for making laws which are mutually beneficial, and working out compromises where needed. Democracy can't work if people don't engage with it; how many people in the UK have voted for an MEP, for example?
Last edited:
- Status